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.

Right. Except I'm talking about those "some cases" where it doesn't specify, yet it is generally considered that ICs get them anyways.

I'm saying there isn't a line drawn for wargear and special rules.

Dok's Tools never state that any ICs get Feel No Pain - it just says "the unit". Yet it is universally regarded that a Warboss, or Ghaz, would gain the effects of FNP by being in that squad.

The Sanguinary Priest's Blood Chalice never states that it affects ICs in any fashion. It simply says "all units gain the effects".

Snikrot also says "the unit", and doesn't specifically mention the IC. Snikrot's ambush rule is just highlighted because of the sleaziness of the situation, but it's no different.

I just checked. Doc's Tools effect "the Painboy's unit". I usually come down on the side of his unit being the unit he was purchased with, not joined characters.

The Blood Chalice doesn't need to specify. It it a 6" range. Of course they would get it in this case.

I would say Doc's tools no, chalice yes. In the case of the SM honor guard squads that are taken with a SM HQ, then I would say the apothecary's FNP would effect the HQ. I'd have to look at this one though. I believe they are the same unit for game purposes but I'm not 100% here.

GW needs to fix this issue.

I can see how the Red Thirst wouldn't affect Librarians because they don't have the rule (and therefore how could they theoretically fall to the thirst if they are not prone to it), but fluff wise, a Painboy in an ICs squad would theoretically be able to patch up an IC just the same as another Nob.

Fluff =/= rules, but man they need to clean up the IC subsection in their rulebook. It just seems so arbitrary.

As for the Blood Chalice, why doesn't it need to specifiy? Is there some magic rule that states "bubbles can always affect ICs even though the BRB says that it needs to specifically state it can"? I don't remember ever seeing a "bubble" subsection in the rulebook.

GW needs to fix this issue.

I can see how the Red Thirst wouldn't affect Librarians because they don't have the rule (and therefore how could they theoretically fall to the thirst if they are not prone to it), but fluff wise, a Painboy in an ICs squad would theoretically be able to patch up an IC just the same as another Nob.

Fluff =/= rules, but man they need to clean up the IC subsection in their rulebook. It just seems so arbitrary.

It's pretty bad. I have seen some on here claim that the rules conferred by the war gear work though as they do not fall under the category of "special rules". So while the Libby couldn't get the Red Thirst from a unit, a Warboss joining a Nob unit gets FNP because it comes from war gear and not a special rule. I don't think this is correct though. At least I haven't seen the distinction made in the rulebook.

There is no distinction, and I've looked several times in the rulebook.

Wargear just confers a special rule. It's just a way to itemize (and cost) a special rule.

Then you have some people claiming USRs and SC Special Rules are completely different for some reason even though there's no basis in the rules for it.

::head explodes::

The wargear does not fall under the restrictions on special rules, as the unit has no special rules. An UC does, but the rules dont cover that.

You are also explicitly told, repeatedly, that the IC joins the unit. He is therefore part of Snikrots unit.

Yes, it is legal. Whether you think it is "fair" is irrelevant.

You are also ignoring that it could easily be a squadron of 3 vehicles, or a parking lot of IG manticores and hydras,

Magnalon: The difference is that USR are all listed in the BGB. Anything in that list is a USR, and is lost if an IC without that USR joins a squad with it.

The "wargear" issue isn't the fact that it's wargear. The issue is that the item or upgrade in question is only taken by 1 character, but it grants the ability to the rest of the unit. So, if there was an IC in that unit, the ability would be granted to him as well.


JGrand: TRT is a tricky issue and we shouldn't dive into it too much in this thread. It's a bit distinct from this, though, because it's not a situation where only the sergeant gets TRT and if "passed", confers the change to the rest of the squad (including IC). Everyone in the squad has the special rule.

Grakmar wrote:
The "wargear" issue isn't the fact that it's wargear. The issue is that the item or upgrade in question is only taken by 1 character, but it grants the ability to the rest of the unit. So, if there was an IC in that unit, the ability would be granted to him as well.

