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.

Embolden is a psychic ability, not a "unit special ability." The BRB does not (that I know of) specifically have restrictions on what psychic abilities apply to both ICs and units.

It DOES have restrictions on what unit special abilities transfer.

Furthermore, FAQs are NOT official. Errata is.

olympia wrote:

Hymirl, you will find that comparative analysis does not apply to orks. Sympathetic readings of rules are restricted only to Space Marines and Eldar. At least trek has logically arrived at the reductio ad absurdum position of denying Grotsnik grants FNP to his unit. He gets points for realizing that if he admits Grotsnik grants FNP "to his unit" he should admit that a painboy grants FNP to a warboss "in his unit."

1) Yes, I am sympathetic to the SM and Eldar only. That must explain why a) the ruling about the Eldar psychic ability is not one that I have come up with and not one I've been arguing about and b) why it is that I, as a Dark Angels player, deny myself the +1A from a Standard Bearer applying to an attached IC.

Of course, it could be that I don't add +1A for my IC because the rules don't allow it, just like the RULES don't grant FNP to a unit that Grotsnik joins.

This is not a sympathy argument, please try to keep within the rules as they are actually spelled out. GW set the standard for what is "specific" enough to give abilities back and forth between ICs and units, not I. Be pissy and sarcastic with them if you must.

After reading through this thread, a few questions to help me understand the flow of logic here.

What defines a unit's special rules? Is it the section of their entry that says "Special Rules"? Or is it any Special rule and Universal special rule the unit gains access to?

What about wargear? Is wargear a special rule, or it's own section alltogether? And if wargear confers a USR, does that become one of the unit's/IC's special rules? Does it say it becomes one of the unit's special rules?

I can agree that Snikrot wouldnt confer Ambush to another IC, due to the fact that Ambush is in his SR section and it doesnt specifically say it confers to another IC. However, if Snikrot had a piece of wargear that granted ambush with the same wording, would the same thing apply?

His unit means his unit, the unit he is in, the unit he's joined with. His unit seems pretty specific, as oppossed to "a unit"; not as specific as "his unit and anything that joins him".

pg 48 specifically states that if one of the unit's or IC's special rules didnt specifically say it affected the other then it doesnt. But I see alot of discrepancy of what constitutes the Unit's or IC's special rules in this discussion.

Also, where does it say a unit is comprised of the models that were purchased with it? Or that a unit is comprised of the composition section of their entry? If a unit takes casualties below the minimum number of models in the composition section, all models are still part of the unit right? Even though the unit changed from what's in the composition section?

I think there's alot of grey here, and unless GW clarifies in an official capacity it'll stay that way.

Trekari wrote:Embolden is a psychic ability, not a "unit special ability." The BRB does not (that I know of) specifically have restrictions on what psychic abilities apply to both ICs and units.

It DOES have restrictions on what unit special abilities transfer.

This is a distinction not supported by the rules (unless you'd like to show me the exception for 'psychic speical abilities'?). Two points for you to consider;

Firstly it is a special rule, 'psyker' is a special rule of the warlock and Embolden is an ability granting a bonus as a result of that special rule. Exactly the same as 'Doks Tools' being a special rule of the Dok and granting a bonus as a result.

Secondly you're also defined what I see as the flaw in your reasoning. 'Doks tools' (and the numerous other examples) is not a 'unit special rule' they are model special rules specific to an individual model, the effect of that rule is that it grants a bonus on other models.
There is no prohibition against individual special rules including an IC with their effects, only against 'unit speical abilities' of which 'doks tools' isn't one.

I'm sorry that you dislike having your position being pointed out as biased but regardless of which army or how you play the point is that you're not making a consistent intreptation of the rules.

Furthermore, FAQs are NOT official. Errata is.

Now you're going to attempt to claim that you are right and the entire universe is wrong? I'm trying to be respectful but from my point of view it seems that you've pre-decided what you want the rule to be and are trying to move heaven and earth to get your way.

