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.

LordWaffles statement is entirely correct: If you insist on ignoring the language used in order to take an incorrect interpretation of the rules, then you are cheating. You might be cheating deliberately, or through ignorance, but the end result is still cheating.

As for the "best and brightest minds Dakka has to offer," this is not a Nobel Peace prize speech, so let's leave the high and mighty praise out of the discussion. While I'm sure they spent a great deal of time writing the FAQ, they are not GW and their answers are no more official than any other house ruling committee. Being on the ruling council here at Dakka also does nothing to denote whether someone is more intelligent than another member.

Until such a time when all of my points can be refuted (which they have not been, despite the claims of some), I will let my argument sit and speak for itself.

So by your own words, you views on it have no more bearing than anybody elses.

You also go to say that it does nothing to denote wether someone is more intelligent than another member, yet your agruements repeditely state that others are below your understanding of the English language.

This argument seems rather astonishing to me: the rule on page 48 is quite simple, that in order for an IC to benefit from a "special rule" of a joined unit, said rule must explicitly state that it applies to attached characters. Trek has pointed this out several times, and I can scarcely blame him for becoming a bit peeved by the nature of the counter-argument... which seems to boil down to "disregard the rule on page 48 when special rules are derived from gear".

Disturbingly, both sides a right: The main rule book supports Trekari, while it is increasingly clear that the various Codecii have been written with a "loose" grasp of the rules ("loose" here being used in the same fashion that "Unhealthy" might be used to describe the condition of a syphilitic leper).

For example, consider the "Squad Icons" under "Icons of Chaos", page 81, Chaos Space Marines Codex: the Icons of Khorne, Nurgle, Slaanesh and Tzeentch all include the specific disclaimer "All models in the unit, except independent characters joining the unit". Why? The p.48 rule clearly indicates an IC wouldn't receive a "special rule" (as Marks of Chaos appear to be) in the first place, why include a disclaimer unless the author believed the opposite?

Contrariwise, for those advancing the 'wargear trumps p.48' position, what in the main rulebook reasonably leads to this conclusion?

I Think Trek and Buzzsaw have this right.

as for best and brightest... thats a big claim.

Trekari wrote:LordWaffles statement is entirely correct: If you insist on ignoring the language used in order to take an incorrect interpretation of the rules, then you are cheating. You might be cheating deliberately, or through ignorance, but the end result is still cheating.

As for the "best and brightest minds Dakka has to offer," this is not a Nobel Peace prize speech, so let's leave the high and mighty praise out of the discussion. While I'm sure they spent a great deal of time writing the FAQ, they are not GW and their answers are no more official than any other house ruling committee. Being on the ruling council here at Dakka also does nothing to denote whether someone is more intelligent than another member.

Until such a time when all of my points can be refuted (which they have not been, despite the claims of some), I will let my argument sit and speak for itself.

Trekari,
Your argument is simple. You hold that "his unit" is not compelling language to confer FNP. That's it. There's nothing more to your argument than your opinion that the language is not compelling. You can dress it up in tortuous reasoning and insults about reading comprehension but your argument is simple. The vast majority of people find that "his unit" is compelling; you (oh, and buzzsaw and frig) do not. You are indeed correct that stubbornness is an irrefutable position.

Here's what I propose. A simple wager. If an official GW FAQ is published that states that either Mad Doc Grotsnik confers FNP to a unit or a Painboy confers FNP to an attached IC you buy me an army strike force of my choice. If the FAQ is in your favor then I buy you an army strike force. Your arrogance in this thread has been remarkable and I'm offering you a chance to put your dakka where your mouth is.

enmitee wrote:
on a tournament scene, it matters, but prolly you dont. so dont bother arguing if your stuck playing house rule games

Was that another personal attack without merit? Wow. No wonder Trekari has felt the need to subdue most of his english to barter words with you.

In either case, it seems that my bluff has been called by someone with an inaccurate grasp of the rules. So after I, Trekari, or someone else prove you incorrect on this, what exactly will you do? Just yell that you call my bluff and storm out? Mark my sportsmanship as a big ol' goose egg? Feel free.

And the ork army is already a pretty talentless win, as is chaos. The list practically writes itself and playing it is just: move squads into things you don't like. I'm unsure how you can really be considered a gamer when all you're practicing is 'mimicry'.

yea... thats why I haven't been playing orks recently....

However. I think its time this thread became locked.

