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.

Hmm, fair enough; consider me convinced of the poll's value. In that case I will vote.

I voted "not clear but boss gains FNP".

Problem being that GW hasn't actually considered how to define a "unit" or how some rules/wargear can lead to this debate. Some units start with a special rule that they just have, period. Some units may confer a rule upon others, or gain it from an upgrade. If one only reads and re-reads the one line about ICs there's a good deal of things that fail to make sense. IMO there must be a difference between special rules someone always has and special rules you can gain.

Someone mentioned Chapter Banners and how he won't apply the effects to an IC in the Honour Guard. But check the Company Standard (pg55 SM Codex) and think for a moment about the brave IC leading a nearby squad or that Command Squad. He leads the squad but for some reason he can't reroll failed Morale and Pinning checks? I mean, you use his LD but the special rule can't be conferred to the IC so he can't reroll. Ah, of course, "the unit" just uses the LD value, it's not actually the IC gaining a special rule... once again he's part of "the unit". And since he's a Space Marine Unit even on his own he'd get the reroll within 12'' - funny that, a Special Rule that works on ICs without specifically stating it.

edit: especially funny since it's granted to him at range by a piece of wargear. Which apparently wouldn't work if he joined a unit. ;-)

I think the rules are not clear - this is obvious from the amount of disagreement we have, 3 threads totalling something like 20 pages now! If the rules were truly clear this could not happen.

However I think the least game-breaking way to play this is to allow wargear-type bonuses (including conferral of special rules) to apply to attached ICs as well.

This isn't just the painboy, it's also the apothecary, SM Chaplains and Captains joined to single squads, and various other items or abilities in various codexes.

For consistency I would therefore agree that Ghazghkull could join a Snikrot kommando unit and then use Ambush.

Where the rules are clear is that ICs count as a separate unit while resolving close combat attacks, so in these cases they will not benefit from things like Dok's Toolz or Chapter Banners, or even the Waaagh! Banner.

That method would be the most game-breaking method, as it would open up all of the powergaming combinations for the most ridiculous unit.

Only if someone used them. I don't think I know anyone who would actually do that, so it wouldn't be a problem for me.

Surely you have to admit that people heading to tournaments would be looking for every cheesy advantage they could possibly get, including stacking ridiculous ICs and units together for absurd combos?

**EDIT**

Note that I don't say ALL people, but there most certainly would be those powergamers who want to win win win! at all costs. And believe me, those type of army lists make the game decidedly unpleasant.

Trekari wrote:
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.

Of course I skipped over a great deal of your post . I've already read them in the other two threads. I was not rebutting you, I was posting my own viewpoint. The discussion is in the other thread.

Until you can show me a rule in the rulebook that says "his unit" doesn't include any attached IC's then you're wrong. Since you feel that his unit is only the unit purchased before the game begins, it is obvious that we disagree on this and we won't be swayed by typing it out again.

I really haven't seen too much of it in the tournament scene here. Comp and sports scores might have something to do with that; also I do avoid the more hotly-contested tournaments because they can be a bit unfriendly.

Besides I can't imagine there's much that Ghazghkull and Snikrot could do, that a couple of 30-shoota-boy mobs couldn't do just as well

budro wrote:

Trekari wrote:
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.

Of course I skipped over a great deal of your post . I've already read them in the other two threads. I was not rebutting you, I was posting my own viewpoint. The discussion is in the other thread.

Until you can show me a rule in the rulebook that says "his unit" doesn't include any attached IC's then you're wrong. Since you feel that his unit is only the unit purchased before the game begins, it is obvious that we disagree on this and we won't be swayed by typing it out again.

Did you now twice miss the part about it needing to specify in the RULE itself? That Wargear is not the RULE? And that even if you try to argue the 'the wargear entry (which again is not where it must specify) is specific enough to satisfy pg 48,' that it cannot possibly be so when the very definition of "his unit" is not specific?

Until YOU can show me that "his unit" doesn't mean the unit he was purchased with, and that the "Unit Composition" on pg. 95 of the Ork Codex is not what that means, then you cannot claim I am wrong. At worst, you can disagree with the definition I choose to use, but it IS a valid definition.

