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.

Gold tooth Jerry wrote:As to your argument, the special ability says that snikrots units all are granted the ambush ability. When a Ic joins a squad they become one unit for all purposes. Sure you can detach the IC later but if they take casualties the IC would have to roll for moral just like all the other units in the squad. If anything happened to the squad it would happen to the IC just as it happens to the kommandos. If they are all in the same squad and start in reserve then they can come in on any table edge.

That's my point. Its A Special Ability which does not specifically say it applies to IC's. Rules for IC's say they must, and even the GW provided example has in its contents it specifically saying it applies to IC's. Simple as that.

Like the above poster said, we both clearly see what we are saying as correct and RAW. Going back and fourth on a topic like this isn't going to change our respective opinions, yes?

I also apologize for being condescending to you.

This particular topic has been discussed at length from a long time ago, and nothing new is ever presented. Even the same old frustrations from the previous discussion come back with it. The issue is split among people, GW have done nothing to resolve it, and the INAT Council made an unofficial house ruling so maybe you at least know what the rule will be at any given place/event that uses it, so you yourself don't get surprised by a judge at a table.

Sounds like par for the course over a number of questions in this game.

kill dem stunties wrote:Yea, the inat faq is pretty much crap, they just make rule changing decisio ns and label them as "clarifications" when they're blatant rule changes.

ghaz+snik is 100% raw legal, and anyone who calls you tfg is as someone else said the real tfg.

You sound biased. And angry. Is Yak and co. ruling in the most conservative, RaW manner making you angry? I think it is.

Sarigar wrote:What it boils down to is the rule(s) are not 100% clear in this particular situation. The real question becomes:

a. do you rule in favor of the less restrictive interpretation

b. do you rule in favor of the more restrictive interpretation

I have a friend that can get a ruling on this from GW. I am going to compile this and some other question I.e deathrolla and others, and see what we get.

RustyKnight wrote:

kill dem stunties wrote:Yea, the inat faq is pretty much crap, they just make rule changing decisio ns and label them as "clarifications" when they're blatant rule changes.

ghaz+snik is 100% raw legal, and anyone who calls you tfg is as someone else said the real tfg.

You sound biased. And angry. Is Yak and co. ruling in the most conservative, RaW manner making you angry? I think it is.

I love the whole assume thing, you know, mostly how it makes an ass of you, not so much me though, as ive never even played kommandos in a single game, i just dont feel the need to break RAW because i think somethings too powerful. Whereas you seem to enjoy breaking the rules so you can win easier.

Gold tooth Jerry wrote:

Sarigar wrote:What it boils down to is the rule(s) are not 100% clear in this particular situation. The real question becomes:

a. do you rule in favor of the less restrictive interpretation

b. do you rule in favor of the more restrictive interpretation

I have a friend that can get a ruling on this from GW. I am going to compile this and some other question I.e deathrolla and others, and see what we get.

Does not help a lot. I have rulings from GW on deffrollers in 3 instances, and they flip flop back and forth. Unless it's an official FAQ, it doesn't necessarily do a whole lot.

There never will be on. GW is in the market to sell product, making a firm stance on a subject might reduce sales of said product.