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.

SeattleDV8 wrote:Upon looking at my Codex (Dark Angels in this case) on page 78 Army list entries.
It shows the 7 sections of a unit entry
#4 is Wargear
#5 is Special rules
I believe this shows that wargear is not special rules as they both have a distinct entry.
Can War Gear give a unit special powers and abilities? of course.
Are these powers and abilities the same as Special rules?
No even if they have the same effect, because they do not trigger the IC rules.

Seattle,

Your list line is rather the point of this entire discussion. You say that wargear is exempt from pg. 48 even when it gives special rules. Where does pg. 48 say "Inherent Special Rules," or anything similar that would denote it only cares about specific sources of special rules?

Hero, I do not see Ambush listed on pg. 99, which is the area I was speaking about when I mentioned 'Upgrade Characters' don't have their special rules listed in that section, even when in the SR itself it applies to his unit. I think my point was missed regarding Belial and the other examples. From what I have seen (far, far too time-consuming to check every unit in every codex), special rules from wargear isn't listed back there, whether just one member of the unit has it, or the entire unit. That doesn't mean however, that the unit doesn't have that special rule.

Moz, when someone presents an argument that revolves around blatant cheating, I have no patience for them and DO express attitude. Suggesting that you can purchase a Painboy after you've attached an IC to the unit during deployment to try and get around pg. 48 does nothing but piss me off. If you feel you have examples to show me what you specifically are talking about, I'd be happy to discuss them in a PM.

Belial has Terminator Armour as wargear.
CA pg.53
" Any model wearing Terminator armour can be teleported...."
Terk The Codex makes the distinction in the Army List entry
Wargear and unit special rules are seperate seections; They are not the same.
The rule on ICs pg 48 speaks to Special rules.
The army list has a section special rules.
Going beyond that sections rules is a leap on your part.

People, unless someone else has already siad this, here is the 5TH EDITION RULES FOR USR!

(i only dealed with the feel no pain problem)

if you go LOOK in the rules after this it will make sense. (page 74 for usr)

The third paragraph states:

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

List of rules with the asterisk (*): Fleet, hit and run, infiltrate, move through cover

Note that Fell no pain is NOT in that list


Now if we all open our ork codex's to page 38

Dok's tools: A painboy is an expert at repairing the study ork physique using a variety of mean-looking tools. He confers the feel no pain ability to his unit.


So, because feel no pain CAN be transferd, ANY unit that joins those nobs with a painboy DOSE get FNP!

Over the past few years GW has taken an IC and changed it from an ass handing out killing machine to just another group. In all respect the IC is just gaining the ability to stay alive while near a group of friendly models. If the IC/Group assault the IC is treated as a seperate unit.

1. He is always treated as a serperat unit unless with in a 2" range. The main reason for being with in 2" is so that he does not get his head blown off. He is a leader that goes down the field hacking up the enemy and should be keep that way.

2. You could say as long as shooting is taking place then he would benifit from the effects of FNP. Though because of the rules for IC and assault, he would lose the effect because he would thus be a serpart units from the wording as far as attacks go.

3. Thus he takes cover from the effect of a KFF, why not FNP to get in range for assault. Once in assault I would rule that FNP becomes opsoleat(sspelling its late ). He used what he could to gain the ground he needed to get closer to the enemy.

Mod in:

Guys, I'm getting more alerts on this thread.

Please remember to attack the arguments not the arguers. By attack, I mean you should produce facts and logic against the other guy's argument, not just say it's rubbish.

Thank you.

Mod out.

frgsinwntr wrote:Gen Lee. where do the rules make a distinction between between innate and wargear granted special rules... I can't find it.

And that's just the problem here. Pg 48 has incomplete rules for special abilities and ICs, perhaps because it's a Copy-paste. I'd like to know if anyone thinks it's intended that an IC on his own gets Kantor's inspiration but the same IC leading a unit wouldn't? I don't... So there are some things that must ignore pg 48 in order to work or make sense.