**EDIT** I'm going to go one step further and explain why "his unit" means exactly what pg. 95 refers to
1) You agree on a pts cost for a game.
2) You purchase your units.
3) You purchase upgrade characters and other wargear.
4) Everything takes effect. Nobz have FNP, Snikrot and his Kommandos have Ambush, etc. These abilities are not latent until an IC joins and then they suddenly all take effect.
5) You deploy your forces, and attach characters to units as you see fit.
6) The rule on pg. 48 comes into play for each instance of a unit having a different special rule than the IC.

Trekari wrote:
6) The rule on pg. 48 comes into play for each instance of a unit having a different special rule than the IC.

Problem being that it turns out ridiculous when an IC would get something while standing on his own but not as part of "a unit". Try Pedro Kantor and his inspiration power, for example. And there's the problem - a general rule that doesn't work with some more specific rules.

GW would have needed to state a difference in how things are granted. It's absurd to think an IC gains Infiltrate just for joining a Scout squad, true. It's also absurd that a medic wouldn't try to help him if part of a unit - or that he's be granted a bonus at range only if not in a unit.

Kantor's example:

"All friendly units within 12"....This bonus does not apply to Kantor."

How is this example intended? As it reads in the SM Codex, each FoC choice is a "unit." If he attaches himself to a unit, that doesn't change that the attached unit is friendly. It also does not change that the bonus still does not apply to Kantor.

Perhaps you can explain further what you meant.

Whether we think a rule is absurd or not doesn't change that it is a rule. I don't like drawing extra cards in Uno when I forget to say the damn word, but it's still a rule, no matter how absurd I think it is.

Sticking with 40k...it's absurd that an Autocannon can fire 48"...a freakin' tank shell...while a machine gun can fire half that range. Half the range of a tank!!

That's still what the rules are though :/

While the RAW crowd may get some mileage out of word parsing and come up with some argument to the contrary, it's pretty plain at least to me. The wargear confers FNP to the Dok and his unit. The IC joins the unit, becoming part of the unit and subject to outside forces and effects (charging, retreating, pinning, etc). Dok's tools are one of these effects.

I believe the issue is confusing wargear (Dok's Tools) with innate abilities (FNP of Death Company, for example). An IC joining Death Company would not benefit from their FNP rule because the IC rules say so. This doesn't mean the IC is not part of the unit... just that it doesn't get an intrinsic ability that the group gets. The wargear Dok's Tools though "confers the Feel No Pain ability to the Dok's unit". Is the IC a part of the unit? Yes.

Ouch... double post. Please ignore.

The Green Git wrote:While the RAW crowd may get some mileage out of word parsing and come up with some argument to the contrary, it's pretty plain at least to me. The wargear confers FNP to the Dok and his unit. The IC joins the unit, becoming part of the unit and subject to outside forces and effects (charging, retreating, pinning, etc). Dok's tools are one of these effects.

I believe the issue is confusing wargear (Dok's Tools) with innate abilities (FNP of Death Company, for example). An IC joining Death Company would not benefit from their FNP rule because the IC rules say so. This doesn't mean the IC is not part of the unit... just that it doesn't get an intrinsic ability that the group gets. The wargear Dok's Tools though "confers the Feel No Pain ability to the Dok's unit". Is the IC a part of the unit? Yes.

I would agree... if there were some rule saying that an innate ability is different from one that is granted by "wargear"

The way I look at it is the Warboss joins the unit and is part of the unit, the Painboy gives Feel no Pain to his unit so the Warboss gets Feels No Pain.

Avariel wrote:The way I look at it is the Warboss joins the unit and is part of the unit, the Painboy gives Feel no Pain to his unit so the Warboss gets Feels No Pain.

Any time an IC joins a unit he becomes part of the unit. This is why the BRB has rules for ICs joining a unit. In this case the BRB also stipulates that - despite being part of the unit - an IC does not get the Feel No Pain USR.

Trekari wrote:Kantor's example:

Perhaps you can explain further what you meant

Ah, excuse me for being recently risen from my sleep. I meant another IC who happens to be somewhere within 12'' of Pedro. It would be ridiculous that he gets the inspiration while alone but not if leading a unit.

well... since an IC is a unit and its friendly... it would benefit :(

weird... but by raw it works

Democratus wrote:
Any time an IC joins a unit he becomes part of the unit. This is why the BRB has rules for ICs joining a unit. In this case the BRB also stipulates that - despite being part of the unit - an IC does not get the Feel No Pain USR.

