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.

Unit1126PLL wrote:

nkelsch wrote:

Ostrakon wrote:
- Are counted as friendly units for the targeting of psychic powers, abilities, and so on. [emphasis mine]

I don't see how a Special Characters Special rules don't fall under this... And if someone is going to play the 'abilities are not defined' then neither is 'army' and neither is ' army creation phase' or any of the other BS used to justify something that is pretty clear.

'So on' seems to make it pretty clear that non-battle bros simply don't share rules period... Army creation phase is a new one though.

Thank goodness the Good Doctor doesn't need to target something or your objection might actually be relevant.

And thank goodness the Good Doctor doesn't say "friendly units" in the rule - it could work on Enemy units if they happened to be in the same army!

Please provide the page number definition for 'target' because applying a special rule does seem that it would be the 'target' of that special rule. And since you are using common-man definitions of 'units in your army' to apply to everything then it is fair to use common-man definitions of 'target' since it doesn't have a in-game legal definition.

It doesn't have to say friendly units... you are using hard definitions for 'friendly units' but flying fast and loose with target and units in the army... Terms which have no 'in game' definition.

nkelsch wrote:

Unit1126PLL wrote:

nkelsch wrote:

Ostrakon wrote:
- Are counted as friendly units for the targeting of psychic powers, abilities, and so on. [emphasis mine]

I don't see how a Special Characters Special rules don't fall under this... And if someone is going to play the 'abilities are not defined' then neither is 'army' and neither is ' army creation phase' or any of the other BS used to justify something that is pretty clear.

'So on' seems to make it pretty clear that non-battle bros simply don't share rules period... Army creation phase is a new one though.

Thank goodness the Good Doctor doesn't need to target something or your objection might actually be relevant.

And thank goodness the Good Doctor doesn't say "friendly units" in the rule - it could work on Enemy units if they happened to be in the same army!

Please provide the page number definition for 'target' because applying a special rule does seem that it would be the 'target' of that special rule. And since you are using common-man definitions of 'units in your army' to apply to everything then it is fair to use common-man definitions of 'target' since it doesn't have a in-game legal definition.

It doesn't have to say friendly units... you are using hard definitions for 'friendly units' but flying fast and loose with target and units in the army... Terms which have no 'in game' definition.

Target - verb: Select as an object of attention or attack.

I think that applying the verb "target" to something as generic as "any unit" is mistaken. In fact, since any includes every, then it isn't a target. For example:

If I said: anyone around me may choose to eat bread, have I targeted anyone to eat bread?

EDIT: I don't think I'm playing fast and loose with any definition. I think you are, in fact, should you choose to claim that this is a targeted ability.

Take the rule literally "any unit in an army including Grotsnik may upgrade its members to have cybork bodies for [REDACTED] per model."

It means several things:

In apocalypse, this could be an army of 100,000 guardsmen paying 500,000 points for the invuln, or it could be a single Heirophant Bio-Titan paying 5. Grotsnik need not even be "leading" the army.

In regular 40k, the allies could be Guard, Tau, Eldar, Grey Knights, Russians, or Soviet Tank Units - the army includes grotsnik, so they may upgrade their members to have cybork bodies.

Drunkspleen wrote:

Ratbarf wrote:I would say yes, but likewise you could call WYSIWYG if he decided to pull this on you, and it's highly unlikely that he would actually have it modelled that way.

Similarly a Space Marine Captain on a Bike should make all Blood Angels bike squads troop choices.

Incorrect, Blood Angels get the "Bike Squad" unit, Space Marines get the "Space Marine Bike Squad" unit, the captain's special rule only applies to the latter of the two.

edit: Or did you mean it SHOULD, but doesn't?

Ah, I don't own nor have I read the Blood Angels rule book, I thought the wording was the same. Which if it was would make the thing totally legal.

You know I really want to make cybork Wraithlords now.

Unit1126PLL wrote:

Target - verb: Select as an object of attention or attack.

I think that applying the verb "target" to something as generic as "any unit" is mistaken. In fact, since any includes every, then it isn't a target. For example:

If I said: anyone around me may choose to eat bread, have I targeted anyone to eat bread?

EDIT: I don't think I'm playing fast and loose with any definition. I think you are, in fact, should you choose to claim that this is a targeted ability.

Take the rule literally "any unit in an army including Grotsnik may upgrade its members to have cybork bodies for [REDACTED] per model."

It means several things:

In apocalypse, this could be an army of 100,000 guardsmen paying 500,000 points for the invuln, or it could be a single Heirophant Bio-Titan paying 5. Grotsnik need not even be "leading" the army.

In regular 40k, the allies could be Guard, Tau, Eldar, Grey Knights, Russians, or Soviet Tank Units - the army includes grotsnik, so they may upgrade their members to have cybork bodies.

