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.

Quoting rules doesn't mean you are right.

The examples you have given are meaningless since you look at them from the wrong perspective.

Maybe you should double check your dictionary since to specify can also mean: To state as a condition: specified that they be included in the will (or unless specified in the rules).

Lets leave children shows out of this debate.

You seem to misread the rule on page 48. Nowhere in the text is it implied that a certain quality of wording is needed, only that it has to be said (like the stubborn rule does but not like the stubborn rule is written). This absolutely irrefutable STANDARD you talk about is non-existent.

I have been trying to point out that the logic you are following doesn't add up, that is why I have not presented my own argument on how I think this all works (actually, I did that early in this discussion).

Oh, and please lets keep this from the personal level.

Quality of wording is irrelevant? The example GW used goes directly to the definition of "specified" (and thus the quality of wording and clarity of intent) that they are using.

You disagree with even that much.

Sesame Street might be a useful tool for anyone who believes 'his unit' is just as clear as the three illustrated and specific USRs. When that is the case, I will bring it into the discussion as I have in this thread.

You have yet to even propose a rebuttal for the idea that FNP itself is the RULE in question that also does not state it is conferred in either direction.

All you continue to do is state that I'm wrong, and that "specified" doesn't need to be specific and unambiguous at all.

arnaroe wrote:Quoting rules doesn't mean you are right.

On that note, I'm done. My mistake for thinking that primary evidence wins a debate. From here on, I will quote scripture and lyrics when discussing rules, rather than the rulebook itself.

Hehe, you are indeed a funny guy, twisting words and all

Trekari wrote:
On that note, I'm done. My mistake for thinking that primary evidence wins a debate. From here on, I will quote scripture and lyrics when discussing rules, rather than the rulebook itself.

Sigged

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

Nevertheless they are the indication of the will of the developers, the people who wrote the rules, and shows how they want the rule to be played. Going against what they think is nothing but childlike stubbonness.

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.

Thats right, and the rule on page 48 does not make an exception to ICs being effected by wargear. The rule you're trying to use is called "Special Rules" so why are you trying to apply it to wargear?

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

Feel No Pain
Furious Charge
Mob Rule
Waaagh!

No, it does not, there is no evidence for this absurd claim at all. Feel no pain is not a rule belonging to the unit, it is always linked to the wargear providing thats why if the painboy where to be killed the unit would not be able to use FNP. Why is this how is this a difficult for you to accept this very simple fact?

I can prove this fact very easily, look at the list of special rules for Nobs, is Feel no pain in that list? Why no. Therefore you're wrong.

Secondly your unit composition point is also irrelevent, the IC rules are there to sidestep exactly those definitions by adding models to other units. While you could try to claim that codex overwrites rulebook, that would leave you in the position of attempting to claim that no ICs can ever join any units at all because they can't become part of the unit. I don't think you're going to convince anyone of that....

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:

I'm not confused, you just have a wild imagination. You are trying to claim that a rule outlawing special rules being given to characters applies to everything you can possibly think of. It doesn't apply to wargear, nothing suggests it does so why are you trying to pretend otherwise?

Hymirl wrote:
Nevertheless they are the indication of the will of the developers, the people who wrote the rules, and shows how they want the rule to be played. Going against what they think is nothing but childlike stubbonness.

Nowhere is credit given to GW rule-writers for the FAQs. To be even more precise, they credit Yakface for them. Now what is your argument about FAQs going to be, since I've just shot down two of them?

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.

Thats right, and the rule on page 48 does not make an exception to ICs being effected by wargear. The rule you're trying to use is called "Special Rules" so why are you trying to apply it to wargear?

Gotcha! The wargear is conferring FNP, which is the RULE. Unless specified in the RULE itself (FNP), it doesn't get transferred around willy-nilly between ICs and units. Neither the wargear entry nor the FNP entry state the IC gets it. As the popular saying goes, 40k is a permissive ruleset, so demonstrate to me where it says wargear purchased for one unit applies to ICs who join them. You won't find that anywhere.

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

Feel No Pain
Furious Charge
Mob Rule
Waaagh!

No, it does not, there is no evidence for this absurd claim at all. Feel no pain is not a rule belonging to the unit, it is always linked to the wargear providing thats why if the painboy where to be killed the unit would not be able to use FNP. Why is this how is this a difficult for you to accept this very simple fact?

I can prove this fact very easily, look at the list of special rules for Nobs, is Feel no pain in that list? Why no. Therefore you're wrong.

