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.

Norade wrote:Yes, however in this case this is not the unit's special rule, but rather a rule given to the unit which Ghazghkull is now a part of. So unlike with a squad that has infiltrate as part of their profile where he would remove that special rule for being with them, this would still effect him as it is a rule being later added to a squad. Another example would be if Ghazghkull with more than six inches away from a KFF but a boy in his unit wasn't would he remove the KFF from them? The answer would be a resounding no.

Wrong...Wrong...Wrong.

That is all just semantics.

There is no "special clause" in the rules saying that if a special rule comes from an upgrade character that it now magically ignores the rules on pg 48.

The rules for ICs on pg. 48 don't care HOW a unit gets a special rule, all it cares about is whether or not a unit HAS a special rule and whether or not that rule specifically states that it effects ICs. Unless a unit's special rule (and Ambush is a unit's special rule, granted by Snikrot) specifically states that it effects ICs, then it does not...period.

Trying to grant Ambush to any IC, especially based on "how" Kommandos get it, is rules lawering at its worst... and it has no backing by RAW.

Post deleted by Modquisition due to inflammatory nature. In the future please follow Dakka Rule #1: be polite.

combatmedic wrote:I dont see why not. Snikrots special rule says you may hold his unit in reserve, so it seems separate from the infiltrate USP that not only gives you a normal outflank, but is lost when a unit without infiltrate joins...

This. No mention is made of any USRs in relation to Ambush, so there's no USR to lose when attaching an IC; it's just a normal Reserve move with an extra twist. Seems fine to me.

POST EDITED AS TIED TO POST DELETED BY MODQUISITION

Snikrot is listed under Kommandos in the Army List, and can only be fielded in a unit of Kommandos. This makes Ambush an individual Kommandos unit's special rule, because Snikrot is an upgrade to that Kommando unit. True, it is a unit's special rule granted by Snikrot, but it is still the unit's rule.

Thread has been cleared
1. If there is a YMTC issue take it to that section of the board please.
2. A reminder. Posts are subject to Dakka Rule #1: Be polite. Unnecessarily abrasive posts violate that rule and subject the poster to disciplinary action.

Thread reopened.

Okies, I'm not allowed to hate on Alerian for making up rules, but to the OP:

If you want to do it, go for it.


Alerian, back to you: Snikrot is listed under the kommandos, but you still don't get to make up language to tie special rules together.

You're right, since the Inat FAQ, John Spencer from GW, and every Tourney organizer for events in which I have played have all ruled that Snikrot cannot give Ambush to an IC (because of pg 48), there cannot be any basis for my argument.

I don't care about INAT unless I'm there.

Have you got an FAQ to point to to back up what you're saying? Because all I see is a stranger in an online chat board making up rules.

Yeah, that's the whole point of it. The "No Snikrot Ambushing Warbosses" thing, like Deffrollas and FNP+Warbosses, is just another of those "clarifications" (rules changes) that was put in place by this online community back when Orks were overpowered.

Never mind that good players aren't afraid of any of those things, but the simplest explanation is that people feel that the abilities are too good (remember all the Lash of Submission debates? Turns out that it does actually function just like the most literal reading of the rules would suggest) so they do mental back-bends in order to find some way that "you can't do that" even though the most literal reading does indeed say that you can.

sourclams wrote:Yeah, that's the whole point of it. The "No Snikrot Ambushing Warbosses" thing, like Deffrollas and FNP+Warbosses, is just another of those "clarifications" (rules changes) that was put in place by this online community back when Orks were overpowered.

Never mind that good players aren't afraid of any of those things, but the simplest explanation is that people feel that the abilities are too good (remember all the Lash of Submission debates? Turns out that it does actually function just like the most literal reading of the rules would suggest) so they do mental back-bends in order to find some way that "you can't do that" even though the most literal reading does indeed say that you can.

My apologies for dragging this thread back up, but I just read this. But I want to address this comment as it is a prime example of why you can't please all the people all the time with a ruling in an unofficial FAQ, even when it is needed.

The rules clearly state that ICs joining units do not benefit from their special rules unless it is specified that they do. Snikrot's Ambush rule is clearly a special rule.

Therefore, the only question is what type of specificity is needed in the wording of a rule for it to be 'passed on' to an IC joining the unit. This level of specificity is not defined in the rules. So:


A) You can assume that any mention of a special rule being passed onto the 'unit' means that it also applies to any IC joining the unit.
B) You can assume, like the example given in the rulebook (for 'Stubborn') that the rule actually has to mention that it applies to ICs for it to do so.


Regardless of which you think is the 'RAW' any 'ruling' made on the issue is going to be a clarification because there is no definitive answer given in the rules.

yakface wrote:

The rules clearly state that ICs joining units do not benefit from their special rules unless it is specified that they do. Snikrot's Ambush rule is clearly a special rule.

Snikrot's ambush rule is an ability conferred by a character to a unit, similar to the Chaplain's Liturgies of Battle. Same with the FNP ability from Dok's Tools. The 'unit' does not have a special rule, a specific character/model within the unit possesses a special rule that it then grants to the 'unit'. (Unit is defined on page 3 as being a squad, team, or group of similarly named models... basically any grouping of models since 'squad' or 'team' are not defined game terms). If an independent character joins the unit, then it's part of the unit/squad/team whatever and, as part, should included in character-specific benefits granted to the squad as a whole.

In short, the 'unit' doesn't have any special rule. A specific model/character grants a special rule to the unit.

Regardless of which you think is the 'RAW' any 'ruling' made on the issue is going to be a clarification because there is no definitive answer given in the rules.

Calling it a 'clarification' is a bit of a stretch... it's got as much veracity as a d6 roll-off that always comes up with the same result. I agree it's necessary for a tournament setting because GW writes loose rules sets, but there is no correct answer (and therefore nothing to clarify), although I think that the most literal reading often allows the abillity to the benefit of the player rather than his opponent, with the notable exception of Shrike's epic failure at infiltrating squads.

Going into such depth without looking into what a 'unit' was defined as in 4th edition (Yes, its not relevant to this edition but it is to the orks codex, not that it should have any impact on the rules but it should on clarifications). Its quite pointless to use such clear-cut rules and meanings on phrases used in a cpdex that were, in thier own context, possibly quite arbitary and without the meaning thats imparted onto them in 5th.

Likewise, the example given with the chaplin is a poor one as it is alot more descriptive and clear. And its 5th edition so theres alot less ambiguity there.

Conversely, the wording used in Snikrots implies ownership. "His squad". As he is bought as an upgrade to the unit (completely unlike a Chaplin) it could very easily and simply be percieved that he is refering to his own squad of kommandos and that it is a squad specific rule (as, ofcourse, the USR =/= IC wasnt clarified as it is now in 5th edition).

So, therefor, Yak DOES have the right of it. The situation does need clarification. It is not a simple matter. It can go either way. Given its vagueness, it should be allowed to.

Razerous wrote:
So, therefor, Yak DOES have the right of it. The situation does need clarification. It is not a simple matter. It can go either way. Given its vagueness, it should be allowed to.

No problem with agreeing that it needs clarification, simply pointing out that calling it "clarification" implies that this interpretation is more correct. That, and the justification given (squad USRs) doesn't seem correct from a literal reading, as the squad doesn't possess the special rules in question; they're granted to the unit by a model-specific ability.

Snikrot's Ambush! special rule, and Dok Tools, looks far more similar in function and application to other model-specific special rules than it does to blanket USRs.