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.

yakface wrote:


If anything, RAW no, a Warboss should not benefit from a Painboy's FNP, even though everyone does play that way.

Simply put, ICs do not gain special rules by joining a unit unless the special rule itself says it applies to ICs...these are the rules but everyone wants to seem to try to figure out workarounds as to why an IC *should* be benefitting from special rules when joining a unit, but the rules are clear.


And as for the notion that somehow 'Ambush' is not a special rule of the unit, is Snikrot not part of the unit? Is an IC joining the unit not benefiting from the special rule by joining the unit?

Again, ICs aren't supposed to gain special rules by joining a unit and have a rule which says exactly that. So unless the special rule says it applies specifically to joined ICs then it doesn't.


Now, is that the way I play? No, but if we're getting back to the core of what the rules say, then we have to fall back against this basic restriction. It doesn't matter if an IC is fully and totally part of a unit when he joins it (which he is) because he has a RULE which says he doesn't benefit from a unit's special rules unless the rule specifically says he does.

He doesn't benefit from the UNIT'S special rules; that is, special rules inherent to the unit itself. However, we're not dealing with special rules inherent to the unit.

When a Warboss joins a unit of Kommandos, he does not benefit from infiltrate. That is a special rule of the UNIT, "Kommandos"; as such, IC's joining the unit do not benefit from it, because they are not Kommandos.

However, SNIKROT (himself, alone, individually, NOT the unit as a whole) has a special rule, called "Ambush", which allows him and his unit to do a certain thing.

A Warboss joining a squad led by Snikrot is a part of Snikrot's unit. As such, Snikrot's special rule (which, remember, is NOT a special rule of the UNIT, just a special rule of HIS), allows him to take the entire squad - including any attached ICs - into Reserve and deploy as specified in the Ambush! special rule. This works because an attached IC is part of the unit for all purposes except that of special rules inherent to the unit itself. Since Ambush! is not such a special rule, instead being a special rule inherent to a single model, the IC is counted as part of the unit.

The same line of reasoning applies to Painboys. "Dok's Tools" is not a special rule that a unit of Nobz has; it is a special rule which a Painboy has, which extends a benefit to the entirety of the unit. This includes attached ICs.

Now, if Nobz had an option that said something like, "all members of the unit may have FNP for X points", attached ICs would not benefit, because that would be a special rule belonging to the unit.

I think berzerker has spellt it out the most succinct way possible. I was leaning towards throwing my voice towards Yakface's POV but 'zerker pointing out the difference between snikrot's abilities and the abilities of the kommando unit is an arguement of merit.

As Ive said many times before, this is the main problem with the Ork codex. The meaning of the rules were so vaguely written that, although most can be argued to a reasonable end, there are still alot that you either play it THIS way or you play it THAT way. And unless GW actually does their jobs and writes a FAQ on their site, we are just stuck in a stalemate.

don_mondo wrote:Or you can go with the INAT answer,

ORK.62C.01 – Q: Can an Independent Character (such as a Warboss on a bike) join Snikrot‟s unit before the game and arrive with them via „Ambush‟?
A: No, as Snikrot‟s ability is a special rule that does not specify it affects other ICs joined to his unit, it does not

INAT is as arbitrary as an other group of human beings decisions, and therefore just as capable of making gross errors. At tourneys...you're stuck with their word (or the TO), but in friendly games...you can agree to a sensible calling on the rules.

So quick question: Since (some claim that) the rules do not specifically cover a situation, is it against dakka policy to agree that it makes no sense for noisy-ass non-infilitrate-having units/models aren't allowed to be sneaky?

Or is it a no-no to think about it, since we should just use RAW no matter how perverse it becomes when the intent is clearly to give a sneaky character a sneaky ability?

Saying "his unit" is vastly different from specifying that it includes ICs. The rules on p. 48 make it clear that unless a special rule specifies (ie. intentionally mentions ICs in the wording) then it does not affect ICs...period. A vauge refference to "his unit" does not overcome this obstacle.

For an IC to benefit from Ambush, Snik's rule would have to specifically mention ICs in the wording, which it does not.

Alerian wrote:Saying "his unit" is vastly different from specifying that it includes ICs. The rules on p. 48 make it clear that unless a special rule specifies (ie. intentionally mentions ICs in the wording) then it does not affect ICs...period. A vauge refference to "his unit" does not overcome this obstacle.

For an IC to benefit from Ambush, Snik's rule would have to specifically mention ICs in the wording, which it does not.

You "i.e." is a made up rule that *you* have decided upon.

In addition - this isnt a Unit Special Rule. Loook for it under the unit special rules - it isnt there. It is a special rule of a *member* of the unit. that is it.

"his unit" is exactly sufficient, as an IC is *defined* as being part of a unit when he joins - so it is not vague at all, unless you are ignoring the rules provided in the rulebook.