Diagree... You can't claim his special rule is not an 'ability' and then claim that when an ability specifies a group of models to be impacted they are not the 'target' of the ability.

And then claim somehow armies that include him get to use his ability ont heir units without it being an ability or targeting them.

Good job failing at YMTC by pulling dictionary definitions... If giving a unit CYBORK bodies is not giving it attention, i don't know what is.

nkelsch wrote:

Diagree... You can't claim his special rule is not an 'ability' and then claim that when an ability specifies a group of models to be impacted they are not the 'target' of the ability.

And then claim somehow armies that include him get to use his ability ont heir units without it being an ability or targeting them.

Good job failing at YMTC by pulling dictionary definitions... If giving a unit CYBORK bodies is not giving it attention, i don't know what is.

Disagree. This is clearly a case of a more specific rule overriding a general rule. How much more general can you get than when you put "ETC" in the sentence.

And as codex trumps rule book.

Mad dok specifically says he can do it, ergo he can. Mad dok is given permission to upgrade any unit he's in the same army as.

insaniak wrote:jwolf, I suspect you have misremembered the Mad Dok's rules. He can upgrade any unit, not just his own.

And so I have! Well, then, Cybork Sanguinary Guard it is! Have to love the modeling potential there.

sirlynchmob wrote:

nkelsch wrote:

Diagree... You can't claim his special rule is not an 'ability' and then claim that when an ability specifies a group of models to be impacted they are not the 'target' of the ability.

And then claim somehow armies that include him get to use his ability ont heir units without it being an ability or targeting them.

Good job failing at YMTC by pulling dictionary definitions... If giving a unit CYBORK bodies is not giving it attention, i don't know what is.

Disagree. This is clearly a case of a more specific rule overriding a general rule. How much more general can you get than when you put "ETC" in the sentence.

And as codex trumps rule book.

Mad dok specifically says he can do it, ergo he can. Mad dok is given permission to upgrade any unit he's in the same army as.

No it isn't. It is not more specific. One restricts everything from non-battle brothers... For Mad Dok's rule to be more specific, it would need to specify that it includes all allies, including allies of convenience and unholly alliances... That is more specific. Codex doesn't remove all rulebook rules... only when more specific which Mad Dok's 4th edition rule is not more specific.

sirlynchmob wrote:

nkelsch wrote:

Diagree... You can't claim his special rule is not an 'ability' and then claim that when an ability specifies a group of models to be impacted they are not the 'target' of the ability.

And then claim somehow armies that include him get to use his ability ont heir units without it being an ability or targeting them.

Good job failing at YMTC by pulling dictionary definitions... If giving a unit CYBORK bodies is not giving it attention, i don't know what is.

Disagree. This is clearly a case of a more specific rule overriding a general rule. How much more general can you get than when you put "ETC" in the sentence.

And as codex trumps rule book.

Mad dok specifically says he can do it, ergo he can. Mad dok is given permission to upgrade any unit he's in the same army as.

By this logic, if you play at least 750 pts and take BT as allies you MUST use an Emperor's Champion.

I was under the impression that targeting something was checking line of site in range and what not.

Actually in game term and all.

Now grotsnik does not Target things when he upgrades to say he is ....well absurd.

So by raw cybork for everyone. Also sanguine priest and all ba hate orks. As do bt and sob.

THE_GODLYNESS wrote:I was under the impression that targeting something was checking line of site in range and what not.

You choose a target when you shoot at them, yes.

But that doesn't mean that using an ability on a unit isn't targeting them with that ability.



Frankly, I'm not seeing any rules basis for allowing this, and if GW do address it I very much doubt it will be to allow it.

Happyjew wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

nkelsch wrote:

Diagree... You can't claim his special rule is not an 'ability' and then claim that when an ability specifies a group of models to be impacted they are not the 'target' of the ability.

And then claim somehow armies that include him get to use his ability ont heir units without it being an ability or targeting them.

Good job failing at YMTC by pulling dictionary definitions... If giving a unit CYBORK bodies is not giving it attention, i don't know what is.

Disagree. This is clearly a case of a more specific rule overriding a general rule. How much more general can you get than when you put "ETC" in the sentence.

And as codex trumps rule book.

Mad dok specifically says he can do it, ergo he can. Mad dok is given permission to upgrade any unit he's in the same army as.

By this logic, if you play at least 750 pts and take BT as allies you MUST use an Emperor's Champion.

I was under the impression that you DID have to bring an EC for a detachment over 750 points!

You have to bring an EC for a Black Templars army of more than 750 points.

A Blood Angels army with Black Templar allies is not a Black Templars army.

insaniak wrote:

THE_GODLYNESS wrote:I was under the impression that targeting something was checking line of site in range and what not.

You choose a target when you shoot at them, yes.

But that doesn't mean that using an ability on a unit isn't targeting them with that ability.