Buzzsaw does make a good point. Some wargear makes a point of stating that ICs won't get the benefits. Either the authors never heard of pg 48 or they believe the wargear in a Codex normally overrides the main rulebook. Well, we all know that GW copy-pastes entire sections of text without regard for changing editions or new codexes.

A little question though... Pg 48 only says an IC joining a unit won't get the unit's special rules. What happens when an IC that grants special stuff joins a unit with another IC already attached (or just joins another IC)?

olympia wrote:Trekari,
Your argument is simple. You hold that "his unit" is not compelling language to confer FNP. That's it. There's nothing more to your argument than your opinion that the language is not compelling. You can dress it up in tortuous reasoning and insults about reading comprehension but your argument is simple. The vast majority of people find that "his unit" is compelling; you (oh, and buzzsaw and frig) do not. You are indeed correct that stubbornness is an irrefutable position.

Interesting argument... I had not considered the merits of the consensus argument, having momentarily forgotten the guiding principle that the truth is what most people agree it to be. Oh, wait a minute...

So, having found that the phrase "his unit" satisfies the requirement for the p.48 rule for "specified in the rule itself (as in the "stubborn" special rule)", can you show the point contrariwise? That is, can you provide an example of a peice of wargear that provided the benefits of a special rule to a unit that would not also meet the standard you have set with the "his unit" wording?

Since I have already provided you with an example, no points for effort there: Icons of Chaos: Squad Icons. The rules for these pieces of wargear explicitly exempt attached ICs from the squad's special rules; as I have pointed out, it is clear that the authors of these Chaos Codex rules were operating under an understanding of the IC-squad special rule interaction opposite to the clear language of the rule as presented on p.48.

As for stubbornness, are you seriously claiming that there is no conflict between the p.48 rule and the rule at issue? That "his unit" is truly sufficiently specific to satisfy? I fear you may find that denial ain't just a river in Egypt...

olympia wrote:Here's what I propose. A simple wager. If an official GW FAQ is published that states that either Mad Doc Grotsnik confers FNP to a unit or a Painboy confers FNP to an attached IC you buy me an army strike force of my choice. If the FAQ is in your favor then I buy you an army strike force. Your arrogance in this thread has been remarkable and I'm offering you a chance to put your dakka where your mouth is.

Provocative... so, having proposed that the problem here is a disconnect between the main rule authors and Codex authors, a melange of misunderstand/could not predict/bad editing/poor QC on the part of GW, you now would ask that Trek wager on GW being able to produce a FAQ actually representative of their rules? Not at all unreasonable, given the sterling understanding of the rules their judges and previous FAQs have evidenced...

olympia wrote:Trekari,
Your argument is simple. You hold that "his unit" is not compelling language to confer FNP. That's it. There's nothing more to your argument than your opinion that the language is not compelling. You can dress it up in tortuous reasoning and insults about reading comprehension but your argument is simple. The vast majority of people find that "his unit" is compelling; you (oh, and buzzsaw and frig) do not. You are indeed correct that stubbornness is an irrefutable position.

Here's what I propose. A simple wager. If an official GW FAQ is published that states that either Mad Doc Grotsnik confers FNP to a unit or a Painboy confers FNP to an attached IC you buy me an army strike force of my choice. If the FAQ is in your favor then I buy you an army strike force. Your arrogance in this thread has been remarkable and I'm offering you a chance to put your dakka where your mouth is.

With all due respect, that is not the entirety of my argument in any way, shape or form. On page 11, I posted a step-by-step list of what my argument consists of. Please do visit that post and read for yourself every argument I've listed out.

As for the "vast majority" of people believing that is compelling terminology, I once again ask for proof of any claim. I highly doubt you have a poll with every 40k members input to provide, so let's just drop the whole "everyone agrees with me" attitude since it cannot be proven by either side.

As for the statement that "his unit" is specific enough: no, I do not think it meets the phrasing of the example given, or other special rules, by any stretch of the imagination. Something that a dozen posters have yet to comment on (because it destroys their argument), is this simple question:

If "his unit" has two valid definitions, one being in the back of the Codex under "Unit Composition" and the other being that same listing, but with an attached IC, how can that possibly be specific?

When you get past that point, I'd ask for you to look at the example given for pg. 48, along with the other half-dozen examples of other special rules that I've mentioned, and honestly compare the wording between "his unit" and those rules. "His unit" doesn't even come close to the level that GW has set up (through their own example) of what "specified in the rule itself" is supposed to resemble.