Kantor's Inspiration already does not apply to himself, and it is not conferred to a unit he joins.

This has no negative impact however.

Why, you ask? Because during Assaults he is not part of the unit he is attached to, so they would still gain the +1A. (The unit would obviously be within 12") Outside of Assaults, this rule has absolutely no impact.

Rules for wargear affecting ICs are easy to find. Try reading the wargear entry in the relevant codex.

The magic words you are looking for are "his unit" which are indeed present in the wargear entry.

p48 has nothing to do with the question.

I'm sorry, I did miss you're point. But that doesn't mean what I'm saying isn't valid. Because there are No rules for wargear listed in the army list. They are listed in the equipment sections of each codex. Which in the Ork Codex happens to start on page 89. To me this is yet another reason that this means there is a seperation. Special Rules, such as Prophet of the Waagh! aren't listed anywhere other than in the Special Rules section of the "unit" that has the special rule. In this case it's just one model. They are also listed in the BRB when the special rule happens to be a "Universal Special Rule". Which is a rule that can be shared amongst units in different codexes.

You will also find that the Ambush Special Rule is listed in the section for the model that has it, pg. 62. The reason that it is not in the Army List on page 99 is becasue Snikrot is not an IC. This is what I believe the convention is for the Ork Codex after the conversation that I've had with frgsinwntr in this thread.

Regrettably I don't think that your argument will ever reach a point that can prove conclusively that what you are asserting is correct.

Your point is that no one can prove that wargear or anything else is not a "Special Rule".

My point is that you cannot prove that there is any reason to look beyond the sections that are marked and labled specifically "Special Rules".

You claim that, Any effect, is counted as a special rule. But you have not shown where it states this in the rules.

You say that FNP is a Special Rule for a nob mob when they have upgraded one to a Painboy.

I say that FNP is a "Universal Special Rule" not a "Special Rule" for the Nobz. Clearly there is a difference between them. They are both specific in their own way.

You claim that any unit upgrade immedietly adds that effect to the unit as a special rule. But you have not given any reference that says this happens. On the other hand there is no reference that says it doesn't. Except that the item that is providing the effect is not listed in the Section that I listed already as "Special Rules".

I would be 100% in agreemnet with you if the entry in the Ork Codex listed the Dok's Tool's as a Special Rule on page 38, but they did not. They listed it as wargear. I do not believe that the developers wish to hinder the IC's in the way that you have interpreted. If they had they would have been much more specific with their wording of the rule on page 48. They could have written " any and all effects to include wargear, and Universal Special Rules." But they did not.

On a side note, if you attach your Belial in Terminator Armor to a standard Tactical Squad, do you still roll a 2+ save. That happens to also be a special rule for the wargear that he is wearing? Do the Tactical Marines not get to make their 3+ save? I don't see any specific rule that says these can be used when an IC joins a unit or that they are not lost when an IC is attached. So should they be prohibited?
I'm merely trying to make a point that if you do not limit the scope to a defined set, such as the "Special Rules" section, than your argument can be taken to a far greater scale. Which would bring me back to te point of Embolden.

I'm trying to understand where you are basing your argument from but you are not trying to understand ours. You have posted the same thing many times over and I'm pretty sure I know your topic points, but you have not been able to disprove any the points that we have brought forward other than by reposting your points again. It is very similar to the line "because I say so" line of thinking. Hopefully there is a new counter argument to the things that I've presented.

Zero

Company tonight, but I do have one point that must be stated.

I do NOT feel that 'any effect' is a special rule. If something does not reference/confer a USR, and is not labeled as a special rule, then it would not fall under pg. 48.

I think one of the biggest issues is the fact that wargear is absent from the BRB...

and Moz... yes I do think it isn't clear

But I will still refuse to go with the flow if something that people have been playing wrong for a while comes up.

Its worth investigating.