Frankly, I'm not seeing any rules basis for allowing this, and if GW do address it I very much doubt it will be to allow it.

Well, grotznik says that he can cybork all units in the army. There's a permission.

There is no rule prohibiting from doing it enemy units in your army.

There's your rules basis.

insaniak wrote:

THE_GODLYNESS wrote:I was under the impression that targeting something was checking line of site in range and what not.

You choose a target when you shoot at them, yes.

But that doesn't mean that using an ability on a unit isn't targeting them with that ability.



Frankly, I'm not seeing any rules basis for allowing this, and if GW do address it I very much doubt it will be to allow it.

I'm going to have to disagree here, as this is an inference with little basis in the written rules.

'Target' is a word used in the BRB only to describe the recipient of attacks (shooting, charges), and in some cases to determine the benefits of psychic abilities (most blessings and maledictions target a unit, IIRC).

Now, in some cases, there's some "choose a friendly unit you control to gain these benefits this turn", that I believe would count as 'targeting' as far as the battle brothers rules are concerned.

Grotsnik doesn't really fall in this category. It's nuts and I don't like it but RAW his ability is more or less a wargear upgrade to any unit in an army that contains him. There is absolutely no basis that suggests that this is somehow a targeted ability. You can't 'target' an entire army.

Ostrakon wrote: You can't 'target' an entire army.

Really? page number please? Please show me the maximum scope of 'target' as defined in the rules.

You can't fly fast and loose with some definitions then run RAW...

I still say 'army wide' is general and 'allies' is a subset of army which makes it more specific.

Which means Grotsnik's entire army ability is more general than the more restrictive and specific 'except Allies of convenience and unholy alliances'

nkelsch wrote:

Ostrakon wrote: You can't 'target' an entire army.

Really? page number please? Please show me the maximum scope of 'target' as defined in the rules.

You can't fly fast and loose with some definitions then run RAW...

I still say 'army wide' is general and 'allies' is a subset of army which makes it more specific.

Which means Grotsnik's entire army ability is more general than the more restrictive and specific 'except Allies of convenience and unholy alliances'

Please quote the rule that explicitly says that abilities in your many detachment can not affect your allies of convenience.

My view (RAI), "army" means FOC. To be clear, I don't have any support for that view. To me, it 'just makes sense'.

RAW... I don't know. The rule doesn't say 'friendly unit' so the language in the allies rules doesn't seem like it applies.

Grotsnik doesn't target 'friendly units'

5 points for a 5+ invuln is a bargain for some books

Jidmah wrote:

Please quote the rule that explicitly says that abilities in your many detachment can not affect your allies of convenience.

page 112.

Battle brothers only for abilities... People claim that rule doesn't apply because it only impacts 'targets' of abilities. They claim MAd Dok's ability has not argets.

I still can't see how it works.

jcress410 wrote:My view (RAI), "army" means FOC. To be clear, I don't have any support for that view. To me, it 'just makes sense'.

RAW... I don't know. The rule doesn't say 'friendly unit' so the language in the allies rules doesn't seem like it applies.

Grotsnik doesn't target 'friendly units'

5 points for a 5+ invuln is a bargain for some books

Your army is the army you bring to the table, pg 109 BRB "your army can include one allied ..." So that would indicate your army is your main FOC and your allied FOC together. Basically your list = your army.

its slightly more that just 5 points though a model, if you're taking orks as a ally then you need the dok, a unit of probably boys, then all the upgrade points. If your already running orks, then your still looking at the doc as a HQ, then the upgrades.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nkelsch wrote:

Jidmah wrote:

Please quote the rule that explicitly says that abilities in your many detachment can not affect your allies of convenience.

page 112.

Battle brothers only for abilities... People claim that rule doesn't apply because it only impacts 'targets' of abilities. They claim MAd Dok's ability has not argets.

I still can't see how it works.

That's the general rule, Mad dok is given permission to upgrade any unit in his army (specific & codex).

Yeah, sirlynchmob, that's right.

So who would want the doc as an ally then? Tau?

I'm going to take dark eldar razorwing flocks and give them all 5+ invuln? lol 5 wound models with 5+ invuln? With 6 rending attacks on the charge?

Isn't this the same old argument about the good Dok giving cyborks to Kans/Dread/Vehicles?

Of course not whembly. That was about giving vehicles cybork bodies. This is about giving your allies cybORK bodies.

jk, it is a similar argument.

Mad dok can not modify allies, he is too busy looking for his lost scalpel.

tgf wrote:Mad dok can not modify allies, he is too busy looking for his lost scalpel.