As for your wager - if you think I'm stupid enough to bet money on GAMES WORKSHOP of all companies writing a rule clarification, then why do you even care what I think? I'd sooner bet money that Obama is actually going to do a single positive thing for this country, than place bets on GW rule-writers. I thought that GW's incompetence was the one thing that EVERYONE in the YMDC forum can agree on.

InquisitorFabius:

I said that being on the rules council here does nothing to determine whether someone is more intelligent than another member. Pointing out comprehension issues however, does lend something to the discussion. I cannot change whether members that I interact with are capable of critical reading or not, but I can do my best to point out the language involved when they are obviously overlooking it, or ignorant of the English language itself. Note that I don't find being ignorant to necessarily mean that someone is an idiot, however when the language is clarified and someone spends their time to explain why the language means what it does, and the only argument they get in return is "but you're wrong..." Well, forgive me for being short and condescending at that point.

If this thread is to be locked, that is fine with me. I've done everything I can to explain the language involved, along with every relevant rule, to support and prove my position on this issue. There is nothing more I can do, short of dragging some people in front of an English professor, to explain to my opposition where they are wrong.

The ONLY rebuttal I've received on this issue has been "you're wrong" and "pg. 48 doesn't apply to wargear special rules." Stating simply that I am wrong is a laughable position to take during a debate without any evidence to support it, and nobody has been able to prove that the language on pg. 48 is meant to apply only to specific types or sources of special rules, whereas I have provided evidence that it applies to any and all sources based on the language involved. Going further than that, i've shown where "his unit" is not specific, and thus cannot possibly be construed to sufficiently meet the definition of "specified in the rule itself." Lastly I have shown that even wargear is specific when it is meant to convey a bonus of any kind to a unit other than the one who purchased and/or carries it.

As far as debating goes, my evidence carries a LOT more weight than someone saying I'm wrong without a shred of evidence to support their position.

Merry Christmas.

Two definitions? Last time it was at least 5.

What you keep listing are the various models that can make up a unit. But what your implying is that an IC joined to a unit is somehow a different kind of unit, but can you point to a rule that supports this stance or is it opinion?

Trekari wrote:I've done everything I can to explain the language involved, along with every relevant rule, to support and prove my position on this issue. There is nothing more I can do, short of dragging some people in front of an English professor, to explain to my opposition where they are wrong.

Do forgive me for being an ass, but GW writing has never been much to cheer for in the proper English departement either. I've even had a teacher in English explain why the text about Dark Eldar Combat Drugs means every single Wych in a squad gets the effects of a Succubus buying a Drug Dispenser. And yet that teacher (and the Deldar player, and the Redshirts) couldn't drag up the rulebook entry for actually using the dispenser in a squad.

The problem is GW copy-pasting stuff instead of actually checking what they'd need to update.

Frenzy, it doesn't surprise me anymore that you don't understand the rules in the BRB, seeing as how you don't even read my own posts with adequate comprehension.

Earlier you asked about the definition of "unit" and I gave some to you.

Now you question my definitions of "his unit" and appear to be asking me to make YOUR point for you? Christ dude, pay attention.

"his unit" = what is listed in the back under Unit Composition. That is part of my argument.

"his unit" = what is listed in the back under Unit Composition, along with attached ICs. That is YOUR argument. I'm not going to make your argument for you, as I've already explained a multitude of times why your argument falls on its face.

You keep complaining that my argument consists of my being able to read and interpret the language better, yet time and time again you prove that you do in fact have some issues with understanding sentences.

Spetulhu -

Earlier you asked a question about IC's joining a unit that already has an attached IC. I can't give you a "best practices" answer that does not involve at least SOME substitution of words. In practice, RAW, there would generally be no conferred of IC special rules to other ICs, because most of them do not mention 'characters who have this confer it to other characters' or something similar. However I believe if you substitute ONE of the characters into "unit" and look at the special rules, you will find the sequence necessary to figure out who gets what.

Make no mistake though, IC's joining other ICs gets ugly, quick. My bottom line would be that if an IC would normally give it to a "unit they join," that they would give it to an IC, as that is a type of unit.

As for GW not always being the best: I agree. However we cannot simply assume that they are wrong and go about with a wicked smile on our face re-writing all the rules we disagree with. That is a very poor assumption. In some cases where a given rule has absolutely no use without errata to change the wording a bit, such as Shrike's "See, But Remain Unseen" special rule.