RAW = he may Ambush with Snikrot.

Che-Vito wrote:INAT is as arbitrary as an other group of human beings decisions, and therefore just as capable of making gross errors. At tourneys...you're stuck with their word (or the TO), but in friendly games...you can agree to a sensible calling on the rules.

It's best to be consistent, which at the very least the INAT is. I'd also say that this is a sensible ruling.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Except stating "his unit" is indeed sufficient, as a joined ic is part of the unit

This is VERY different from an inate rule, such as Plague Marines FNP, which I would suggest that rule is addressing.

When you put it like that, I do tend to agree with you, which makes my tau wanna cry

MasterSlowPoke wrote:

Che-Vito wrote:INAT is as arbitrary as an other group of human beings decisions, and therefore just as capable of making gross errors. At tourneys...you're stuck with their word (or the TO), but in friendly games...you can agree to a sensible calling on the rules.

It's best to be consistent, which at the very least the INAT is. I'd also say that this is a sensible ruling.

When it suits INAT, then yes...it can be. But that isn't consistent, now is it?

What do you think is inconsistent?

INAT, apparently.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Alerian wrote:Saying "his unit" is vastly different from specifying that it includes ICs. The rules on p. 48 make it clear that unless a special rule specifies (ie. intentionally mentions ICs in the wording) then it does not affect ICs...period. A vauge refference to "his unit" does not overcome this obstacle.

For an IC to benefit from Ambush, Snik's rule would have to specifically mention ICs in the wording, which it does not.

You "i.e." is a made up rule that *you* have decided upon.

In addition - this isnt a Unit Special Rule. Loook for it under the unit special rules - it isnt there. It is a special rule of a *member* of the unit. that is it.

"his unit" is exactly sufficient, as an IC is *defined* as being part of a unit when he joins - so it is not vague at all, unless you are ignoring the rules provided in the rulebook.

RAW = he may Ambush with Snikrot.

I was reading the rule book this weekend because, as a new Ork player bound to build kommandos, this seemed important. I don't have the rules in front of me, but this post sparked me thinker bitz.

I was under the impression that an IC becoming "attached" to a unit is not equivalent to it being a member of the unit. Doesn't an IC have the ability to disengage from a unit (or once attached, does it have to stay with the unit for the rest of the game)?

Just reading through this post, I see
'attached to a unit'
'part of a unit'
'member of a unit'


game rules often boil down to semantic wordings. I'm interested to re-read what "part of a unit" actually means. I'm tending towards saying yes myself, but I'm of course biased.

They DO become a member of the unit, and cannot be picked out for shooting - they are just a special member who can *choose* to leave the unit.

If you read the Assault section for ICs, it states they rejoin the unit. "Join" means "become a part of".

MasterSlowPoke wrote:What do you think is inconsistent?

My Macbook crashed a few weeks ago (quite literally, just stopped working. I didn't drop it or anything, but they said the motherboard had shorted out and they wanted to charge $700 to replace.). On my Windows desktop, I cannot open the PDF INAT file, so I cannot look at it and provide specific response at the moment.

As soon as I can, I'll open a new thread on the very subject. It will be debated, people will flame, and ultimately Yakface will show up and comment that his ruling makes sense, or that he was the lone voice of dissent against the decision...but he was just outnumbered. (think Leonidas trying to hold back the Persian hordes in "300")

Krellnus wrote:INAT, apparently.

Yes.

MasterSlowPoke wrote:What do you think is inconsistent?

The INAT in total.

It is arguable that it is not inconsistent though. Because in my codex (p62) Ambush is located under the heading "Special Rules." (p38) FNP is confferred to the unit via a piece of wargear as Dok's Tools is under the heading "wargear". If FNP was under "Special Rules" then there would be no argument. The two are different. This is what yakface already said but I believe the distinction does make sense.

Except I believe the distinction is *inherent* special rules (PM FNP) versus *conferred* special rules.

It is entirely consistent to rule that two rules which have the exact same wording on how they confer to work - it is entirely unobvious to decide Wargear confers, but other rules (mainly Snkirot loudly shushing the Orks) not working because you take an upgrade for it.

The reason why this is inconsistent is, if instead of Snikrot directly conferring it, yhe instead had a Sneaky Stummer which lets the sqwuad ambush: INAT would suddenly decide this works, despite it having the exact same effect in game.

In other words: the arbitrary and against the rules rules change in INAT creates inconsistency

Geemoney wrote:It is arguable that it is not inconsistent though. Because in my codex (p62) Ambush is located under the heading "Special Rules." (p38) FNP is confferred to the unit via a piece of wargear as Dok's Tools is under the heading "wargear". If FNP was under "Special Rules" then there would be no argument. The two are different. This is what yakface already said but I believe the distinction does make sense.