People used to tell me all the time that 4th ed was all "sizes" for area terrain... where if you actually read the rules... it was very different :(

HeroZero wrote:Your point is that no one can prove that wargear or anything else is not a "Special Rule".

With all due respect, that is not my position and not my point. The heading on pg. 48 is simply "Special Rules," which suggests any and all sources of special rules. It does not limit it's scope in any way. i.e. If it involves a special rule, whether conferred via innate ability, armor, weapons, misc. wargear, etc., then pg. 48 comes into play. Why? Because wargear-conferred special rules are still special rules.

You say that FNP is a Special Rule for a nob mob when they have upgraded one to a Painboy.

I say that FNP is a "Universal Special Rule" not a "Special Rule" for the Nobz. Clearly there is a difference between them. They are both specific in their own way.

As I've mentioned before, if the unit has FNP, then they have a special rule. Note that pg. 48 does not use a proper noun when speaking about "unit's special rules." Unit's Special Rules, on the other hand, would be referring to a specific type of special rules, much like Universal Special Rules. Unit's special rules refers, via a possessive noun, any special rule which the unit has.

You claim that any unit upgrade immedietly adds that effect to the unit as a special rule. But you have not given any reference that says this happens. On the other hand there is no reference that says it doesn't. Except that the item that is providing the effect is not listed in the Section that I listed already as "Special Rules".

Only upgrades which involve a special rule. I imagine there are upgrades out there that involve only bonuses such as a better armor save, an invulnerable save, weapons, etc.

I would be 100% in agreemnet with you if the entry in the Ork Codex listed the Dok's Tool's as a Special Rule on page 38, but they did not. They listed it as wargear. I do not believe that the developers wish to hinder the IC's in the way that you have interpreted. If they had they would have been much more specific with their wording of the rule on page 48. They could have written " any and all effects to include wargear, and Universal Special Rules." But they did not.

You are not a GW developer and cannot possibly argue what they would have done if they meant for something to be interpreted in any sort of fashion. Please don't argue hypothetical - stick with what is written.

On a side note, if you attach your Belial in Terminator Armor to a standard Tactical Squad, do you still roll a 2+ save. That happens to also be a special rule for the wargear that he is wearing? Do the Tactical Marines not get to make their 3+ save? I don't see any specific rule that says these can be used when an IC joins a unit or that they are not lost when an IC is attached. So should they be prohibited?
I'm merely trying to make a point that if you do not limit the scope to a defined set, such as the "Special Rules" section, than your argument can be taken to a far greater scale. Which would bring me back to te point of Embolden.

See above. I do limit my scope of applying pg. 48 to anything labeled or referencing a special rule.

the termies would continue to roll with their rules, the regulars with their rules.

There is no rule saying the regulars get the termi save when he joins or that Belial loses his rules when he joins. There are no rules that transfer

This is pretty close to the pain boy thing. good catch!

olympia wrote:

Trekari wrote:Olympia - No he does not, unless the unit he joins also has FNP. The BRB is exceptionally clear on this.

EDIT: Note that Mad Dok doesn't LOSE his FNP. He still keeps the FNP rule, however he does not confer it onto a unit that he joins. It does not specify otherwise in enough clarity to pass what the BRB has set as the standard.

Since you are comfortable about identifying the intent of the writers then tell me, if Dok's tools do not confer fnp to "his unit" then why are you paying 160 pts. for what is basically a warboss that can be kited around the table, and has to bang on a drop pod rather than capture an objective (as recently happened to me)?

See now I like arguing this. Why do I have to pay 40pts for a chaos spawn to strike last when it charges(In a blind direction) for a 3-wound, no-save, non-monstrous creature?

Why are Chaos Lords so bad points wise? Why do possessed cost 26 million points for essentially a well-rounded, gunless vanilla trooper?

Welcome to a bad dex entry.

In short, "Fabius Bile". I think that's all that needs to be said really.

Anyway, I completely agree with Trekari's position in this argument. He's given enough evidence to show when the rule applies and when it doesn't, in practice, all you'd need to do to convince someone else is let them know before the game.