The Nobz don't have FNP listed because you only get it from an optional upgrade character. You call it an absurd claim, when in fact it's simple logic. FNP cannot possibly be defined as anything other than a USR. If the unit has been granted a USR, then the UNIT now has a SPECIAL RULE. If an IC has not been granted the same special rule before joining the unit, except the specifically mentioned cases, then he does not get it. Again with the analogy: Fred has a pet. The pet is a dog. Fred has a dog. That is flawless and emotionless logic.

Painboy's wargear gives FNP to the unit. FNP is a USR. The unit has a USR.

Secondly your unit composition point is also irrelevent, the IC rules are there to sidestep exactly those definitions by adding models to other units. While you could try to claim that codex overwrites rulebook, that would leave you in the position of attempting to claim that no ICs can ever join any units at all because they can't become part of the unit. I don't think you're going to convince anyone of that....

I'm not trying to convince anyone that IC's can't join units. If you're going to argue my stance, don't do so with strawman arguments. The composition of a unit when purchased is not debatable. It is clearly spelled out in each Codex.

I'm not confused, you just have a wild imagination. You are trying to claim that a rule outlawing special rules being given to characters applies to everything you can possibly think of. It doesn't apply to wargear, nothing suggests it does so why are you trying to pretend otherwise?

Again with the strawman arguments? Just because you've lost on the logical, evidence-supported and precedent-supported debate does not entitle you to start with the logical fallacies and ad hominem attacks. HI said I was done with this thread once and I already regret typing up this reply because I'd make more progress on trying to have romantic relations with an angry hippo than getting you to understand where you're mistaken and I fear that your reply will only beget more insults and absurdities.

Feel free to continue discussing, but it won't be with my input anymore.

I love when people leave an argument to just come right back to it a few posts later.

arnaroe wrote:Quoting rules doesn't mean you are right.

The examples you have given are meaningless since you look at them from the wrong perspective.

Maybe you should double check your dictionary since to specify can also mean: To state as a condition: specified that they be included in the will (or unless specified in the rules).

Lets leave children shows out of this debate.

You seem to misread the rule on page 48. Nowhere in the text is it implied that a certain quality of wording is needed, only that it has to be said (like the stubborn rule does but not like the stubborn rule is written). This absolutely irrefutable STANDARD you talk about is non-existent.

First, quoting rules that support one's interpretation are kinda the only thing that can make you right. What other form of evidence could be considered relevant?

I find this line of argument difficult to follow: what possible "perspective" could justify the reading you are imputing to the rule in question? That rule, to quote it yet again, being: "Unless specified in the rule itself (as in the "stubborn" special rule), the unit's special rules are not conferred upon the character, and the character's special rules are not conferred upon the unit."

The rule specifies a default condition (special rules are not conferred), states what denotes an exception (being "specified in the rule itself") and provides a clarifying example ("the "stubborn" special rule). Several posters in this thread seem to be determined to engage in the most egregious of linguistic tortures, as if to make the rules confess your point. I can only point out that what the author meant to write (or you believe they intended to write) is not necessarily what they actually wrote, and end by quoting Yak again.

I fully concur that an IC joined to an Ork unit with a Painboy does not benefit from Feel No Pain. The rules are quite clear on this matter, but I have a feeling that many people don't know or disregard this rule.

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.

In the case of Mad Dok Grotsnik, the ability most certainly specifies that it is conferred the unit (so it is) but nothing speciifes that Grotsnik himself (or any other IC that joins the unit) benefits from the special rule so he does not.

Trekari wrote:Nowhere is credit given to GW rule-writers for the FAQs. To be even more precise, they credit Yakface for them. Now what is your argument about FAQs going to be, since I've just shot down two of them?

Actually the webpage states "they are our own 'studio house rules'" so not so fast on that one buddy.

Gotcha! The wargear is conferring FNP, which is the RULE. Unless specified in the RULE itself (FNP), it doesn't get transferred around willy-nilly between ICs and units. Neither the wargear entry nor the FNP entry state the IC gets it. As the popular saying goes, 40k is a permissive ruleset, so demonstrate to me where it says wargear purchased for one unit applies to ICs who join them. You won't find that anywhere.

Its not being transfered around willy nilly between ICs and units, its being transfered from wargear.
As such it sidesteps the rule preventing unit special rules (which FNP is not in this example), and you're left with the parts of the IC rules that specificly state the IC is treated like any other member of the unit, "Dok's tools" then picks up from there stating it effects "the unit." (I can provide specific page references for his if you like, but I assume you've read the relevent pages and won't need them).

So I found the rules I need. Enjoy being wrong. Again.