In the old days we had Errata documents. Today we have FAQs that include Erratas.

http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/content/article.jsp?community=&catId=cat210004&categoryId=600005&pIndex=1&aId=3400019&start=2

It seems to me that the scope really needs to be stated that everyone is trying to make a stance on, and I agree with fraustdemon on not understanding. The reason that I posted the embolden example (thank you Hymirl, now I know I'm not crazy) was because the ruls as they are written look nearly identical. This is true because I was making my stance that "any" special rule is what the crux of the issue was. If the stance is going to be made that it is only USR's that are implied, then why would you not be able to use a Waaagh! banner or company standard? They are not USRs so far as I know.

To further make this a pain is that if you take the example of Cato Sicarius, I know not an ork. The wording of Battle-forged Heroes states that it is a Tac squad "including" Cato, can take the USRs listed. Why would they include Infultrate? He doesn't have it, and he has to be included, so they get it and lose it in the same instance. I made sure to check, infultrate has the "*". With this and other examples it leads me to the understanding of the wording of the rule on page 48 of the Main rule book to be all special rules that a unit has listed in the army list. Not rules that are granted. This would be along the lines of Plague Marines Feel no Pain, Genestealers fleet (hate that Broodlords don't have it), Mob rule, and the like.

This is the way the rules read to me becasue I think it is a gray area and that the other rulings by the developers set the precedance for what they wanted.

I could be wrong, it wouldn't be the first time and I'm sure not the last. But this is how I look at it.

Zero

Zero, please read this rule again. It does not say a squad including him. It says any ARMY including him may give a squad the rule. If I am misreading it could you please quote the rule for us here?

Or maybe my version of the codex is different which is possible since it is a pdf?

Also I don't think you are fully understanding the point of the *. The * indicates when both the unit AND the joined character would lose the rule. The cases here are different since only one or the other would lose it not both.

frgsinwntr wrote:Zero, please read this rule again. It does not say a squad including him. It says any ARMY including him may give a squad the rule. If I am misreading it could you please quote the rule for us here?

I've got a pdf copy as well, the rule states:

"One Tactical squad in an army that includes Sicarius can have..." pg85

Battle-forged Heroes: Sicarius is accompanied by the finest warriors that the 2nd company has to offer. One Tactical squad in an army that includes Sicarius can have one of the following special rules at no additional cost: .., Infiltrate, .., ..

Now does this mean that one squad anywhere in the army, or the one tac squad that is the finest that is accompnaying Cato? This reads to me that it is the Tac squad that he is included in. Kind of like a special squad that doesn't have to be a command squad. But hey, it's just an interpretation.

So re-reading the entry in the USR for listings with a * states that if both don't have the special rule than both lose it. Cato Sicarius doesn't have any of the USRs that are granted by Battle-forged Heroes. So infultrate would be lost by the tac squad that he gives it to if he joins them. And the way it reads to me he's joined to them to give them the rule.

I'm not trying to make this worse, I just wanted to try and show other examples of how these rules can be read and how it's important that each person decide how they are going to interpret them.

I'd say that Cato's rule doesn't necessarily have anything to do with which squad he joins, as it never specifically mentions joining or 'his unit'. Just any old Tac squad works.

If Dok Tools from Mad Dok was not meant to apply to a unit he joins, why not just write the dang rule as FNP in Mad Dok's special rules line? Instead they gave him wargear.

Homer

Arnaroe, perhaps you should read this page before telling me the difference between a FAQ and Errata.

http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/content/article.jsp;jsessionid=9CE8E2454CCD3CDD88C1C8320C15108B?community=&catId=cat210004&categoryId=600005&pIndex=0&aId=3400019&start=1

As far as 'showing' you the distinction made between psychic special rules and 'unit special rules,' you are quite obviously asking me to prove something that cannot be proven, and in result stating I'm wrong.

Of course that's another logical fallacy.

You brought up Embolden - not I.

That answer is part of a FAQ document which GW states is NOT official.

I personally am unsure if I even agree with the FAQ, given that psychic tests are taken on an individual model's LD value.