Thanks : )

I like how you worded this

Did you now twice miss the part about it needing to specify in the RULE itself? That Wargear is not the RULE? And that even if you try to argue the 'the wargear entry (which again is not where it must specify) is specific enough to satisfy pg 48,' that it cannot possibly be so when the very definition of "his unit" is not specific?

Until YOU can show me that "his unit" doesn't mean the unit he was purchased with, and that the "Unit Composition" on pg. 95 of the Ork Codex is not what that means, then you cannot claim I am wrong. At worst, you can disagree with the definition I choose to use, but it IS a valid definition.

**EDIT** I'm going to go one step further and explain why "his unit" means exactly what pg. 95 refers to
1) You agree on a pts cost for a game.
2) You purchase your units.
3) You purchase upgrade characters and other wargear.
4) Everything takes effect. Nobz have FNP, Snikrot and his Kommandos have Ambush, etc. These abilities are not latent until an IC joins and then they suddenly all take effect.
5) You deploy your forces, and attach characters to units as you see fit.
6) The rule on pg. 48 comes into play for each instance of a unit having a different special rule than the IC.

No, of course I didn't miss it. You're being obtuse - I have never once said that the wargear rule is different from the FNP rule - what I said was that since the wargear applies to "his unit" then the rules of the wargear apply to his unit.

1) agree (pointless point)
2) same as above
3) same as above
4) comletely and utterly false. Nothing takes effects until the game starts (which includes deployment/reserves/pre-turn1 actions).
5) same as 1
6) true. But once again - the wargear description says the effect is for the unit. The unit can change during the game.

Grotsnik doesn't start with a unit (except his own unit of one). His rules go on to say that if he joins with a unit he may not leave it until he is the last remaining member of that unit. The rules themselves tell us what his unit is/can be during the game - he can be on his own, he can be joined to another unit and in either case that is "his unit." Your "arguement" is spurious because page 48 never comes into play period. The words "his unit" and the follow on description in Mad Doc's description tell us what "his unit" is - it's any unit he is a part of - which would include any joined IC's.

I think the easiest and least abusive solution is:

If a Character joins a unit, he does not benefit from any specific rules that specifies "the unit" in its description (unless the special rules specifically state otherwise).

If a Character joins a unit, the unit benefits from any wargear or special rules that refer to "his unit".

Note, this prevents Character-1 from joining a unit, giving them a bonus, and then Character-2 joining the unit and getting the bonus. And this isn't just for IC's, but can come up with Attached Characters (AC's, like Snikrot) as well.

So, Warboss doesn't get FNP. But, a boyz mob joined by Grostnik does get FNP from Doks' Tools. And, Ghazkull can't join Snikrot's unit and Ambush.

Personally, I don't think it's that earth-shattering to give a warboss FNP if he joins the nob unit. And I wouldn't be surprised if that was the intent. But, to prevent doing a bunch of "If X joins Y, then Z happens" for each case, I think the above is the 'cleanest' solution and provides two rules that clears up all the problems.

I agree Dietrich that should be done in the FAQ. but as of right now the RAW disagrees : (

After having read all of the discussion on this over the past two thread I don't think either side has a clear, or compelling RAW final answer. Both sides have valid points and no one can emphatically prove this either way.

That said I feel that not only should the Warboss not get FNB but any attached IC should not be allowed with Snikrot, the apothecary shouldn't give FNP to IC's etc.... As has been stated earlier this leaves so many options open to cheeze mongers (and if you think these will not be abused you are Naive) who only want to exploit whatever loophole they can. It doesnt matter which army you own, this hurts the game in total if obscene combinations of such ridiculous proportions are allowed.

I think right now, the RAW is unclear, and I think discussion on dakka confirms that.

Hey, I thought the SW codex saying "Land Raiders.... and all variants" was clear, and I was wrong.

Often, these debates remind me of ol' Slick Willie (aka President William Jefferson Clinton), 'Can you define what 'is' is?'

frgsinwntr wrote:I would agree... if there were some rule saying that an innate ability is different from one that is granted by "wargear"

Well there is... it's the English used to construct the rule.

Blood Angels Death Company HAS FNP. They nor any individual attached to their unit confers it to them. It's intrinsic to their nature.

Nobs don't have it. It's confered to "their unit" in the wargear description. If you read the USR section in it's entirety, it says that the Codex overrides the BBB in areas where the USR differs from the book.

