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.

The RAW concerns USR's if I'm not mistaken, doesn't it?

Yes, but what part of "and his unit" desnt specify the IC? Given that it is *exactly* the same as for Painboyz, and Company Command apothecary, etc.....

So, RAW = you get to put ghazzy with the unit. no ifs, no buts, thats it.

Yes, I absolutely agree. I was just asking about the RAW someone was talking about above. The rules for units losing or gaining rules when joining units doesn't apply to Ambush! because it's not a USR.

Geemoney wrote:It is a RAW situation. p 46 in AOBR Rulebook, it says "Unless specified in the rule itself the units special rules are not conferred upon the character....", it also says characaters rulse are not conferred onto the unit. Ambush doesn't mention IC at all. Read it and see what you think.
Snickrot/Ghazz actually ruined a tourney game for me. It forced a draw on a game I would of otherwise won.

This is why FAQ's are so nice to have. Suggest your tournament organizer use INAT FAQ going forward. Not because it nerfs that specific combo, but because almost any rules dispute is handled ahead of time with a tidy FAQ that everyone has access to so when it comes up in a game there are no surprises.

Zain60 wrote:The RAW concerns USR's if I'm not mistaken, doesn't it?

No not the portion I am citing. Under the "Independent Character Joining and Leaving Units" Section in the Rulebook on p48 under the heading "Special Rules." The first part of the paragraph talks about Special Rules and makes no mention about USR (except citing a few)until then end. It seems to me that if they meant USR's and only USR's then that is what it would say; but Special Rules include USR's as well as Special Rules like ambush.
Kevin Nash, the problem with INAT was that I don't agree with some of the rule changes (in the old, I haven't looked closely at the new one). But you are right it is nice to go into a tourney and know what works and what doesn't.

Geemoney wrote:It is a RAW situation. p 46 in AOBR Rulebook, it says "Unless specified in the rule itself the units special rules are not conferred upon the character....", it also says characters rules are not conferred onto the unit. Ambush doesn't mention IC at all. Read it and see what you think.
Also I want to mention something about fnp and IC's, on p75 there is NOT an asterisk next to FNP, which means that is is not lost when and IC joins the unit. This is not a contradiction in the INAT it is clear RAW.
Last I never play RAI, as stated above there is no way to really know. I play only RAW, or rules clearly specified in a tourney. It makes no sense to go and change rules based on some vague sense that GW meant it to be that way. If the RAW said Ghazz could use ambush I would accept that.

I cannot comment on the AoBR rulebook, as I do not own it. However, no such line exists in the main rulebook. The line you cited in fact CONTRADICTS the main rulebook.

Here's the relevant line, from page 74;

"The special rules marked with an asterisk (*) are automatically 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."

So evidently, those NOT marked by an asterisk are NOT automatically lost by an IC if he joins a unit without them, and vice versa.


Is Ambush marked by an asterisk? No. Therefore, the unit retains the rule even if an IC joins them. That's straight, plain, pure RAW.

@OP: Yes, you can take an IC along with Snikrot. IF you wanted, you could take a Megaboss, Ghazghkull, or a Bikeboss. However, it will cut down on the whining you face if you limit yourself to less heavily-equipped and clompy ICs. For really wacky hijinks, try Old Zogwort!

Geemoney wrote:
Kevin Nash, the problem with INAT was that I don't agree with some of the rule changes (in the old, I haven't looked closely at the new one). But you are right it is nice to go into a tourney and know what works and what doesn't.

I don't agree with all of it either, but I still use it in the tournaments that I run because it's a standard that people are already familiar with or can easily be if I provide them the document.

An imperfect standard is better than no standard at all.

BeRzErKeR wrote:
I cannot comment on the AoBR rulebook, as I do not own it. However, no such line exists in the main rulebook. The line you cited in fact CONTRADICTS the main rulebook.

The AoBR book has the same rules as your "main rulebook" its just pocket sized, I specified because I wasn't sure if the page numbers are the same, but I just checked my friends big book and they are. Read p48 under "Special Rules" and see what you think.
p74 isn't relevant to Amush since Amush is not a USR. I will not argue that you can attach any IC to Snickrot's unit, you just cannot use Snickrot's Ambush Special Rules if you do.

Geemoney wrote:
The AoBR book has the same rules as your "main rulebook" its just pocket sized, I specified because I wasn't sure if the page numbers are the same, but I just checked my friends big book and they are. Read p48 under "Special Rules" and see what you think.
p74 isn't relevant to Amush since Amush is not a USR. I will not argue that you can attach any IC to Snickrot's unit, you just cannot use Snickrot's Ambush Special Rules if you do.

Well, I feel dumb for missing that.

The question then is whether "Snikrot and his unit" is good enough to include attached ICs. Since we are told that attached ICs are considered part of the unit, I think it is.