That however, is beyond the scope of this discussion.

Pg. 48 makes it stupidly clear for anyone who can comprehend basic language.

They go so far as to give us a direct example of the wording they require for it to be 'specific' enough to transfer between ICs and units.

Dok's Tools is NOT a special ability. It is a piece of wargear which causes the Painboy to confer the FNP USR to his unit. Nowhere does it even remotely reach the level of specificity needed to also give this to attached ICs.

Before you purchase a Painboy, the unit's "Special Abilities" looks like this:

Furious Charge
Mob Rule
Waaagh!

After you purchase the Painboy, the unit's special abilites looks like this:

Feel No Pain
Furious Charge
Mob Rule
Waaagh!


Regardless of what the 'correct' answer is regarding psychic abilities, FNP is quite clearly covered under the BRB pg. 48.

The only arguments presented against this is either disagreeing with "his unit" being specific enough - examples given by GW themselves show this to be absurd to disagree with, or complaining that something else similar works differently - which is so far only according to an unofficial FAQ ruling. If a permanent psychic power is supposed to fall under "units special abilities" then I would say the Farseer wouldn't get a re-roll. Again though, that is a separate argument.

This discussion is painfully clear

Homer S wrote:If Dok Tools from Mad Dok was not meant to apply to a unit he joins, why not just write the dang rule as FNP in Mad Dok's special rules line? Instead they gave him wargear.

Homer

My guess would be to come up with something that sounded "Orky." In addition, they already had to write something that would explain the Painboy upgrade-character conferring FNP to his unit.

As to the larger question of why GW doesn't just write a better set of rules that nobody could possibly argue about....*shrug* If I knew the answer to that, I'd be a millionaire.

Trekari wrote:
Dok's Tools is NOT a special ability. It is a piece of wargear which causes the Painboy to confer the FNP USR to his unit. Nowhere does it even remotely reach the level of specificity needed to also give this to attached ICs.

Before you purchase a Painboy, the unit's "Special Abilities" looks like this:

Furious Charge
Mob Rule
Waaagh!

After you purchase the Painboy, the unit's special abilites looks like this:

Feel No Pain
Furious Charge
Mob Rule
Waaagh!

Thanks for your insight. I have to ask where does it say FNP is added to the unit's special rules though?

I'll cite an example of such. Tyranid codex pg32, Feeder Tendrils: "A creature with feeder tendrils always counts as having the Preferred Enemy unit special rule."

This specifically says that it adds to the unit's special rules, whereas dok's tools do not. This leads me to believe that any options that add USR's do not necessarily add to the unit's special rules, bypassing the pg 48 Special Rules section (which, in this case, would apply to anything under the "Special Rules" section of the unit's entry).

Are you honestly just digging for loopholes, regardless of the consequences?

FNP is an ____?

Universal S______ R___

Either the unit has the FNP USR, or they have the "Undefined and therefore not applicable or usable FNP 'ability'"

Given that the Ork Codex doesn't define FNP, you have the choice of using the BRB definition and adhering to the restrictions on Pg. 48, or you can have your "FNP" ability and not roll any dice for anything.

If the Unit has FNP, and FNP is a USR, then the Unit has a USR.

Stop. Digging.

Trekari: I stand corrected on the errata/FAQ thing. I must admit that I have never read that page

I agree with all you are saying up to the part where Mad Dok does not grant the FNP to a unit he joins. How is "his unit" not clear enough? If the wording would be "a unit he is with" would the result stand?

ok. I think this is where I step out of the debate. I can see everyone's point of view, and understand that things can be read differently by different people. And in a competative environment this may cause an issue. If we are going to shoot down anything that isn't specifically called out in the rule book I'll just have to use the rule that is on page 2 of the Main Rulebook that says the most important rule is that the rules aren't all that important.
Many will ask why even play a game if we don't use the rules. Well hopefull I never find myself faced with a situation that can't be agreed upon.

At least this is one pitfall that I can be on the look out for in the future.