The Codex says that Dok's Tools confer Feel No Pain to the unit. It's not intrinsic to the unit. It's conferred by the wargear. The Warboss joins the unit, and the USR is conferred to him by virtue of his unit membership. He's not being transformed into a Nob. The Painboy is using the Dok's Tools on him because he's part of the unit now.

yea... thats not a rule.. thats just circumstantial

Just because you see 5 red cars on your street and 5 blue cars on the street next to yours, doesn't mean that the aren't same thing.

I would need a rule that explicitly says it to be convinced.

Personally I am waiting for Ghaz to comment on this topic since I don't think there has been a time I saw him wrong when it came to rules.

Incidently seeing as the poll thread is supposed to be just that I would suggest refraining from attempting to argue against people there. If they're commenting on how they've polled thats one thing but taking up the fight in a third thread isn't a good idea.

Instead of running multiple copies of the same debate in parallel post counter arguments in the current thread.

budro wrote:

Did you now twice miss the part about it needing to specify in the RULE itself? That Wargear is not the RULE? And that even if you try to argue the 'the wargear entry (which again is not where it must specify) is specific enough to satisfy pg 48,' that it cannot possibly be so when the very definition of "his unit" is not specific?

Until YOU can show me that "his unit" doesn't mean the unit he was purchased with, and that the "Unit Composition" on pg. 95 of the Ork Codex is not what that means, then you cannot claim I am wrong. At worst, you can disagree with the definition I choose to use, but it IS a valid definition.

**EDIT** I'm going to go one step further and explain why "his unit" means exactly what pg. 95 refers to
1) You agree on a pts cost for a game.
2) You purchase your units.
3) You purchase upgrade characters and other wargear.
4) Everything takes effect. Nobz have FNP, Snikrot and his Kommandos have Ambush, etc. These abilities are not latent until an IC joins and then they suddenly all take effect.
5) You deploy your forces, and attach characters to units as you see fit.
6) The rule on pg. 48 comes into play for each instance of a unit having a different special rule than the IC.

No, of course I didn't miss it. You're being obtuse - I have never once said that the wargear rule is different from the FNP rule - what I said was that since the wargear applies to "his unit" then the rules of the wargear apply to his unit.

1) agree (pointless point)
2) same as above
3) same as above
4) comletely and utterly false. Nothing takes effects until the game starts (which includes deployment/reserves/pre-turn1 actions).
5) same as 1
6) true. But once again - the wargear description says the effect is for the unit. The unit can change during the game.

Grotsnik doesn't start with a unit (except his own unit of one). His rules go on to say that if he joins with a unit he may not leave it until he is the last remaining member of that unit. The rules themselves tell us what his unit is/can be during the game - he can be on his own, he can be joined to another unit and in either case that is "his unit." Your "arguement" is spurious because page 48 never comes into play period. The words "his unit" and the follow on description in Mad Doc's description tell us what "his unit" is - it's any unit he is a part of - which would include any joined IC's.

4) Illogical assumption and sequence on your part to say the least. When you purchase something, it's rules are in effect.

6) Doesn't matter what the wargear says. Anything involving a special rule may only be given to IC's if the rule ITSELF says so. Your argument about One Scalpel Short of a Medpack has no bearing on this, as that is a special rule that SAYS it is conferred onto the unit that he joins. The wording of your own example goes to what I've been saying all along!

No - now you're flat out taking what I wrote and misconstrueing it. My use of the wording from one scalpel short is to show what is meant by the use of the words "his unit." It shows that "his unit" means any model in the unit with him - which would include IC's since he can join an IC and be in a unit with him.

Since your primary argument revolves around the ambiguity of "his unit" this shows that you are wrong and that "his unit" is very clearly labeled in this spot.

For convenience, I am going to quote that special rule in its entirety, and then perhaps you can show me where it says "his unit."

One Scalpel Short of a Medpack wrote: The Dok is a total nutcase, widely regarded as being crazier than a fevered Madboy on a full moon. He is Fearless, as is any unit he joins. Furthermore, Grotsniks is so bloodthirsty that he will always move as fast as possible towards the nearest enemy, assaulting if possible. This bloodlust is conferred to any unit he joins. This means that once Dok Grotsnik has joined a unit, he may not leave it unless he is the last remaining member of that unit.

Where is "his unit" mentioned? I see "any unit he joins," and "that unit."

I see a special rule detailing how it does get conferred to a unit he joins, which follows pg. 48 quite nicely. I do not see it define anywhere, what you say it does.