The Nobz don't have FNP listed because you only get it from an optional upgrade character. You call it an absurd claim, when in fact it's simple logic. FNP cannot possibly be defined as anything other than a USR. If the unit has been granted a USR, then the UNIT now has a SPECIAL RULE. If an IC has not been granted the same special rule before joining the unit, except the specifically mentioned cases, then he does not get it. Again with the analogy: Fred has a pet. The pet is a dog. Fred has a dog. That is flawless and emotionless logic.

If quanity of flawed argument made up for the lacking quality you'd have proved your point, unfortunatly thats not the case.

"The Nobz don't have FNP listed because you only get it from an optional upgrade character." Correct.
"FNP cannot possibly be defined as anything other than a USR." Correct.
"If the unit has been granted a USR, then the UNIT now has a SPECIAL RULE" Leap of faith. Sticking with your entertaining dog example this is the different between patting a dog and taking it home with you, they use the special rule but it isn't actually belonging to them.

"If an IC has not been granted the same special rule before joining the unit, except the specifically mentioned cases, then he does not get it." This statement is irrelevent since it ignores the mechanic of doks tools providing it to each model in the unit.

"Painboy's wargear gives FNP to the unit. FNP is a USR. The unit has a USR." Your false result based on faulty premises.

What it should actually be is; "Painboy's wargear gives FNP to the unit. FNP is a USR. The unit may use USR."
Again with the analogy: Fred has a pet that his friends can play with. The pet is a dog. Fred's friends may play with the dog. That is flawless and emotionless logic. The dog does not belong to Fred's friends.

I'm not trying to convince anyone that IC's can't join units. If you're going to argue my stance, don't do so with strawman arguments. The composition of a unit when purchased is not debatable. It is clearly spelled out in each Codex.

Nice try to wiggle out of the corner but you'll have to do better than that. But my point was that the composition of a unit when its in play is debatable. You can't use dok's tools to permantly assign FNP to specific models at the purchasing stage; we know this because if the dok dies then he and his tools are removed from play thus removing the unit's access to FNP.

So its not a straw man at all, its a dillemmia I'm giving you. IF you chose to try and claim that the composition of a unit can never been altered in play then you logically disallow ICs from joining units because the IC rules state they become a member for all purposes (save combat and sharing special rules obviously).
So either they do join the unit and become part of it, or they don't join the unit and they don't become part of it.

Its not a straw man, its where your argument falls flat on it's face.

Again with the strawman arguments? Just because you've lost on the logical, evidence-supported and precedent-supported debate does not entitle you to start with the logical fallacies and ad hominem attacks. HI said I was done with this thread once and I already regret typing up this reply because I'd make more progress on trying to have romantic relations with an angry hippo than getting you to understand where you're mistaken and I fear that your reply will only beget more insults and absurdities.

This forum seems to have a lot of people who like being insulting but as soon as they get their own medicine back they take their toys and leave. You're leaving because I've used exactly the attitudes and phases you've been employing against many posters in the last few pages, would you like some reminders?

"Pg. 48 makes it stupidly clear for anyone who can comprehend basic language."
"This discussion is painfully clear"
"Are you honestly just digging for loopholes"
"(Moz, how you can disagree with that I really don't understand)"
"Disagreeing with that progression of simple logic just makes you look silly"
"check the dictionary."
"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"
"Sesame Street might be a useful tool"

You announce anyone disagreeing with you is stupid and illerate, assume the argument, kick in with some ad hominem, insult people's intelligence, suggest anyone holding a different opinon is silly, tell people to learn how to read, Assume the argument with a triple hit combo! (Bonus points!), suggest that your oppoenents are at a pre-schooler level, and then obviously after all that you decide to turn around and try to play the victim? Oh the sweet sweet irony!

Well if you want to pretend you're offended so as to think that you have a get out clause to abandon the debate without having to admit your error then thats your choice. I politely accept your withdrawal from the debate.

@Buzzsaw: You overestimate my stake in this discussion. I don't personally care how it turns out, so sure if the INATFAQ rules that the Painboy doesn't confer FNP to an attached IC, unless it's Tuesday and you're drinking orange soda, fine by me. At least it's consistent, which you'll note that not a bit of this thread has been. Page one of the thread I was equally blasted for saying the intent is probably somewhere near the middle by someone believing the opposite of your stance.

The primary issue that I have with this particular set of questions is that there is no consistent ruling that jives with how people play. Sure maybe your local group is weird and plays that Grotsnik doesn't confer FNP to a unit he joins, or that Snikrot is allowed to ambush Ghazkrull onto the table. Whatever I don't care, but I cannot imagine a tournament where strangers are meeting and playing strangers adopting such far fetched RAW interpretations - meanwhile any discussion of the RAW inevitably drags it away from the middle (where it is usually played) to one side of the spectrum which is equally implausible. What we haven't heard is a RAW argument that leaves us near the middle where this all makes sense, and maybe there isn't one. That's sort of the point of the thread.