So what you're saying is there's no difference between Dok's Tool's FNP and Snikrot's Ambush, in regards to ICs?

That seems out of line with the ICs rule of "it has to say it affects an IC or it doesn't work". I'm still trying to figure out if that ruling only applies to USRs or not.

Magnalon wrote:

Grakmar wrote:
The "wargear" issue isn't the fact that it's wargear. The issue is that the item or upgrade in question is only taken by 1 character, but it grants the ability to the rest of the unit. So, if there was an IC in that unit, the ability would be granted to him as well.

So what you're saying is there's no difference between Dok's Tool's FNP and Snikrot's Ambush, in regards to ICs?

That seems out of line with the ICs rule of "it has to say it affects an IC or it doesn't work". I'm still trying to figure out if that ruling only applies to USRs or not.

Correct. I'm saying Tools granting FnP to the unit and Snikrot granting ambush to the unit both effect any IC that is part of that unit, for as long as they remain part of that unit.

And, I believe the "it has to say it affects an IC or it doesn't work" only applies to USRs. Snikrot and the Dok both have special rules (not USR) that grant a USR to the entire unit. So, when you make your check of "Does the IC have the same USR as the squad?" the answer comes back as "Yes" because both items granted that USR to the IC.

Grakmar wrote:
And, I believe the "it has to say it affects an IC or it doesn't work" only applies to USRs. Snikrot and the Dok both have special rules (not USR) that grant a USR to the entire unit. So, when you make your check of "Does the IC have the same USR as the squad?" the answer comes back as "Yes" because both items granted that USR to the IC.

Here's where people get confused, IMO.

Page 48 does not say "only USRs". It says "all special rules".

So neither would work according to the rules, because neither specifically say they affect ICs.

I think this is a fairly overlooked nuance - the ICs section only gives *examples* of *some* USRs and thus it cannot be implied that they are *only* talking about USRs. It states that there are *some* exceptions in the universal special rules section - that's it. You can't extrapolate from that "all special rules that are non-USRs work" - it's a bit of a stretch.

I'd like to see a response from Gwar!, in particular, who has stated previously that Red Thirst would not work on a Librarian IC despite being part of a unit, yet Ambush will - despite the fact that they are both special rules being applied to ICs in a unit, in the exact same manner.

However it does include ICs, as it states "the unit". Whcih is why it works (Doks Tools, Apothecary, etc)

The IC is part of the unit as soon as it joins, so is included in that phrase.

Correct. I'm saying Tools granting FnP to the unit and Snikrot granting ambush to the unit both effect any IC that is part of that unit, for as long as they remain part of that unit.

And, I believe the "it has to say it affects an IC or it doesn't work" only applies to USRs. Snikrot and the Dok both have special rules (not USR) that grant a USR to the entire unit. So, when you make your check of "Does the IC have the same USR as the squad?" the answer comes back as "Yes" because both items granted that USR to the IC.

It depends on your definition of "unit". Still, on p 48 I does say that joining IC's do not get the effects unless the rule says so. Technically neither of these rules say independent characters who join the unit get the rules. That is the issue I have.

My question, and this is specifically aimed at GWAR, is based on the inconsistency of how people rule this. For example Gwar was quick to say that "Red Thirst" is not conferred onto a joining IC. He was also quick to say ambush was conferred to a joining IC. There is no difference. They are both special rules that effect the "unit". If you allow one, you allow both.

Now compound the problem with war gear. Many times, like in the case of Doc's Tools, it confers the special rule on the Painboy's unit. A special rule conferred upon a unit is a unit's special rule. They are the same thing. I can see why people try to loophole this, but really war gear conferring a special rule to a unit is just giving that unit the special rule until specified. So again, unless IC's are included I don't see how they are assumed to get the rule.

