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.

stormtitan wrote:I don't have the rules in front of me...but I do recall with abilities (unit abilities, character abilities), the rulebook fairly clearly spells out how they are handled. I think I'd probably treat psyker powers in the same way.

It's basically what's outlined here--if model has ability and joins unit, he loses ability...if unit has ability and IC joins unit, he gains ability...if he later leaves unit, he loses ability...Someone with rulebook in front of them can probably check this out.

Nurglitch wrote:You're thinking of special rules. Fearless, for example, is lost by an Independent Character if he joins a unit without Fearless, but gained (or not lost) by an Independent Character if he joins a unit with Fearless.

I'm pretty sure what he's referring to is this blurb in the "Independent Characters Joining & Leaving Units" box:

"...unless specified in the rule itself...the unit's special rules are not conferred upon the character, and the character's special rules are not conferred upon the unit."

Later in the paragraph it says to see the USR section for details... so while it does not state outright, it implies that this rule only applies to USRs. The problem here, of course, is a lack of definition of what constitutes a "special rule."

Does a psychic power confer a "special rule" onto a unit, or is a special rule something that is only in the unit's description in the codex?

I'd think that casting fortune on a unit does not give it a "special rule" but simply changes how the game interacts with the unit.

Yes--exactly. I think I'd treat psyker powers the same way.

Actually I think you're onto something regarding special rules. The Universal Special Rules are the rules in that section of the rulebook, a universal set of exceptions that may be referenced by Codex documents.

The whole "Universal Special Rules" sounds like a bit of any oxymoron until you digest it as "special rules that are universally referenced, where the universe is all documentation in the game, as opposed to special rules that are referenced by specific documents such as Codex: Space Marines." Dance of Death, for example, is a special rule specific to Harlequins, while Fearless is a special rule that applies the same to all unit entries referencing it. Perhaps amusingly Death of Death is just a characterful way of referencing the universal special rules Hit and Run, and Furious Assault.

Special rules, in Warhammer 40k 5th edition, can thus be distinguished from what are referred to as "normal" or general rules in the scope of their application. This accords with the ordinary language meaning of the term "special".

The movement rules for Infantry in the Movement phase, for example, are the normal rules for moving, while Slow and Purposeful is a special rule, an exception to the normal/general rules. The awkward thing about this is, curiously like Russell's ramified theory of types*, some rules are 'specialer' than others.

Psychic powers have a set of normal rules governing their usage, but their specific effects are special rules. Moreover Codex: Space Marines lists "Psyker" under the heading of Special Rules. Presumably because not all models are Psyckers, so having Psychic Powers is an exception to the normal rules.

Interestingly Codex: Chaos Space Marines do not list "Psycker" under the Special Rules heading of psychic models such as Daemon Princes, Chaos Sorcerers, and Aspiring Sorcerers. That is mentioned under Options (former two) and Character (latter). Codex: Eldar list Eldrad Ulthran as having Psychic Powers, and generic Farseers have a "Psychic Powers" listed under Special Rules.

Given that Psychic Powers are then a special case of the more general Character rules, and that specific Psychic Powers are special cases of the Psychic Power rules, I'd suggest it's reasonable to conclude that Psychic Powers are special rules and follow rules about special rules detailed in the rules. Rules...

So, in conclusion, I'd suggest that casting Fortune on a unit is giving that unit the special rule "Fortune", which simply changes how the unit interacts with the general saving throw rules detailed in the rulebook.

This means that, "Unless specified in the rule itself (as in the 'stubborn' special rule), the unit's special rules [such as Fortune] are not conferred upon the character, and the character's special rules are not conferred upon the unit."

At first glance this might be taken to mean that if Fortune is cast upon a unit of Dire Avengers, then a Farseer that had joined the unit would not benefit from the power. To take it that way would be wrong, however, unless the power was cast before the Farseer joined the unit, because after the Farseer has joined the unit he is a "part of the unit, he must obey the usual coherency rules."

Which means the following:

1. Your Farseer can cast Fortune on a unit that he has already joined, and benefits from Fortune because he is part of the unit.

2. Your Farseer can cast Fortune on a unit that he may join or may leave, and does not benefit from Fortune if he joins the unit, or if he would otherwise benefit, loses the benefit if he leaves the unit.

3. Your Farseer may cast Fortune on himself, in which case no unit he subsequently joins will benefit from his Fortune, but he will benefit from Fortune if he leaves the unit, since he is the unit that has the special rule Fortune for the duration.

*There's a reason Russell's ramified theory of types is an historical curiosity, because axiomatic set theory handles the logic of general/special (aka universal/existential) much better with regard to sets of objects like rules...

I was trying to read enough to post something remotely like what Nurglitch wrote. As the previously mentioned posts made me think along those lines too.

He wrote it in a much better format than I would have, though.

More reading for me!