That special rule, absolutely requires errata to change it to proper, pg. 48-abiding structure. There is no way that ability works at all, unless it is meant to confer to units he attaches to. Now, whether that is meant to apply to ICs he attaches to is anyone's guess.

Trekari wrote:Make no mistake though, IC's joining other ICs gets ugly, quick. My bottom line would be that if an IC would normally give it to a "unit they join," that they would give it to an IC, as that is a type of unit.

Yes, and this is where I think the rules writers had a break-down. There's a line in pg 48 copied straight from the previous edition and no thought as to how that will work with the new version of other rules. If an IC would normally give it to a lone IC they join... why would it suddenly not apply to an IC in a larger unit they join? It just doesn't make sense even if there's a rule to point out.

I've got a suspicion that medi-packs were changed to FNP for a single unit not in order to nerf ICs but in order to kick down the traited marine armies that massed hard-hitting elite units around a couple of command squads with apothecaries. Unfortunately no one remembered the rules for characters and USRs. I'll offer to dice it off with my group if there's a problem - just can't stand spending three hours debating rules when we could be playing.

Since I can't sleep anyway...

here's how I'd resolve the unit + 2 ICs question:

Let's refer to the 'regular' unit as A
IC #1 is B
IC #2 is C

First, when B joins A, we simply treat the rules as normal. Hopefully this procedure is clear.

When C goes to join the combined A+B unit, we have to look at things a bit differently.

First, we'd check the A+C combo, just as we did A+B. After that is settled, we'd look at B+C, with one catch. For the moment, instead of treating B as an Independent Character, we would call B a 'unit' and apply the rules. i.e. If a special rule says an IC would normally confer the bonus to a unit he joins, then C would give it to B (as well as A, but we've already determined that). This is because an Independent Character IS a unit of one model.

Likewise, we'd check if any of B's special rules would normally confer to an Independent Character, and if so, C gets them.

Then you just switch B back to "Independent Character" and make C the "unit" and go through the process again.

Hopefully that made sense. There is however, one rather large caveat: If you ran across a special rule that actually mentioned it would confer to a unit, but would not confer to an IC, then you have a problem and would have to check the original source of the special rule to see who ended up with it after all.

If you stick to the back of the book's listing as the only definition of unit for the purpose of special rules, I think it only fair that you also draw your definitions of special rules from there. Each of your units also has a listing of what special rules it is given. This does not include abilities given by wargear. I believe that Trekari pointed out this passage as evidence that 'ability' and 'special rule' were interchangeable 'If a model with this ability suffers an unsaved wound, roll a dice.' (p75 BRB, under the FNP special rule).

Dok's tools- 'He confers the Feel No Pain ability to his unit' 'p38, Ork codex'.

This USR passage gives you clear instructions on how to handle a unit with the FNP ability or special rule. Page 48 would not apply from a strict reading, as this is not a special rule of the unit.

I can think of no unit special rule that can be lost by taking one casualty. An Ork has Mob Rule up until the last model dies. The last Space Marine standing has 'And they shall know no fear'. This is even true of Space Marine special characters despite the obvious grammar error of applying 'they' to an individual. Plague Marines possess FNP until the last bloated pusbag bites the bullet. If Nobs had FNP, then the loss of a Painboy would not take that USR from them. Short of destroying a unit, the rulebook provides no way for a unit to lose a unit special rule.

When one model gives a rule or ability to a unit, we should not be confused and decide that the rule is now a unit rule. The unit is simply under the influence of a model's rule, which can be lost if the model dies. These examples were listed by Moz when he started this thread, before it dissolved into bickering over definitions and splitting hairs. This is only an interpretation of a gray area. Trekari is quite correct, anything short of a published FAQ is nothing but an interpretation of a gray area. There's no sense in getting upset because someone disagrees with you, or belittling them. Hopefully anyone still debating this topic is interested in pursuing the truth concealed by GW's awkward wording and slippery synonyms. The idea of 'winning' this argument must have evaporated 5 or 6 pages ago.

Gitzbitah wrote:If you stick to the back of the book's listing as the only definition of unit for the purpose of special rules, I think it only fair that you also draw your definitions of special rules from there. Each of your units also has a listing of what special rules it is given. This does not include abilities given by wargear. I believe that Trekari pointed out this passage as evidence that 'ability' and 'special rule' were interchangeable 'If a model with this ability suffers an unsaved wound, roll a dice.' (p75 BRB, under the FNP special rule).