Consistency. You can't just pick and choose what to allow and what not to allow. The rulebook is clear on p 48. IC's joining a unit do not gain the benefits of a special rule unless specified. In all of these cases people assume that the word "unit" refers to a joined IC as well. I would say based on the rulebook this isn't the case. There are rules which do state that joined IC's get the benefit. Because of this and page 48 it seems clear that if it doesn't say you do then you don't.

If you do want to play with the loose definition of the all encompassing word unit, then you allow: FNP, the Doc's tools, the Red Thirst, the Ambush, Daemokin, and any others that are use the word "unit" and don't specify either way. The problem I have is that it is a slippery slope that leads to dicey situations. If people play it then play if consistently.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

However it does include ICs, as it states "the unit". Whcih is why it works (Doks Tools, Apothecary, etc)

The IC is part of the unit as soon as it joins, so is included in that phrase.

But page 48 specifically says you do not get the rule unless it says "joining IC's gain this". The majority of special rules and USR's do not specify. There are those however, that do. Therefore, there is a process of specification that is being ignored when people just assume "unit" means joing IC's. This is clearly not the intent or the case.

Magnalon wrote:I'd like to see a response from Gwar!, in particular, who has stated previously that Red Thirst would not work on a Librarian IC despite being part of a unit, yet Ambush will - despite the fact that they are both special rules being applied to ICs in a unit, in the exact same manner.

Except it isn't.

TRT is a special rule that all models in the unit have, so it would not be applied to an IC. Ambush is a special rule ONE model has that grants an effect to all models within the unit, attached ICs included.

How is there a difference based on the rulebook?

Does the IC section state that "single models who confer special rules circumvent the fact that the rule must state that it gives it to an IC"?

TRT is not *just* a special rule that all the models in a unit have. TRT is a special rule that states, in the wording, that the entire *unit* gains the effects of the special rule. The unit the IC is a part of. In fact it is the exact same wording as Snikrot's Ambush.

Despite your own interpretation of said rule, the wording is still the exact same. And I'd like a page reference for "single models are the exceptions in regards to passing on special rules to ICs".

Double post

You are confusing a UNITS special rules (those listed under "Special Rules") and special rules that are *conferred* on the unit, usually by a singular source.

TRT is a UNIT special rule, i.e. EVERY member of the unit has it. LIke PM and FNP

I.e. BA SM A has TRT. So does BA SM B. And so on.

Doks Tools is the SPecial Rule of a *model* within the unit, who then confers the rule on the unit. So the special rule "FNP" is not found in the unit entry, as it is not a unit special rule, however when you read the entry you find that, as long as the painboy is there, every member of the squad is granted a special rule.

You cannot make the two equivalent without ignoring rather fundamental parts of the language.

ALso you are wrong in stating that the BRB states the rule must specify "and also any independent characters" - it ddoes not. ALL it asks for is that ICs are included by the special rule, and in addition it again only refers to unit special rules. DOks tools and similar are NOT unit special rules, and you cannot prove the contrary (and hand waving by crying "loophole" is just a way for your argument to be dismissed. You cannot cry "loophole" when it is convenient for you, it is simply a difference you dont like or admit to because it ruins your argument)

You are confusing a UNITS special rules (those listed under "Special Rules" and special rules that are *conferred* on the unit, usually by a singular source.

TRT is a UNIT special rule, i.e. EVERY member of the unit has it. LIke PM and FNP

Doks Tools is the SPecial Rule of a *model* within the unit, who then confers the rule on the unit.

You cannot make the two equivalent without ignoring rather fundamental parts of the language.

ALso you are wrong in stating that the BRB states the rule must specify "and also any independent characters" - it ddoes not. ALL it asks for is that ICs are included by the special rule, and in addition it again only refers to unit special rules. DOks tools and similar are NOT unit special rules, and you cannot prove the contrary (and hand waving by crying "loophole" is just a way for your argument to be dismissed. You cannot cry "loophole" when it is convenient for you, it is simply a difference you dont like or admit to because it ruins your argument)

Why the hostility guy? It's certainly not clear cut. Unless of course you can point me in the direction of where the rulebook says that a special rule a unit gains, granted by a member of the unit that cannot leave and is purchased by the unit is different that a unit's special rules. I see the case for it, I just don't know where you are referencing that a clear distinction is made.

