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.

It's treated as *new* because the ork and space marine codex make use of special abilities or wargear that grant special rules to an entire unit more than any other codex before.

These situations simply weren't common in most of the 4th edition codexes, which made the rule largely inconsequential.

padixon wrote:
So, why didn't you make this argument 8 months ago or so, back in 4th ed? The same rule, the same ork codex, all those tournaments. Also, "his unit' is not new either, or wording like "the unit he is with".

This again seems to be rule easter egg hunting gone array. Little you realize this rule has been around for a very long time.

Honestly? I brought it up since I didn't catch it until doing research for the "tactica" killing nob bikers Moz posted. I analyzed all of the rules very closely afterwards and then this caught my eye.

Drunkspleen wrote:It's treated as *new* because the ork and space marine codex make use of special abilities or wargear that grant special rules to an entire unit more than any other codex before.

These situations simply weren't common in most of the 4th edition codexes, which made the rule largely inconsequential.

I would also agree with this

frgsinwntr,

With regards to the Ork Codex, the "Unit Composition" can be found on pg. 95.

Some highlights (all from this page):

"Unit Profile: At the start of each entry you will find the name of the unit, the profile of the models it can include, and the points cost..."

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

This description and guide to reading the charts in the back of each Codex are, as far as I know, in every Codex.

hmm this does add some insight into what a "unit" is

Thank you for quoting it for me

Trekari wrote:Moz,

My position is not only based on grammar and the very basic definition of what constitutes "his unit" in the possessive sense, but also based on examples which set the precedent for what constitutes "specific."

An IC that is joined to a unit is considered part of 'the unit'. For example, page 47 BGB: You use the highest LD in the unit to take a leadership test, and the IC has the highest LD - you use his LD. He is treated as a model in the unit. There are plenty more examples but I don't think you can reasonably argue that the IC is not part of the unit, we can go into that further if you wish though.

1) Abilities must specifically say they apply to ICs and/or are given to members of units that IC's attach to. Nobody can dispute that the Litanies of Hate rule is specific enough to pass this test, whereas "his unit" is so obviously NOT specific enough (or we wouldn't be #*(#% arguing) that it shames me people believe otherwise. The BRB is unquestionably clear on this issue, and even goes so far as to cite a specific example (the Stubborn USR) in order to provide evidence of the type of wording required to meet the standard of applying one unit's abilitees to an attached IC or vice-versa.

The question is exactly this; Is 'his unit' specific enough to confer abilities to an IC that has joined? Is 'his unit' specific enough to confer abilities to a unit that the IC joins? Why are they different? The same rules (in fact the same sentence in the rules) are at work here.

2) Please, someone refute the "Painboy's unit" and "his unit" argument. They both refer to the exact same thing in the Ork Codex, so what (using what to me is so obviously a wrong interpretation) would stop someone from upgrading a character with Cybork Body for +5pts because they were 'attached' and thus (using the poor interpretation) are members of "the Painboy's unit?"

If the painboy and nobs are joined by a warboss and required to take a Leadership test, you use the highest leadership in the unit - the warboss. Once joined, the warboss is a model in the unit. As for purchasing Cybork armor, they are not in the same unit when you are purchasing wargear. This is a poor strawman.

Moz wrote:
Arnaroe, page 48 which you call out so frequently, in the same sentence that you are referencing even, states that the rules of the unit are not given to the IC and the rules of the IC are not given to the unit. Therefore in order for any of special rules from the ICs in the above examples to be conferred onto the joined unit, the rule must essentially be considered specific enough to apply to the unit as a whole (IC giving the rule and attached unit). At this point the situation is no different than the rest of the examples, which is why they are all connected logically.

So what is your point? That the rule on page 48 forbids ICs to grant their special rules to units even if said rules say they do?

It might be my limited knowledge of the English language but I am kind of loosing you here. Would you be kind enough to sum up the key elements of your argument?