No, see this is how he gets allies that will listen to him. They kill a bunch of, lets say Guard, loot their stuff, then the dok takes out the brains of the punnie hummies and puts in Grot brains. Grot brains are small enough to fit in hummie bodies. grots also know enough to listen to da orks. And sometimes he needs to put in a bit more hardware to get those hummies to get them back on their feet. Walla 5++ for allies

So for some fun with modeling just cut the heads off your allied unit, then put on the ork cybork heads, or just some grot heads with some extra bits here or there. maybe replace a leg with a peg leg.

sirlynchmob wrote:Maybe replace a leg with a peg leg.

Yar?

nkelsch wrote:

Jidmah wrote:

Please quote the rule that explicitly says that abilities in your many detachment can not affect your allies of convenience.

page 112.

Battle brothers only for abilities... People claim that rule doesn't apply because it only impacts 'targets' of abilities. They claim MAd Dok's ability has not argets.

I still can't see how it works.

That's not a quote.

Hey, 6th edition is more cinematic, and well also on pg 112 there is a little box about "Forging a Narrative". Come up with a good story about why your Allies of Convenience/Desperate Allies have cybork bodies and I would allow it.

After all, we all really know deep down in our guts that 40k is not made to be a competitive game. Its a hobby, and if my opponent takes the time and money to model up some cool looking cybork'ed allies, why not let them play with them?

If its a problem, and becomes non-fun issue, talk to them and say, hey your cybork'ed allies are just non-fun so you need to stop it (and then optionally hit them over the nose with a newspaper/codex)

While your opinion is appreciated you are missing two things:

1) There are WH40k tournaments with prices. So even if it is not meant to be played competitively(which is just a lazy excuse for bad balancing imo), people do play it competitively. In that case "you're no fun" is not going to help anyone.

2) Most people arguing here would still not use that rule without asking their opponent first. Also see the rules of this forum about RAW vs "How would you play it?".

Well lets see here. Doc sets up a tent in his little orky town and some eldar wraith walk in. The DOC LOSES IT. HE MUST OPERATE. The wraith are retrofitted to be robust speed gas spewing monsters and the Doc sings and dances about his work. Honestly, i am not seeing a issue. Raw it works legally and everything - how would i play it? - same as raw.

Jidmah wrote:While your opinion is appreciated you are missing two things:

1) There are WH40k tournaments with prices. So even if it is not meant to be played competitively(which is just a lazy excuse for bad balancing imo), people do play it competitively. In that case "you're no fun" is not going to help anyone.

Then possibly the most correct answer for the OP's question is bring at least two lists to play at a tournament, make your argument to the TO's and see how they rule. It won't matter what people say on an internet forum (it may help you form your argument to the TO), the TO may or may not read this forum and may or may not agree with the argument for or against. Until the rule is FAQ'ed or otherwise dealt with in official manner by the company who makes the rules, there is the wiggle room of a TO not agreeing with any argument.

2) Most people arguing here would still not use that rule without asking their opponent first. Also see the rules of this forum about RAW vs "How would you play it?".

This is the difficulty of trying to relate a codex that was written, what 5+ years ago, to a new edition and the game company not addressing it in a FAQ.

The "ability" in question is not a special rule, its a wargear option upgrade. Any unit in the army can "upgrade" something that is in the Ork Wargear section, therefore it is war gear. Since Allies of Convenience and/or Desperate Allies are treated at enemy units, enemy units cannot use your armies wargear you cannot spend the points to upgrade your enemy unit allies even at the building stage, because they are still considered enemy units.

Now, lets argue the other side of the coin. The "ability" in question is not a special rule, its a war gear option upgrade. Even though the Allies of Convenience and/or Desperate Allies are treated as enemy units, Mad Dok Grotsink's Army List entry says specifically that "Any unit in an army including Grotsnik may upgrade its members...". And yes, this goes back to the Kans and Dreads being upgraded argument, but I do assume that one is not trying to upgrade a walker/vechicle, and its trying to upgrade another unit type (infantry, jump pack infantry, etc). The codex would trump the BRB in this case, because even though the allies are treated as enemy units, they are still a unit in the army when you create the army.


So either agree with your friends how to play it, or bring two lists (or the same list and switch the points around to another unit, or buy something else with those other +5 points per model) and roll a d6 to decide how to play it every time you decide to play, until someone agrees with you how it should be played.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

cormadepanda wrote:Well lets see here. Doc sets up a tent in his little orky town and some eldar wraith walk in. The DOC LOSES IT. HE MUST OPERATE. The wraith are retrofitted to be robust speed gas spewing monsters and the Doc sings and dances about his work. Honestly, i am not seeing a issue. Raw it works legally and everything - how would i play it? - same as raw.

Well of course because the Eldar Wraith is still considered an enemy model and he must move closer, since its not possible for him to assault it, HE MUST OPERATE on it.

But thats another topic, if Grotsnik must move to your Ally of Convenience and/or Desperate Ally if they are the closest enemy model. We know he cannot assault said ally unit, because its not possible to do so. But you may be able to kite Grotsink around until you want to unleash him somewhere specific.