Can you honestly tell me with a straight face that a "unit's special rule" is not the same thing as a special rule gained by the unit from a member of that unit that cannot leave and is purchased by them?

By taking these characters the unit gains this special rule. The character cannot leave, he is part of the unit and the unit now has that special rule. I am saying that it is a unit's special rule and I don't see why that is off base. Like it or not, you are arguing for something that isn't specified as different and only slightly different because of wording. I don't see how that can be seen as anything but a technicality.

Yes, because their unit entry is different.

Have a look at a nobz squad. Under "SPecial Rules" can you see "FNP"? No? Then it isnt a special rule of the unit.

In contrast Plague Marines DO have FNP as one of their Special Rules.

It is not a technicality, it is a fundamentally different idea. For one, being a unit special rule it means that EVERY member of that squad inherently can do X. When it is being conferred it is no longer an inherent ability - that alone makes it different enough.

You are crying loophole because otherwise you have no argument. Luckily it isnt a loophole.

Yes, because their unit entry is different.

Have a look at a nobz squad. Under "SPecial Rules" can you see "FNP"? No? Then it isnt a special rule of the unit.

In contrast Plague Marines DO have FNP as one of their Special Rules.

It is not a technicality, it is a fundamentally different idea. For one, being a unit special rule it means that EVERY member of that squad inherently can do X. When it is being conferred it is no longer an inherent ability - that alone makes it different enough.

You are crying loophole because otherwise you have no argument. Luckily it isnt a loophole.

I am saying that they are inherently a "unit's special rules". If a piece of war gear or upgrade character confers them on a unit, they are a special rule the unit has. Like it or not, that distinction isn't made on p 48 and that's all we have to go by.

Regardless of all of the above, they are still not conferred to joining IC's. In this case the "Painboy's unit" or "Snikrot's unit" is the entry in the codex. These characters will only ever have one unit, the one they are purchased with. An IC can join the unit, but guess what, the special rules of the unit aren't conferred on them unless it makes mention of that.

For the last time, an upgrade character or war gear that gives a unit a special rule makes it exactly that; a unit special rule. Cross apply p 48. The answer is clear.

JGrand wrote:
I am saying that they are inherently a "unit's special rules". If a piece of war gear or upgrade character confers them on a unit, they are a special rule the unit has. Like it or not, that distinction isn't made on p 48 and that's all we have to go by.

Regardless of all of the above, they are still not conferred to joining IC's. In this case the "Painboy's unit" or "Snikrot's unit" is the entry in the codex. These characters will only ever have one unit, the one they are purchased with. An IC can join the unit, but guess what, the special rules of the unit aren't conferred on them unless it makes mention of that.

For the last time, an upgrade character or war gear that gives a unit a special rule makes it exactly that; a unit special rule. Cross apply p 48. The answer is clear.

1) Does the Painboy grant FnP to the entire unit he is with?
Yes

2) Is the IC part of the unit?
Yes

What's the issue here?

1) Does the Painboy grant FnP to the entire unit he is with?
Yes

2) Is the IC part of the unit?
Yes

What's the issue here?

Read the thread.

Grakmar wrote:

1) Does the Painboy grant FnP to the entire unit he is with?
Yes

2) Is the IC part of the unit?
Yes

What's the issue here?

To sum it up quickly, on page 48 of the 40K rulebook, the rules for Independent Characters say "the rule has to specifically state that it applies to an IC in order to work".

The Painboy's FNP (Dok's Tools) does not state that it works for ICs.

Therefore it does not work because of what is stated in the BRB.