I brought this up because people were arguing that only the special rules listed in the back of the Codex were valid for pg. 48, a limitation which pg. 48 does not imply in any way, shape or form. It was my point that if they were going to use the back of the Codex to apply an unwritten restriction on what constituted one of the unit's special rules, then they should also use the back of the book for what defined members of "his unit." The old, "whats good for the goose..." argument. Of course, nobody wanted to apply the back of the book in that circumstance, because it wouldn't do their argument any favors. Selectively applying rules is not how you play a game.

Dok's tools- 'He confers the Feel No Pain ability to his unit' 'p38, Ork codex'.

This USR passage gives you clear instructions on how to handle a unit with the FNP ability or special rule. Page 48 would not apply from a strict reading, as this is not a special rule of the unit.

But the unit does have FNP while the Painboy/Apothecary is alive, and thus via the English language, it is one of the unit's special rules.

I can think of no unit special rule that can be lost by taking one casualty. An Ork has Mob Rule up until the last model dies. The last Space Marine standing has 'And they shall know no fear'. This is even true of Space Marine special characters despite the obvious grammar error of applying 'they' to an individual. Plague Marines possess FNP until the last bloated pusbag bites the bullet. If Nobs had FNP, then the loss of a Painboy would not take that USR from them. Short of destroying a unit, the rulebook provides no way for a unit to lose a unit special rule.

If my Interrogator-Chaplain dies, he, and the unit he was attached to, loses the Litanies of Hate special rule. (Dark Angels) He's not immune to Instant Death, so even a single unsaved wound can kill him and take away a special rule. The 5th ed. SM Codex Apothecary is another example - while he is alive the unit has FNP, but when he dies, it goes away. Upgrade characters are another example, if Snikrot dies, then the Ambush special rule is taken away from the unit as well. Your argument is based on the idea that only the special rules listed in the back of the Codex are "unit special rules," and yet the language on pg. 48 disagrees with you. There is no such thing as a Unit Special Rule, only special rules which the unit has.

When one model gives a rule or ability to a unit, we should not be confused and decide that the rule is now a unit rule. The unit is simply under the influence of a model's rule, which can be lost if the model dies. These examples were listed by Moz when he started this thread, before it dissolved into bickering over definitions and splitting hairs. This is only an interpretation of a gray area. Trekari is quite correct, anything short of a published FAQ is nothing but an interpretation of a gray area. There's no sense in getting upset because someone disagrees with you, or belittling them. Hopefully anyone still debating this topic is interested in pursuing the truth concealed by GW's awkward wording and slippery synonyms. The idea of 'winning' this argument must have evaporated 5 or 6 pages ago.

The rulebook makes no distinction between a special rule that is granted by any particular source, be it another model, an upgrade character, a piece of wargear, etc. If a unit has a special rule, from any source, then it is one of the "unit's special rules." That isn't a proper noun depicting a certain type or source of special rule. It is a possessive noun (which in and of itself is a misnomer, because a possessive noun immediately turns into an adjective), which means "special rules a unit has, possesses, or owns." Applying a limitation based on the source goes directly against the language used.

Trekari wrote:Frenzy, it doesn't surprise me anymore that you don't understand the rules in the BRB, seeing as how you don't even read my own posts with adequate comprehension.

Earlier you asked about the definition of "unit" and I gave some to you.

Now you question my definitions of "his unit" and appear to be asking me to make YOUR point for you? Christ dude, pay attention.

"his unit" = what is listed in the back under Unit Composition. That is part of my argument.

"his unit" = what is listed in the back under Unit Composition, along with attached ICs. That is YOUR argument. I'm not going to make your argument for you, as I've already explained a multitude of times why your argument falls on its face.

You keep complaining that my argument consists of my being able to read and interpret the language better, yet time and time again you prove that you do in fact have some issues with understanding sentences.

So am I to take your personal attacks and lack of requested refrence to mean that you don't have a rule to support your stance?

Also your so cute when your angry, gimmie a kiss.

My "personal attacks" are observations of your demonstrated reading comprehension. You continue to have issues understanding simple sentences and basic (grade-school level) English. If you find it insulting that someone points this out, then perhaps you should remedy the problem by studying a bit.

For instance, now you appear to have difficulty in understanding the phrase "his unit."

It is your position, and thus your responsibility to provide evidence to support it, that "his unit" refers to the Unit Composition in the back of the Codex, along with attached ICs.