Zero

Truly I think the first problem is that the "Dok's Tools" entry is under the Painboy, where 'his unit' makes sense because he is an upgrade character of a larger unit. However I stand by the "Unit Composition" discussion earlier, where every FoC choice is some form of a "unit" so even in the sense of saying 'his unit' it applies. Grotsnik's unit just happens to be a unit of 1.

That being said, the required language would be something along the lines of:

"..confers the FNP ability to any attached unit or Independent Characters." Anything along the lines of what the USRs of Stubborn, Fearless, and Night Vision/Acute Senses would be sufficient.

If it said something specific like that, I wouldn't even be having this discussion (and I wager neither would anyone else).

HeroZero wrote:Battle-forged Heroes: Sicarius is accompanied by the finest warriors that the 2nd company has to offer. One Tactical squad in an army that includes Sicarius can have one of the following special rules at no additional cost: .., Infiltrate, .., ..

Now does this mean that one squad anywhere in the army, or the one tac squad that is the finest that is accompnaying Cato? This reads to me that it is the Tac squad that he is included in. Kind of like a special squad that doesn't have to be a command squad. But hey, it's just an interpretation.

So re-reading the entry in the USR for listings with a * states that if both don't have the special rule than both lose it. Cato Sicarius doesn't have any of the USRs that are granted by Battle-forged Heroes. So infultrate would be lost by the tac squad that he gives it to if he joins them. And the way it reads to me he's joined to them to give them the rule.

I'm not trying to make this worse, I just wanted to try and show other examples of how these rules can be read and how it's important that each person decide how they are going to interpret them.

I believe if they wanted it read that way, they would've said "One Tactical squad that Sicarius is attached to..."

As it stands, the correct answer would be any Tac squad, as long as one of your HQ choices was Sicarius. Yes, Infiltrate would be lost by the Tac squad for as long as Sicarius was attached to them.

So you are saying there is a difference between how "his unit" and "models in his unit" should be understood? If yes, is your argument the Unit Composition clause in the Ork codex?

Summed up rather well Hero. I find that it's good to never really take the work of an author more seriously than the author does.

GW doesn't give a flip about this, and the intent of these questions is clearly in the center somewhere. I doubt very much that ambushing Ghazkrull with Snikrot was intended, and I equally doubt that Shrike not being able to give infiltrate to a unit prior to the game starting is intended either.

I agree to disagree very much with just about everything Trek is typing, and that's fine by me. I look forward to all of this being addressed in the INAT FAQ, attn: Yakface.

I think this is similar to the debates about what SWs can field from the SM codex.

Most people can quickly come to a reasonable 'compromise' in a non-competitive environment and it'll work.

In a tourney, it might benefit you to ask the organizer any questions before you show up.

And I anxiously await Yak's work for next year's Adepticon.

arnaroe wrote:So you are saying there is a difference between how "his unit" and "models in his unit" should be understood? If yes, is your argument the Unit Composition clause in the Ork codex?

No.

Firstly, the "Unit Composition" is in EVERY Codex that I am aware of. It is not special language that is restricted to only Orks and 5th SM.

Grotsnik's unit has a composition of ONE model.

A unit of Nobz is comprised of exactly 3-10 Nobz, one of which may be upgraded to a Painboy. Thus the "Painboy's unit" consists of 2-9 Nobz and one Painboy.

One of the problems with Doks Tools is, because it is listed under the Painboy entry, it has to reference the unit somehow. Simply stating "Dok's Tools grants the FNP ability" would open up an entirely new (and worse) can of worms. If that was all the Codex said on the issue, who gets FNP? Only the Painboy?? To alleviate this issue, it has to reference the unit itself as having FNP, otherwise I'm sure you'd have people arguing the only the Painboy got it.

Hopefully that is clearer. If not, then perhaps it would be better for you to ignore 'his unit' and simply ask yourself "does this reach the level of specificity that the GW-given example REQUIRES?"

i.e. Does it spell out that an Independent Character with Dok's Tools grants the FNP ability to an attached unit? No.
Does it spell out that a unit with FNP through Dok's Tools confer FNP to attached Independent Characters? No.