JGrand wrote:

1) Does the Painboy grant FnP to the entire unit he is with?
Yes

2) Is the IC part of the unit?
Yes

What's the issue here?

Read the thread.

Ok, but this isn't an issue of the unit having a special rule, and the IC without the rule joining it.

The issue is that neither the unit nor the IC has the special rule until the Painboy has granted it to them.
So, when the IC joins the unit, you ask "Is the IC's special rules different than the unit's?" And, no, neither one of them has any special rules mismatch.

Then, the Painboy's individual special rule says that the entire unit gets FnP. The IC is part of the unit, ergo, he gets FnP.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Magnalon wrote:
To sum it up quickly, on page 48 of the 40K rulebook, the rules for Independent Characters say "the rule has to specifically state that it applies to an IC in order to work".

The Painboy's FNP (Dok's Tools) does not state that it works for ICs.

Therefore it does not work because of what is stated in the BRB.

That's not what it says. It says: "Unless specified in the rule itself..., the unit's special rules are not conferred upon the character..."

But, this is not a case of a unit having a special rule.

Ok, but this isn't an issue of the unit having a special rule, and the IC without the rule joining it.

The issue is that neither the unit nor the IC has the special rule until the Painboy has granted it to them.
So, when the IC joins the unit, you ask "Is the IC's special rules different than the unit's?" And, no, neither one of them has any special rules mismatch.

Then, the Painboy's individual special rule says that the entire unit gets FnP. The IC is part of the unit, ergo, he gets FnP.

I see this line of reasoning, it just seems incorrect. The Painboy confers FNP to the unit. Thus it is the units special rule. The Painboy is purchased as a upgrade to the unit and thus the unit purchases the rule. I can see where people draw the line, I don't think I'm wrong in saying it seems like a technicality.

JGrand wrote:

Ok, but this isn't an issue of the unit having a special rule, and the IC without the rule joining it.

The issue is that neither the unit nor the IC has the special rule until the Painboy has granted it to them.
So, when the IC joins the unit, you ask "Is the IC's special rules different than the unit's?" And, no, neither one of them has any special rules mismatch.

Then, the Painboy's individual special rule says that the entire unit gets FnP. The IC is part of the unit, ergo, he gets FnP.

I see this line of reasoning, it just seems incorrect. The Painboy confers FNP to the unit. Thus it is the units special rule. The Painboy is purchased as a upgrade to the unit and thus the unit purchases the rule. I can see where people draw the line, I don't think I'm wrong in saying it seems like a technicality.

So, what happens if the painboy dies? If my interpretation is correct, the unit (and any joined ICs) would loose FnP. If it was the unit that actually has the rule, wouldn't they continue to have it?

JGrand wrote:, I don't think I'm wrong in saying it seems like a technicality.

If its a technicality, its a rule.

If you don't think you are wrong in saying it seems like a rule, what are you arguing.

It works the same as Dante's Tactical Precision. Example: Dante+ Sanguinary Guard+ Astorath the Grim + 3 Sanguinary Priests with Jump packs, all as one unit, does not scatter when deepstriking.

Snikrots rule allows you to OUTFLANK (NOT SCOUT/INFILTRATE). Outflank is a method of deployment(in which his is also unique).

Infiltrate/Scout (USRs which are not conferred by/to ICs) are USRs which allow you to OUTFLANK (again a type of deployment).

Just as Alhrahim (spelling?, the IG guy...) and Korsaro Khan only give you the option of OUTFLANKING, as such is Snikrots ability.

Is it fair? No! But YMDC isn't the place to discuss what is fair, if it were, I'd think alot of people would rule that Blood Talons are illegal and that Eldar Vehicles can't be the target of Eldar Psychic Powers,,,,

I've been thinking a lot about what the above posters said, and it makes sense now.

For abilities like Blood Chalice and Liturgies of Blood, it still does not say “it affects ICs”. Same with Kustom Force field; Dante's Tac Precision; the Sanguinor’s +1 attack aura – the list goes on.