Yes it is, as otherwise the following units also do not work:

- Apothecarys (SM codex)
- Painboyz

I pointed this out already, in that INAT contradict themselves as they rule the Painboy works.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Yes it is, as otherwise the following units also do not work:

- Apothecarys (SM codex)
- Painboyz

I pointed this out already, in that INAT contradict themselves as they rule the Painboy works.

Someone already mentioned why it's not a contradiction:

INAT FAQ separates special rules and wargear that grants special rules/USR's. INAT FAQ consistently states that special unit rules don't get conferred onto an IC that joins the unit (like Ambush!). INAT FAQ consistently states that wargear which grants an USR or special rule 'to the unit' does get conferred to an IC (like a Painboy's Dok Tools granting an IC FNP).

The first list was jsut examples where the exact same language was used.

And it is a contradiction, as it is an arbitrary distinction made with no rules backing. Just because they state they are going to contradict themselves despite the exact same wording, doesnt make it less of a contradiction.

I like the INAT, however sometimes the rules changes need to be listed as such.

nosferatu1001 wrote:The first list was jsut examples where the exact same language was used.

And it is a contradiction, as it is an arbitrary distinction made with no rules backing. Just because they state they are going to contradict themselves despite the exact same wording, doesnt make it less of a contradiction.

I like the INAT, however sometimes the rules changes need to be listed as such.

Of course it is an arbitrary distinction made with no rules backing. That's the whole point of the INAT: To make a distinction where the rules do not.

They clarify the difference between a an ability granted by special rules and wargear that does such in the scope of their own document and are consistent in that clarification. That isn't a contradiction.

Except there was no need to make a distinction here, and it confuses matters as the exact same worded rule is interpreted differently because one guy is holding something and the other guy is saying "shhh!"

ruels *changes* should be listed as such. this is a rules *change*

Here is a question and it is related. Right hand side on page 48 it says "...an IC may begin the game already with a unit, by being deployed in coherency..." does that mean if Snik is held in reserve it is impossible to deploy a IC in coherency with Snik. And since they are in reserve then the player must roll for for Snik's unit and the IC separately as they are not part of the same unit until deployed.
This is different then deploying IC's with a unit in a transport, because on p 66 it says "A transport may carry a single infantry unit and/or any number of IC."

Geemoney wrote:Here is a question and it is related. Right hand side on page 48 it says "...an IC may begin the game already with a unit, by being deployed in coherency..." does that mean if Snik is held in reserve it is impossible to deploy a IC in coherency with Snik. And since they are in reserve then the player must roll for for Snik's unit and the IC separately as they are not part of the same unit until deployed.
This is different then deploying IC's with a unit in a transport, because on p 66 it says "A transport may carry a single infantry unit and/or any number of IC."

Re-read the Reserve rules, Especially page 94 where it deals with IC's joining units in reserve.

your right never mind then.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Yes, but what part of "and his unit" desnt specify the IC? Given that it is *exactly* the same as for Painboyz, and Company Command apothecary, etc.....

So, RAW = you get to put ghazzy with the unit. no ifs, no buts, thats it.

You've got that backwards...the rules specify that special rules are not conferred to an IC joining a unit unless specified otherwise. So RAW an IC joining Snikrot's unit would not get the ability.

In the INAT we've gone with what we see as the pure RAW and made a separation between 'special rules' which 'Ambush' is, and a Painboy's ability which is a piece of wargear.

But if you reject that separation as you seem to (and is understandable), then the RAW would be that NONE of it is conferred to the joined IC, not the other way around.


So if we want to go all RAW, RAW, RAW on this matter then we should be saying that ICs don't benefit from Painboyz, Company Commbands, Apocthecaries AND Snikrot's special rule, because THAT'S WHAT THE RULES SAY. Independent Characters do not benefit from special rules simply by joining a unit unless the special rule specifically says that they do, *not* the other way around.

yakface wrote:You've got that backwards...the rules specify that special rules are not conferred to an IC joining a unit unless specified otherwise. So RAW an IC joining Snikrot's unit would not get the ability.

In the INAT we've gone with what we see as the pure RAW and made a separation between 'special rules' which 'Ambush' is, and a Painboy's ability which is a piece of wargear.

But if you reject that separation as you seem to (and is understandable), then the RAW would be that NONE of it is conferred to the joined IC, not the other way around.


So if we want to go all RAW, RAW, RAW on this matter then we should be saying that ICs don't benefit from Painboyz, Company Commbands, Apocthecaries AND Snikrot's special rule, because THAT'S WHAT THE RULES SAY. Independent Characters do not benefit from special rules simply by joining a unit unless the special rule specifically says that they do, *not* the other way around.

This logic does not apply to these kinds of scenarios. Snikrot's unit does not inherently have the Ambush rule. Instead, a model in the unit gives the ability to the unit. The Independent Character rules say that they are part of the unit except where otherwise specified, and nothing specifies otherwise here, so the character counts as another squad member and gets the ability.