Ok Trekari, your argument just changed in your last post then. So let me see if I can ge this right,

You're saying that any effect description that has the words special rule? Or anything that provides a USR?

So if it's the First then why do you intintionally misplay your army? I do not see the words special rule in the description of the Waagh! banner or the Space Marine Company Standard. Unless the wording is different in the Dark Angels Codex.

If your stance is the second, than why are you arguing for amush because no where in it's description does it reference a USR. Actually, if you look at it Ambush doesn't say it's a special rule at all in the description.

So how do you define something is a special rule or not? By the description? By the location of the title?

I'll agree that I'm not a Games Workshop Developer. But that doesn't change my opinion. Regrettably the way you are reading the rules is also an opinion. Your english lessons that you keep going on about are not a bounds for argument since if I'm not mistaken this book is written in British Eniglish. I'm not from England and I don't know all of the gramatical intricacies of their language. So everything I read in these books is my opinion as well.

Zero

Oh boy.

As I see it and as I will play it, the rules work like this.

Step One - Painboss is giving FNP to the unit.
Step Two - Warboss joins unit.
Step Three - Warboss does NOT get FNP from unit per p.48.
Step Four - Warboss is then given FNP from the wargear that affects the whole unit and is an active item (i.e. - still on the board, rules say "Gives", etc.)
Step Five - So long as Warboss is part of unit, the active item continues to function on the unit (including warboss).
Step Six- If painboy is removed from table, the item is no longer in effect. It is no longer an active item and all member of the unit lose the rule.

Page 46 prevent the unit from giving him FNP from the unit, but not from the item that is activly affecting the unit.

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:Oh boy.

As I see it and as I will play it, the rules work like this.

Step One - Painboss is giving FNP to the unit.
Step Two - Warboss joins unit.
Step Three - Warboss does NOT get FNP from unit per p.48.
Step Four - Warboss is then given FNP from the wargear that affects the whole unit and is an active item (i.e. - still on the board, rules say "Gives", etc.)
Step Five - So long as Warboss is part of unit, the active item continues to function on the unit (including warboss).
Step Six- If painboy is removed from table, the item is no longer in effect. It is no longer an active item and all member of the unit lose the rule.

Page 46 prevent the unit from giving him FNP from the unit, but not from the item that is actively affecting the unit.

QFT

One of the best explanations so far

Again, the Dok's tools *Are Not* a unit special rule. So you can throw pg. 48 out the window right there. Dok's Tools provide the FNP USR to the Unit. Not the other way around. The Unit does not have FNP or Dok's Tools, so in no way is the Warboss affected by a Unit's special rules.

To argue that Dok's tools 'grant' FNP USR to the Unit and no to the warboss is ineffective. Because, it is an item that "specifies" that it gives it out to the unit. If the warboss is in the unit he is a part of the same unit that is affected by Dok's tools.

So then Pax, by the same wording, snikrot can make Ghazzie ambush?

Step One - Snikrot is giving ambush to the unit.
Step Two - Warboss joins unit.
Step Three - Warboss does NOT get Ambush from unit per p.48.
Step Four - Warboss is then given ambush from the upgrade character that affects the whole unit and is an active ability
Step Five - So long as Warboss is part of unit, the active ability continues to function on the unit (including warboss).

I don't think you realize the implications of this line of thinking.

As Moz points out it is the grey area we are working with here... You can't say the rule works one way and then later with a different unit say it works another.

yep that would do it. I already wrote what I think about snikrot's rule on the other Post about it.

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:Oh boy.

As I see it and as I will play it, the rules work like this.

Step One - Painboss is giving FNP to the unit.
Step Two - Warboss joins unit.
Step Three - Warboss does NOT get FNP from unit per p.48.
Step Four - Warboss is then given FNP from the wargear that affects the whole unit and is an active item (i.e. - still on the board, rules say "Gives", etc.)
Step Five - So long as Warboss is part of unit, the active item continues to function on the unit (including warboss).
Step Six- If painboy is removed from table, the item is no longer in effect. It is no longer an active item and all member of the unit lose the rule.