There's your answer. (Moz, how you can disagree with that I really don't understand)

Trekari wrote:Are you honestly just digging for loopholes, regardless of the consequences?

FNP is an ____?

Universal S______ R___

Either the unit has the FNP USR, or they have the "Undefined and therefore not applicable or usable FNP 'ability'"

Given that the Ork Codex doesn't define FNP, you have the choice of using the BRB definition and adhering to the restrictions on Pg. 48, or you can have your "FNP" ability and not roll any dice for anything.

If the Unit has FNP, and FNP is a USR, then the Unit has a USR.

Stop. Digging.

Well Trek, it could be said that you're digging with the Unit Composition argument. This whole topic is digging...

Not really any consequences that I can think of...it's a game, one is supposed to have fun playing. And I endeavor to have fun playing. I try to make sure the people i'm playing have fun as well. I just like a bit of stimulus with rules discussion online from time to time.

I stand by my point in my earlier post. It's a permissive game, and you cant just relegate things to a category unless they say you can. I've found a precedence where it will say it's part of the unit special rules if it's supposed to be. That's enough for me.

Yes, if things were more specific, there'd be no question about it.

I'll agree to disagree on the point and leave it at that.

How can you be so sure that the wording under Doks Tools is only there to refer to the Painboys unit? That is just guessing since it could just as easily be written this way with Mad Dok in mind.

Does this wording reach the level of specificity that the GW-given example REQUIRES?

Does it spell out that an Independent Character with Dok's Tools grants the FNP ability to an attached unit? Yes, since you cant find any difference between an "attached unit" and "his unit" anywhere in the rules. Your question could also be written like this and have the same meaning: Does it spell out that an Independent Character with Dok's Tools grants the FNP ability to his unit/models in his unit/his mob/models in his mob/a unit he is with/etc...?

Does it spell out that a unit with FNP through Dok's Tools confer FNP to attached Independent Characters? No. I agree with you on this one.

How can I be sure about 'his unit?' Um...because it's listed in the PAINBOY section of the Codex, not under Mad Dok Grotsnik's.

Read the Stubborn, Fearless, and Night Vision/Acute Senses USRs again and try to explain how 'his unit' sufficiently condenses what they wrote in those rules.

Those three USRs are the absolutely irrefutable STANDARD for determining whether language in a particular special rule allows for Units and IC's to transfer/confer those abilities back and forth. To further illustrate my point, I will once again paste the relevent sentences of those three rules:

Independent characters that are stubborn confer the
ability onto any unit that they join.

This special rule is gained by any independent character
joining a fearless unit. However, as long as a fearless
character stays with a unit that is not fearless, he loses
this special rule.

Characters with this rule confer it onto any unit they
join, as long as they are part of the unit. Units with this
rule confer it onto any characters joining them, as long
as they are part of the unit.

....and then we have simply "his unit" Not even close.

To go even deeper into this, it expressly states in the WARGEAR description that it confers the FNP ability. The wargear is not the 'special rule,' FNP is (which is why it's called a Universal Special Rule). NOWHERE does it list in the Ork Codex, an alternate definition of FNP, so you must use the BRB. Conveniently enough, the BRB states absolutely nothing about FNP being gifted onto ICs or Units when one or the other do not have it.

Fraustdemon - that is not relegating things to categories, that is very, very basic logic. If the Unit has FNP, and FNP is a USR, then the Unit has a USR which then obviously falls under pg. 48.

You can disagree all you want. If Fred has a pet, and that pet is a dog, then Fred has a dog. Disagreeing with that progression of simple logic just makes you look silly.

Moz wrote:Summed up rather well Hero. I find that it's good to never really take the work of an author more seriously than the author does.

GW doesn't give a flip about this, and the intent of these questions is clearly in the center somewhere. I doubt very much that ambushing Ghazkrull with Snikrot was intended, and I equally doubt that Shrike not being able to give infiltrate to a unit prior to the game starting is intended either.