Yafface - as above, "and his unit" means that it includes *all* members of that unit, and that specifically DOES include any attached IC - as you are, repeatedly, told that an IC is just another member of the unit (see Assault phase where they rejoin, shooting, etc) and is therefore covered by that phrase.

Simply put, no its not legal to attach Ghaz to Snikrots unit and use the Ambush special rule with Ghaz. People seem to be forgetting that "ambush" is a special rule, and as such when an IC joins a unit, if they do not have said special rule then the unit looses the special rule. Rule book, under Special Rules says just that, then flip open the Ork dex to pg.62, under special rules it tells how the Ambush rule works. Ergo, Ghaz doesnt have AMBUSH therefore cannot AMBUSH. Also again, Im astonished at the lack of common sense there is when it comes to rules debates. Sometimes I understand the confusion, but this is a no brainer. You cannot Ambush with Ghaz.

KingCracker wrote:You cannot Ambush with Ghaz.

Actually, you can RaW.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Yafface - as above, "and his unit" means that it includes *all* members of that unit, and that specifically DOES include any attached IC - as you are, repeatedly, told that an IC is just another member of the unit (see Assault phase where they rejoin, shooting, etc) and is therefore covered by that phrase.

Your missing what that is meaning. "His unit" means the kommandos, not the kommandos + random IC.

KingCracker wrote:Your missing what that is meaning. "His unit" means the kommandos, not the kommandos + random IC.

Actually, it does, as per the IC rules.

Gwar! wrote:

KingCracker wrote:You cannot Ambush with Ghaz.

Actually, you can RaW.

Yea and according to some of the ridiculous arguments Ive seen you pull out in here, units cant fire flame weapons from transpots, nor can certain vehicles with flame weapons fire, and some IC in SW cant use some special ability he has simply because the writer isnt that great at writting. Im not sure who that last one was simply because I started to get annoyed with your logic.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
No, an IC can break off from the unit whenever he is allowed to. No one else in that unit can leave the unit until they are dead. So yes the IC can join a unit, but as far as this rule goes, its meaning just the unit not the unit + IC. Again, this is that whole common sense thing working.

KingCracker wrote:

No, an IC can break off from the unit whenever he is allowed to. No one else in that unit can leave the unit until they are dead. So yes the IC can join a unit, but as far as this rule goes, its meaning just the unit not the unit + IC. Again, this is that whole common sense thing working.

That has nothing to do with. . . anything. At all. When an IC is attached to a unit, he is part of the unit. Period. When he moves away, he is then no longer part of the unit. There is no "in-between" state.

If a Warboss is attached to a squad with a Painboy, does he get FNP? It's the exact same language.

BeRzErKeR wrote:

KingCracker wrote:

No, an IC can break off from the unit whenever he is allowed to. No one else in that unit can leave the unit until they are dead. So yes the IC can join a unit, but as far as this rule goes, its meaning just the unit not the unit + IC. Again, this is that whole common sense thing working.

That has nothing to do with. . . anything. At all. When an IC is attached to a unit, he is part of the unit. Period. When he moves away, he is then no longer part of the unit. There is no "in-between" state.

If a Warboss is attached to a squad with a Painboy, does he get FNP? It's the exact same language.

If anything, RAW no, a Warboss should not benefit from a Painboy's FNP, even though everyone does play that way.

Simply put, ICs do not gain special rules by joining a unit unless the special rule itself says it applies to ICs...these are the rules but everyone wants to seem to try to figure out workarounds as to why an IC *should* be benefitting from special rules when joining a unit, but the rules are clear.


And as for the notion that somehow 'Ambush' is not a special rule of the unit, is Snikrot not part of the unit? Is an IC joining the unit not benefiting from the special rule by joining the unit?

Again, ICs aren't supposed to gain special rules by joining a unit and have a rule which says exactly that. So unless the special rule says it applies specifically to joined ICs then it doesn't.


Now, is that the way I play? No, but if we're getting back to the core of what the rules say, then we have to fall back against this basic restriction. It doesn't matter if an IC is fully and totally part of a unit when he joins it (which he is) because he has a RULE which says he doesn't benefit from a unit's special rules unless the rule specifically says he does.

It doesn't matter what RAW or RAI say because, you put the unit in reserve BEFORE the game, ICs join units at the START of deployment.

Wut?

Units are put in Reserve during deployment. An IC can join a unit during deployment and be put in Reserve along with it.

"You put units in reserve BEFORE the game"? When is this then? While you are sitting at home getting something to eat before going to the store? While small-talking with your friends?

A. "So anyway, I was saying to my girlfriend that that wasn't right".
B. "Yeah, I totally agree. Twillight isn't any good".
C. Hang on, guys! I put my Kommandoes in Reserve!".

A and B. "Errh....OK".

Except stating "his unit" is indeed sufficient, as a joined ic is part of the unit

This is VERY different from an inate rule, such as Plague Marines FNP, which I would suggest that rule is addressing.