Edit: Got all I needed from the above post, thanks!

Moz, but don't the rules for ICs, sepcifically the one referenced in the IC section, determine how the IC interacts with the unit it joins after he is part of it?

frgsinwntr wrote:Moz, but don't the rules for ICs, sepcifically the one referenced in the IC section, determine how the IC interacts with the unit it joins after he is part of it?

Sure there are rules that differ from how the rest of the unit behaves, such as when special rules are conferred (part 2 of this discussion).

If we concede that he's part of the unit, then the question is on the specificity of the terminology of 'his unit' or 'models in his unit' and not on whether or not the IC is actually considered to be part of the unit.

I think the specificity of the terms is a valid line of questioning, but must be applied from unit to IC and from IC to unit.

I do not think that the ICs membership in the unit should be in question.

anaroe: Your English seems perfect to me.

No... I agree. He is part of the unit.

I don't understand your post.. can you be more specific on what you are saying.

Moz wrote:
An IC that is joined to a unit is considered part of 'the unit'. For example, page 47 BGB: You use the highest LD in the unit to take a leadership test, and the IC has the highest LD - you use his LD. He is treated as a model in the unit. There are plenty more examples but I don't think you can reasonably argue that the IC is not part of the unit, we can go into that further if you wish though.

If granting highest Ld is an special rule you got the permission for an IC to confer his Ld to the unit from the rule you quoted.

If it is not a special rule it passes the restrictions given by page 48.

Moz wrote:
The question is exactly this; Is 'his unit' specific enough to confer abilities to an IC that has joined? Is 'his unit' specific enough to confer abilities to a unit that the IC joins? Why are they different? The same rules (in fact the same sentence in the rules) are at work here.

Yes it is. There is no other state a IC can be in when looking at the Ork and Space Marine Codices. An IC is either joined to a unit or it is alone so "his unit" can only mean one thing. Either this means a joined unit or the rule has no meaning.

Edit: Thanks Moz

It has to be in question.

You continue to cite the Ld check as an example that he IS a 'model in the unit,' yet during Assaults, the BRB has expressly stated he is NOT just another member of the unit.

So clearly there are times where he is a member of the unit, and times he is not. So what is an IC when talking about unit special abilities?

As far as unit special abilities go, the BRB makes another distinction and exception as to the IC NOT simply being another 'model in the unit.'

The Unit Composition in each Codex states quite clearly what each "unit" consists of and their special rules.

Lastly, there are only 3 USRs in the BRB that meet that criteria listed on Pg. 48 for being "specific" about interaction between ICs and units.

All of the other special abilities and USRs must meet that level of clarity in order to transfer from an IC to a unit or vice-versa. Snikrot does not, Painboy does not, Standard Bearers do not, etc.

arnaroe wrote:
Yes it is. There is no other state a IC can be in when looking at the Ork and Space Marine Codices. An IC is either joined to a unit or it is alone so "his unit" can only mean one thing. Either this means a joined unit or the rule has no meaning.

Edit: Thanks Moz

Er...no, it isn't. Look at the example given in the BRB regarding Stubborn. Dok's Tools do not even come within a lightyear of being specific enough.

As for the IC's "state," again, check the Unit Composition in your Codex. IC's are a "unit" of one model in the case of Grotsnik, Ghazghkull, etc.

Trekari wrote:It has to be in question.

You continue to cite the Ld check as an example that he IS a 'model in the unit,' yet during Assaults, the BRB has expressly stated he is NOT just another member of the unit.

So clearly there are times where he is a member of the unit, and times he is not. So what is an IC when talking about unit special abilities?

As far as unit special abilities go, the BRB makes another distinction and exception as to the IC NOT simply being another 'model in the unit.'

The Unit Composition in each Codex states quite clearly what each "unit" consists of and their special rules.

Lastly, there are only 3 USRs in the BRB that meet that criteria listed on Pg. 48 for being "specific" about interaction between ICs and units.