Page 46 prevent the unit from giving him FNP from the unit, but not from the item that is activly affecting the unit.

Perhaps you are forgetting, again, that pg. 48 says "unless specified in the rule itself.....are not conferred."

I don't recall reading a place where your Step Four or Five is allowed to override pg. 48, given that it ends the discussion with a final determination that they are NOT conferred. What do I care if you cheat though, as long as you aren't playing me. *shrug*

Padixon - you evidently do not understand the concept of 'specified,' nor the examples given to illustrate the level of specificity the developers require. Do you see the term Independent Character anywhere in the Ambush special rule? Do you understand the difference between "specific" and "ambiguous?"

There are six different definitions of 'unit' in the rulebook. Therefore using the term 'his unit' is anything but specific. I say "his unit" references the unit composition listed in the Codex itself. Prove I can't be correct. People get pissed off about English lessons in the middle of threads, but time and time again it has been demonstrated to be absolutely necessary.

Also, you may want to revisit "unit's special rules" and see whether it is used as a proper noun.

HeroZero,

My position has NEVER changed regarding special rules conferring between ICs and units they join. I cannot debate with you if you accuse my position of changing when it has not and overlook obvious facts. For instance, your question about Ambush: Ambush it not a USR, but it is listed under a category of Special Rules.

I am also curious how you believe I 'misplay' my army. You have never played against me, and I haven't the slightest idea what you are referring to about a supposed misplay on my part.

As for your comment about British English...wow. Soon we will have people claiming that something written in Colorado doesn't follow the same grammatical structure as something authored in Maine. If that is truly an argument you wish to make, then I honestly and sincerely feel quite sorry for your position in this debate.

I'm not basing my agument off of the language in the codex. I don't think that my understanding has to rely on the use of Possesive Nouns. I was merely making a counter point to your insistance of the fact.

The reason that I say you misplay your army is based off of things that you have stated in these threads.

Do you deny your IC's from gaining the effects of a Waaagh! banner? How about a Company Standard?
Why?

These two effects are not listed as Special Rules. They do not have the words Special Rules listed in thier description. They aren't even in any section labled Special Rules.

From what you are saying now, the limit of special rules does not sound like your original point a number of pages ago. You were trying to assert that all effects are special rules. Now your argument seems to have been limited in scope. That is why I say you seem to have changed your position. If I'm wrong please let me know.

Zero

1) I never asserted that all effects are special rules. By all means, prove your accusation.

2) Again you claim I misplay my army. Prove this accusation as well, or admit it to be nothing but an unsubstantiated attack against me.

3) I don't play Orks, I play DA. The Waaagh! Banner would not have any significant effect on an IC, because during an assault he is treated as a separate unit.

4) My Company Standard is relevant how? Is it a special rule? Does it reference a special rule? See answer #3 above.

5) When arguing about rules that are written, it is important to understand the basic concepts of grammar. If you insist that whether something is a possessive noun, or a proper noun, doesn't matter, then the strength of your argument is fully apparent. You are forming an opinion based solely on what you want it to be, rather than analysis of the rule and wording itself.

Trekari wrote:

Perhaps you are forgetting, again, that pg. 48 says "unless specified in the rule itself.....are not conferred."

No, I am not forgetting. In the rules for painboss, is 'specifically' says he gives it to his unit.That is about as specific as it gets.

Trekari wrote:

What do I care if you cheat though, as long as you aren't playing me. *shrug*

Thank the maker that I dont have to play with anyone who tries to apply the rules for USRs to wargear. That would suck! I mean really! Talk about trying to take all the fun out of a game!!!!

Really, Lee?

Unit has several different definitions. That doesn't make it very specific, now does it?