The thing is that an IC has no rules regarding gaining or losing "special rules" in general. It has a rule stating, very specifically, that it does not automatically gain "the unit's" special rules.

Dok's Tools and Ambush are NOT "the unit's" special rules. They are special rules or wargear belonging to a single model, which then confer a benefit on all models forming a unit with the bearer. As such, they both apply to the ENTIRE unit, including attached ICs (which count as part of the unit in all respects, except the exception mentioned above) .

BeRzErKeR wrote:

The thing is that an IC has no rules regarding gaining or losing "special rules" in general. It has a rule stating, very specifically, that it does not automatically gain "the unit's" special rules.

Dok's Tools and Ambush are NOT "the unit's" special rules. They are special rules or wargear belonging to a single model, which then confer a benefit on all models forming a unit with the bearer. As such, they both apply to the ENTIRE unit, including attached ICs (which count as part of the unit in all respects, except the exception mentioned above) .

Yeah I see your point, but I would say Ambush is a special rule given to the unit by snickrot, so in that way it is the units special rule. On the other hand FNP is given under doks tools which is under the heading of wargear and therefore allows the Warboss to use it.

Geemoney wrote:Yeah I see your point, but I would say Ambush is a special rule given to the unit by snickrot, so in that way it is the units special rule. On the other hand FNP is given under doks tools which is under the heading of wargear and therefore allows the Warboss to use it.

Sorry, but that makes NO SENSE. If Ambush is a Special Rule given to the unit by Snikrot, Feel No Pain is also a Special Rule given to the Unit by the Dok's Tools.

He trying to say it's not an USR mebby?

I thin he is still trying to call it a unit special rule, despite it not actually being one....

Geemoney wrote:

Yeah I see your point, but I would say Ambush is a special rule given to the unit by snickrot, so in that way it is the units special rule. On the other hand FNP is given under doks tools which is under the heading of wargear and therefore allows the Warboss to use it.

But why does it matter whether it's a model or a piece of wargear which confer the special rule?

It makes more sense. If a unit is an elite, extra sneaky squad that can outflank better than normal, it doesn't make sense that they can still do it when an entirely unrelated model joins them. However, if a unit possesses an invisibility field projecting device which lets them outflank better than normal, it makes sense that an unrelated model that joins them could make use of the field.

MasterSlowPoke wrote:It makes more sense. If a unit is an elite, extra sneaky squad that can outflank better than normal, it doesn't make sense that they can still do it when an entirely unrelated model joins them. However, if a unit possesses an invisibility field projecting device which lets them outflank better than normal, it makes sense that an unrelated model that joins them could make use of the field.

Two objections.

First, that analogy breaks down because Snikrot is the only model who can "outflank better than normal", and he kind of takes the others along for the ride. So we already have a single good sneaker bringing a bunch of less-sneaky models with him.

Second, you are attempting to apply common sense to a RAW discussion. It is, unfortunately, inapplicable. The rules do not have to make complete sense; they just have to be the rules.

Taking Snikrot implies that his squad is made up of various veterans of the Armageddon wars - he wouldn't pal around with any old git.

Of course, this isn't RAW. You asked why Geemoney thought there should be an otherwise arbitrary distinction between the two situations. The RAW is clear that ICs can use Ambush, the question is if this is unintended and should be corrected or not. Gwar will come in and say that RAW=RAI but no one should care about that.

MasterSlowPoke wrote:Taking Snikrot implies that his squad is made up of various veterans of the Armageddon wars - he wouldn't pal around with any old git.

Of course, this isn't RAW. You asked why Geemoney thought there should be an otherwise arbitrary distinction between the two situations. The RAW is clear that ICs can use Ambush, the question is if this is unintended and should be corrected or not. Gwar will come in and say that RAW=RAI but no one should care about that.

Exactly.

RAW; you can do it.
RAI; Who knows? Not I.

RAIWP: By all means. I've done it once or twice, but I really only do this when I don't have a better use for that HQ. To be honest, I don't think it's particularly overpowered. I have the ability to send my Warboss off with a small squad. . . into the middle of the enemy army. . . at a time I don't get to control. . . yay? Sending Ghazhgkull off with Snikrot is possibly the worst idea ever, as all the enemy has to do to keep him out of close-combat is advance towards your army, which is short more than 400 points until such time as Snik and Ghaz decide to show up. . . which could be turn 2, or turn 5, or anything in between! Once they DO show up, Ghazhgkull just slows them down and gives the enemy more time to pump shots into them. . . and it only takes a few deaths before you start rolling morale checks.

There are times when it's really good, but those times Snikrot by himself would wreck face anyway; and then there are times when it bites, and it bites even MORE because in addition to losing your Kommandos, you lose a Warboss who's worth nearly as much as the whole rest of the squad by himself.