All of the other special abilities and USRs must meet that level of clarity in order to transfer from an IC to a unit or vice-versa. Snikrot does not, Painboy does not, Standard Bearers do not, etc.

I don't think this is Moz's point although you do bring up good points with the specific USRs.

"If we concede that he's part of the unit, then the question is on the specificity of the terminology of 'his unit' or 'models in his unit' and not on whether or not the IC is actually considered to be part of the unit. "

Took me some time to figure out what he ment.

Would the phrase "models in his unit" be specific enough to grant the ability as opposed to the phrases "his unit" ? Why or why not?

Don't have the main rulebook on-hand so I can't get any more specific on the IC as part of the unit Trek, but I'll get there tonight. It won't all be just about the LD check.

frgs my post was intended to show that not counting the IC as a member of the unit due to unit composition from the codex (and then basically skipping the debate by saying 'well he's not in the unit so the rules can't apply) was an incorrect line of attack to the problem.

Whether 'his unit' is specific enough to include ICs joined to the unit is still a valid point to debate, but needs to be done so from the perspective of:
a unit with 'his unit' abilities being joined by an IC
and
an IC with 'his unit' abilities joining a unit.

We conveniently have both precisely through the Painboy and Mad-Dok grotsnik having the same piece of wargear that confers this ability, though the other examples listed in my first post are directly related through extremely similar wording.

No, and here's why:

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.

"his unit" doesn't even come close to passing that test.

Trek, does Mad Doc Grotsnik confer FNP to the unit he joins?

So we can assume that these 3 rules all set the precidence for what is required. Seems to make sense to me.

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.

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.

Although I agree with what you said above I do not agree with this statement. What does "his unit" then refer to? Is it meaningless on Mad Dok?

I'm fine with that assertion but it is essentially one far end of the spectrum. It also means that the answer to all of the questions in my first post are No, which you'll have a very difficult time implementing in practice.

"his unit" with Grosnik refers to the only models included in "his unit" when you purchase him, which according to the Unit Composition is just himself.

If they had intended for it to be read otherwise, then the FNP USR would have been written out in its entirety in the Ork Codex with different wording than the USR found in the BRB. At which point, the Codex would override the BRB USR and he'd grant FNP to any unit he attached to.

Moz - I don't consider it to be the 'far end' of any spectrum. It is exactly as the rules read and follows every precedent and example set forth in the rulebook regarding unit special abilities and their interaction with ICs.

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)?

Trekari wrote:"his unit" with Grosnik refers to the only models included in "his unit" when you purchase him, which according to the Unit Composition is just himself.

If they had intended for it to be read otherwise, then the FNP USR would have been written out in its entirety in the Ork Codex with different wording than the USR found in the BRB. At which point, the Codex would override the BRB USR and he'd grant FNP to any unit he attached to.

Moz - I don't consider it to be the 'far end' of any spectrum. It is exactly as the rules read and follows every precedent and example set forth in the rulebook regarding unit special abilities and their interaction with ICs.

On what basis do you interprit "his unit" in this way? How does "his unit" imply that it only means when purchased? Since Mad Dok can not buy a unit is the sentence "his unit" meaningless?

We are in RAW territory here, not RAI, so lets drop any speculations.

Trekari wrote:"his unit" with Grosnik refers to the only models included in "his unit" when you purchase him, which according to the Unit Composition is just himself.

If they had intended for it to be read otherwise, then the FNP USR would have been written out in its entirety in the Ork Codex with different wording than the USR found in the BRB. At which point, the Codex would override the BRB USR and he'd grant FNP to any unit he attached to.

But there is a subtle difference between the BRB and the codex and this difference is the crux of the matter. The USR description for FNP states, "a model with this ability..." The ork codex dok's tools description provides the FNP "to his unit."

This is not really the thread to discuss the advantages of a particular unit choice. I play DA and could spend a day and a half complaining about unit cost vs. value.