My position is that "his unit" refers to the Unit Composition listed on pg. 98 of the Ork Codex. "His" is a possessive adjective, and the unit consists of 3-10 Nobz, one of which may be a Painboy. Thus, according to the language which you have trouble grasping, "his unit" can refer to the unit which the Painboy is a part of, as listed in the Codex.

Get one of your parents to explain that to you, if you still have difficulty understanding this. I have not failed to provide evidence for any of my claims or positions. If you wish to support your position with some evidence, I would be pleasantly surprised.

**EDIT**

Let me further clarify something that you have also missed over a dozen times now. "His unit" could refer to either of those situations. It could mean just the Unit Composition in the Codex, or it could mean attached ICs as well. The part you fail to understand is that without specifics to clarify the meaning of that, you have absolutely no justification in overriding pg. 48 of the BRB. Since it could go either way, it obviously does not specify anything. As pg. 48 requires for something to be "specified in the rule itself," this does not meet the criteria both due to it's ambiguous wording, as well as not being "in the rule itself."

His unit = not specific
His unit = not in the special rule itself
Nowhere does it say wargear can override pg. 48's method or determining whether special rules of one unit are granted to an IC joining them (or vice-versa) anyway.
There is a unique game mechanic for determining whether an IC gets any of the unit's special rules upon joining them, therefore ICs are not simply considered a normal member of a unit for the purpose of special rules. If they were just normal members, then there would be no reason for the procedure and restrictions on pg. 48.

Do you get it yet? Come back with evidence to support your own position, or admit that your opinion is only partially supported by "his unit" and is completely unsupported by the rest of the rules and that you have no evidence to prove otherwise.

Trekari wrote:My "personal attacks" are observations of your demonstrated reading comprehension. You continue to have issues understanding simple sentences and basic (grade-school level) English. If you find it insulting that someone points this out, then perhaps you should remedy the problem by studying a bit.

For instance, now you appear to have difficulty in understanding the phrase "his unit."

It is your position, and thus your responsibility to provide evidence to support it, that "his unit" refers to the Unit Composition in the back of the Codex, along with attached ICs.

My position is that "his unit" refers to the Unit Composition listed on pg. 98 of the Ork Codex. "His" is a possessive adjective, and the unit consists of 3-10 Nobz, one of which may be a Painboy. Thus, according to the language which you have trouble grasping, "his unit" can refer to the unit which the Painboy is a part of, as listed in the Codex.

Get one of your parents to explain that to you, if you still have difficulty understanding this. I have not failed to provide evidence for any of my claims or positions. If you wish to support your position with some evidence, I would be pleasantly surprised.

**EDIT**

Let me further clarify something that you have also missed over a dozen times now. "His unit" could refer to either of those situations. It could mean just the Unit Composition in the Codex, or it could mean attached ICs as well. The part you fail to understand is that without specifics to clarify the meaning of that, you have absolutely no justification in overriding pg. 48 of the BRB. Since it could go either way, it obviously does not specify anything. As pg. 48 requires for something to be "specified in the rule itself," this does not meet the criteria both due to it's ambiguous wording, as well as not being "in the rule itself."

His unit = not specific
His unit = not in the special rule itself
Nowhere does it say wargear can override pg. 48's method or determining whether special rules of one unit are granted to an IC joining them (or vice-versa) anyway.
There is a unique game mechanic for determining whether an IC gets any of the unit's special rules upon joining them, therefore ICs are not simply considered a normal member of a unit for the purpose of special rules. If they were just normal members, then there would be no reason for the procedure and restrictions on pg. 48.

Do you get it yet? Come back with evidence to support your own position, or admit that your opinion is completely unsupported by evidence.

But snookums, 'his unit' can include IC's because the BRB clearly lets IC's join units. If you want to say that 'his unit' only refers to the codex entry, then you have to prove it. Remember not only is 'his' a possessive adjective, but that section in the codex is in the present tense.

This makes 'his unit' specific enough if the intention is to give anyone in the unit FNP.

PG.48 has to exist to stop people saying that IC's from getting USR's from joining units such as plague marines.

As for asking my parents, that’s not exactly possible anymore.
However if you wish to concern yourself about my level of understanding of the English language then it might be worth you considering that I’m currently undertaking my second degree, believe in Occam’s razor, and I speak real English, not your soddomised US version of my great languge.

This thread has cleared moved beyond its best served by date. Am locking.