Other than that, with your continued overlooking of some very basic principles, and your demonstrated attempt to simply cheat to ignore the rulebook (like trying to purchase a Painboy after attaching the IC during deployment), I have no time to argue with you, thus you are also going on ignore.

Trekari....you started with some good arguements . I felt that you took many points too far, but at least you were consistant in your points.
Sadly as this debate has gone on the weakness' and flaws in your logic has been shown and you have become a tad bit strident.
deep breath... Anyone may be mistaken or just on the other side of a well fought position.
You do have some good points although I feel you are incorrect. It is a given that I may be the one that is wrong, but you need to keep a level head.

Have I become strident? Absolutely. I tend to get that way when answering the same question or statement for the 20th time.

I also do not believe flaws or weaknesses have been pointed out in any of my arguments about this particular topic that I have not fully rebutted.

I find it appalling that some people want to say "well it's not listed in the back of the book, so it isn't one of the unit's special rules" while at the same time ignoring the back of the book when it would otherwise destroy their argument that "his unit" is specific enough.

After all, the same back-of-the-book 'bible' that people try to use to quash my argument also lists explicitly what consists of the unit in question.

Or that they don't have FNP, but magically get to use FNP.

I have even gone so far as to mention wargear that specifically applies to either other units who didn't purchase it, or ICs who join the unit. In these cases, even the wargear entry is specific enough to allow for no confusion about the issue.

Once again, nobody paid any attention and just kept repeating "but it says his unit!!"

Let's assume for even a moment that I'm wrong, and that pg. 48 doesn't apply here. At that point, I still have the fallback arguments of what the "Painboy's unit" consists of, as well as other examples of wargear being quite specific when it is meant to confer to attached ICs and/or other units within a set distance.

I don't believe that I am wrong, and yet I have three levels of argument to support my position, while those who claim that I am wrong have yet to prove any of my assertions are incorrect, and offer no evidence to back their own position.

Yea, I get a bit harsh.

Hullo.

I just realised that Snikrot's Ambush rule is not a valid comparison for Dok's Tools.

Snikrot's Ambush rule is listed in his codex entry under 'special rules'. Therefore p48 will apply and an IC attached to the unit will not gain the rule.

Dok's Tools are not listed as a special rule therefore p48 does not apply and an IC attached to the unit will gain FNP.

Unit has several different definitions. That doesn't make it very specific, now does it?

Really, name them.

There is only one on pg 3. GW put the definition there. Please name the other definitions, please.

Monstrous Creature
Infantry
Vehicles
Artillery
IC attached to another unit
ICs by themselves
etc

I noticed that you didn't respond to my Ambush question. Nor have you responded to the definition of "unit's special rules."

I find it amusing that you still claim the unit doesn't have FNP. Would you make a FNP roll for any of its members while the Painboy was alive?

Of course we both know where that line of questioning is going. Either they have FNP and can use it, and thus it is one of their special rules, or they don't.

You on the other hand will continue to argue that they do have FNP, but it's not really theirs, so pg. 48 doesn't apply. You will also argue that the example given by pg. 48 doesn't mean a damn thing, and that specify doesn't actually mean "1 : to name or state explicitly or in detail," of course the English language disagrees with you there, but what's a minor detail like that?

Now we've dropped down to debating what consists of a unit. I say "his unit" in the Painboy entry refers solely to the unit the Painboy is purchased with, which is a valid definition of "unit" per the rules and the Codex itself. You say it's meant to include attached ICs, which admittedly is another valid definition of unit.

That brings us back to the example I've given of even wargear being specific when one unit's wargear (possessive noun) is meant to confer a bonus to attached ICs or other nearby units.

Round and round we go. I've got the English language on my side: you've got your opinion. It's been fun.

Surely that's just a list of model types that make up a unit, not a definition of a unit itself.

Also I'd have to disagree about the painboy entry only refering to the unit his purchased with as no such limitation is noted anywhere in the codex or BRB.