However, in brief:

He's fearless, and conveys this to any unit he joins (note how is EXPRESSLY states this even in his entry AND the BRB).
He allows any unit to upgrade with Cybork Body for +5 pts a model.
He has the FNP ability, which makes him longer-lasting than a Warboss
He also has a poisoned weapon.

The writers set up the requirements that have to be met for a special ability to be granted in either direction. The FNP issue doesn't even come close to meeting that requirement with its wording.

Claiming to not include ICs in this manner is also inconsistent with previous rulings where its been questioned and clarified.

In codex Eldar Embolden is listed as effecting "the Warlock and his squad."

The Eldar FAQ, then clarifies that Embolden does work for attached farseers. And doesn't do so in a manner that changes the rules, its a 'well of course it does' style of answer.

While the end effect of doks tools and embolden are different the mechanic for applying them to models is the same; "...his unit."
Either the suggestion that ICs aren't included as part of the unit for unit effecting abilities is wrong or the FAQ is wrong, given that the FAQ is offical and can't be wrong I think theres a pretty clear answer here.

Arnaroe - Mad Dok IS a unit all by himself. Pg. 95 of the Ork Codex.

Olympia - does the Ork Codex have the FNP rule in it? No.

The precedent for what constitutes "specific" regarding unit special abilites has been determined by pg. 48 of the BRB. I have posted that already in this thread, along with the USRs that fit the criteria. Hell, I've even posted the text from my own codex (Dark Angels) regarding Litanies of Hate also being specific enough to pass the litmus test.

FNP has NOTHING in its rule that remotely comes close to that. Dok's Tools also do not have anything remotely resembling that level of specificity.

Trekari wrote:No, and here's why:

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.

"his unit" doesn't even come close to passing that test.

The above text is the best argument in my opinion why ICs that join units should not be granted ability unless the rules specifically say so. This can not however be used when an IC joins an non-IC unit since there are no special restrictions regarding those situations (like page 48 for ICs).

If we are going to open the can of worms that is to figure out different meanings for different vague phrases we will end up with nothing since there is no possible way to figure out the right answer. How is anybody going to figure out if "his unit" is different from "the unit he his with"? The only logical explanation is that they all mean the same, that is "joined unit"

Trekari wrote:Mad Dok IS a unit all by himself. Pg. 95 of the Ork Codex.

So his tools grant him FNP and also grant him self FNP?

Hymirl wrote:Claiming to not include ICs in this manner is also inconsistent with previous rulings where its been questioned and clarified.

In codex Eldar Embolden is listed as effecting "the Warlock and his squad."

The Eldar FAQ, then clarifies that Embolden does work for attached farseers. And doesn't do so in a manner that changes the rules, its a 'well of course it does' style of answer.

While the end effect of doks tools and embolden are different the mechanic for applying them to models is the same; "...his unit."
Either the suggestion that ICs aren't included as part of the unit for unit effecting abilities is wrong or the FAQ is wrong, given that the FAQ is offical and can't be wrong I think theres a pretty clear answer here.

Hymirl, you will find that comparative analysis does not apply to orks. Sympathetic readings of rules are restricted only to Space Marines and Eldar. At least trek has logically arrived at the reductio ad absurdum position of denying Grotsnik grants FNP to his unit. He gets points for realizing that if he admits Grotsnik grants FNP "to his unit" he should admit that a painboy grants FNP to a warboss "in his unit."

I think that by the RAW that Trek's assessment is fine. You might try to argue that 'his unit' is specific enough to apply from IC to unit and from unit to IC, but there are plenty of examples where GW saw fit to be very specific and the examples listed in my first post just aren't.

However, I'm not too concerned with coming up with the 'right' answer for this (especially not by RAW), but moreso with getting the 'right' arguments out there on the issue. In that respect I think we're doing well at this point and a local group or tournament organizer could probably make a call on this issue having seen this thread now (rather than the flaming heap that the last thread turned into).