There’s no way that Games Workshop would not allow special abilities like that to work – ESPECIALLY something like KFF.

If it *always* had to say it specifically affected ICs, if a Sanguinary Priest (an IC) was in the same squad as a Chaplain (another IC), the Priest would not get the benefits of Liturgies of Blood. That's most certaintly not right.

If its a technicality, its a rule.

If you don't think you are wrong in saying it seems like a rule, what are you arguing.

It works the same as Dante's Tactical Precision. Example: Dante+ Sanguinary Guard+ Astorath the Grim + 3 Sanguinary Priests with Jump packs, all as one unit, does not scatter when deepstriking.

Snikrots rule allows you to OUTFLANK (NOT SCOUT/INFILTRATE). Outflank is a method of deployment(in which his is also unique).

Infiltrate/Scout (USRs which are not conferred by/to ICs) are USRs which allow you to OUTFLANK (again a type of deployment).

Just as Alhrahim (spelling?, the IG guy...) and Korsaro Khan only give you the option of OUTFLANKING, as such is Snikrots ability.

Is it fair? No! But YMDC isn't the place to discuss what is fair, if it were, I'd think alot of people would rule that Blood Talons are illegal and that Eldar Vehicles can't be the target of Eldar Psychic Powers,,,,

I definitely get IC's conferring the ability on the joined unit. Most of the time that is explicitly stated. The difference I'm seeing is that those are independent characters who under their rules specifically state the ability is conferred to their unit. Snikrot is an upgrade character who is inherently part of a unit. So what is his unit? It depends. His unit can be defined as one he is purchased with. While IC's can join his unit, they are still an IC joining a unit, not unequivocally part of the unit. There are times where they are (shooting), times when can choose to be or not be (moving), and times when they are not (assault). However, when it comes to the special rules aspect, it says that a unit's special rules aren't conferred on them unless otherwise stated.

I can definitely see why you mention a technicality is a rule. I still don't think there is much of a difference between a "unit's special rule" and a "special rule the unit has via an upgraded member of the unit". That is my issue. I don't know that that is differentiated either way. I can't find mention of it. I was erring that a "special rule conferred upon the unit" is a "unit's special rule".

I can see why people don't do it this way. I don't necessarily think it's game breaking and I'm not crying about it, I just want to play in a correct and consistent way. It seems inconsistent to me.

I definately agree that it is inconsistent, and I'd like some sort of idea how to determine what special abilities ICs can and cannot get.

And I'm definately not crying about it - I play Blood Angels and Orks - two armies that seek to benefit the most from this technicality ;D

JGrand wrote:
Snikrot is an upgrade character who is inherently part of a unit. So what is his unit? It depends. His unit can be defined as one he is purchased with. While IC's can join his unit, they are still an IC joining a unit, not unequivocally part of the unit.

His unit is the unit that he is with, as defined by the rules in the BRB. Arbitrarily changing that to only include models he was purchased with and not other things that are defined as being "part of the unit" makes no sense at all.

However, when it comes to the special rules aspect, it says that a unit's special rules aren't conferred on them unless otherwise stated.

Yes, it does. It says a "unit's special rules" aren't conferred.
Ambush is not a special rule of a kommando unit with snikrot. It is not a unit special rule or unit's special rule at all. It is a special rule of Snikrot's, which has an effect on his unit.

Yes, it does. It says a "unit's special rules" aren't conferred.
Ambush is not a special rule of a kommando unit with snikrot. It is not a unit special rule at all. It is a special rule of snikrot's, which has an effect on his unit.

Hmmm, I suppose so. Again, I see where people are coming from. Ambush is not listed or worded as conferring a special rule. Neither is doc's tools. It is a units special rule, but I suppose it isn't listed under the "units special rules" in the entry. Very tricky.

I have no problems with these things happening, it just seemed (and still seems) wrong from a wording standpoint.