I agree to disagree very much with just about everything Trek is typing, and that's fine by me. I look forward to all of this being addressed in the INAT FAQ, attn: Yakface.

I find this a very odd attitude indeed: you seem to be recognizing that the authors of the rules phrased them poorly, and then claiming 1) that you know what the author really meant to say, and 2) the best way to deal with this psychic static is to deny that the rules have any objective meaning. Just because Trek's (fairly well supported) reading of the rules doesn't agree with what you think the rules should say doesn't mean the rules don't actually say it.

As an aside, if you're looking to Yak for salvation, I wouild point out that in the now locked thread, he essentially made the argument Trek is now making;

yakface wrote:Nope, you've got it backwards. Read page 48 of the rulebook under "special rules". An IC who joins a unit does not confer the rule upon the unit, and vice-versa unless the rule specifies otherwise.

One of the problems with Doks Tools is, because it is listed under the Painboy entry, it has to reference the unit somehow. Simply stating "Dok's Tools grants the FNP ability" would open up an entirely new (and worse) can of worms. If that was all the Codex said on the issue, who gets FNP? Only the Painboy?? To alleviate this issue, it has to reference the unit itself as having FNP, otherwise I'm sure you'd have people arguing the only the Painboy got it.

Let me rephrase the question, how can you be so sure that the wording "his unit" was not put there so that Mad Dok could confer it to a unit he joins? You seem to be implying that "his unit" was only put there to refer to the Painboys unit. That is going down the RAI-road if you ask me.

Those three USRs are the absolutely irrefutable STANDARD for determining whether language in a particular special rule allows for Units and IC's to transfer/confer those abilities back and forth.

Explain to me why your examples set the standard for how the rules should be written rather then just give an example of how it can be?

"Unless specified in the rule itself (as in stubborn special rule)... (page 48)" This seems to me as an attempt to point out a rule that specifies rather than an attempt to point out how the rule should be written.

"His unit" therefor follows the absolutely irrefutable STANDARD of the rules for specifying that an IC confers his special abilities to his unit.

Maybe the designers should not have given Mad Dok his tools if they didnt want him to confer FNP to joined units.

I've explained every aspect of this discussion in excruciating detail.

I've quoted every relevant rule from the BRB.

I've given examples of what GW used to illustrate what "specified in the rule itself" means.

I've even quoted an example from my own Codex that again follows the idea of "specified in the rule itself."

Btw, check the dictionary.

to mention or name specifically or definitely; state in detail:

When something is unspecified, it is called "vague, general."

The examples I gave are GW's example and others that follow their standard. Have you ever seen Sesame Street and the song "One of these things does not belong?" Now would be a perfect time to go look that up and understand why my examples all belong in the "specified" category and 'his unit' does not. Go complain to GW about their example if you don't like it.

If 'his unit' was specific enough for it to be held up next to Stubborn, Fearless, and Night Vision, then NOBODY WOULD BE CONFUSED. As it is however, I empathize that you don't get it and that you disagree. In nearly a dozen posts in this thread alone, I have illustrated at every turn why my interpretation is correct:

You haven't.

Trekari wrote:Fraustdemon - that is not relegating things to categories, that is very, very basic logic. If the Unit has FNP, and FNP is a USR, then the Unit has a USR which then obviously falls under pg. 48.

You can disagree all you want. If Fred has a pet, and that pet is a dog, then Fred has a dog. Disagreeing with that progression of simple logic just makes you look silly.

I agree they have FNP, but I dont agree that it's one of the unit's special rules. Simply because it's not under the unit's special rules section and isnt worded that it becomes thus. Nowhere does it say that universal special rules arent conferred to IC's by the units they join, it simply says the unit's special rules arent. Are USR's often under the SR section of a unit's entry? Sure. But that doesnt mean they're always one of the unit's special rules. That's like saying an Ork Trukk has tank under it's vehicle type because you bought reinforced ram for it. Only tanks can tank shock...reinforced ram says it can tank shock...it must be a tank.

Regardless, it's two people who see something in different ways. I blame it on the english language.