Hymirl thank you for clearly defining the parts of Tekari's logic that brain was screaming at for the last 10 minutes or so of reading.

The part about the unit gaining an ability under it's special rules description. I don't think that Tekari is all that off, just that to come to the point of saying the unit has the USR of FnP under it's special rules was a bit of a leap of faith.

The definition of specific and the "official" example of specific in the holy book. This again seems like a leap to be demanding wording is repeated verbatum, things just don't happen that way=)!

Keep going Tekari! Maybe try a new approach?

Buzzsaw wrote:
First, quoting rules that support one's interpretation are kinda the only thing that can make you right. What other form of evidence could be considered relevant?

I find this line of argument difficult to follow: what possible "perspective" could justify the reading you are imputing to the rule in question? That rule, to quote it yet again, being: "Unless specified in the rule itself (as in the "stubborn" special rule), the unit's special rules are not conferred upon the character, and the character's special rules are not conferred upon the unit."

The rule specifies a default condition (special rules are not conferred), states what denotes an exception (being "specified in the rule itself") and provides a clarifying example ("the "stubborn" special rule). Several posters in this thread seem to be determined to engage in the most egregious of linguistic tortures, as if to make the rules confess your point. I can only point out that what the author meant to write (or you believe they intended to write) is not necessarily what they actually wrote, and end by quoting Yak again.

A quote has no meaning unless it is correctly applies to the situation. So quoting rules in the inappropriate way can mean you are wrong.

Like I said before I agree on the fact that an IC joining a unit will not gain FNP. That has been well established in my opinion.

My disagreement comes form the other side of this rule, what qualifies as an permission for an special rule to be conferred from a IC to a unit. What I do not agree on is that the "Special Rules" rule sets some standard of wording with this phrase: "Unless specified in the rule itself (as in the "stubborn" special rule)..." The way I see it is that "unless specified" is referring to that the special rule needs to say there is an possibility but not that there is some minimum conditions the wording must fulfill. An example:

An IC has FNP. Since the rule does not specify that it confers to a unit he joins it does not (in accordance to page 48). For it to happen a permission would have to be included in the text (like in the stubborn rule).

An IC has Doks Tools. Since the rules specify that the wielder of the tools confers FNP to his unit any unit the IC joins will gain FNP.

The point is then: The "Special Rules" rule does not include any minimum standard of wording only that an permission must be given by the rules.

Further examples:

A Warboss joins a unit with a Painboy, does he get FNP? NO, since there is no permission granted by the FNP rule to confer it to ICs (permission is needed by the "Special rules" rule).

A Warboss joins a unit with Mad Dok in it, does he get FNP? NO, same as above.

Mad Dok joins a unit of Meganobz, do the Nobz get FNP? YES, the permission is given with the wording "his unit".

As pointed out in the OP, in the new books there are a lot of different wordings regarding different special rules. My opinion is that if there has to be any consistency in the rules all those possibilities must mean the same thing: "A unit the IC has joined." If that is not the case ("his unit" does not mean the same as "the models in his unit") we will end up with a whole bunch of undefinable terms that can only be decipher from vague grammatical clues.

hehe, this is getting away from contentious wording and turning into painboy FNP Vs No FNP part 2 again

frgsinwntr wrote:hehe, this is getting away from contentious wording and turning into painboy FNP Vs No FNP part 2 again

The FNP example is just good to use but any from the OP list can be chosen:

A commander on bike joins a unit with Khan in it, does he get HaR or FC? NO, since no permission for ICs is granted by either rule.

Khan joins a unit of bikes, does the unit gain HaR and FC? YES, the permission is given with the words "models in his unit".

As a side note:
I do believe that neither the Painboy nor Mad Dok get the FNP them self since Doks Tools only refer to the attached unit.

arnaroe wrote:The FNP example is just good to use but any from the OP list can be chosen:

A commander on bike joins a unit with Khan in it, does he get HaR or FC? NO, since no permission for ICs is granted by either rule.
Khan joins a unit of bikes, does the unit gain HaR and FC? YES, the permission is given with the words "models in his unit".

It depends somewhat on how 'specific' you demand the permission is before being satisfied. Similar in some ways to non-shooting pychic powers don't specificly say "this is not a shooting power," but its completely impossible to claim that something like "fortune" is a shooting power even before the FAQ arrived for it.

Similarly any demand for a specific rule can be taken to ridiclous extreme, it wouldn't be a valid like of argument to suggest that, since no permission is given for (eg) Khan to give a unit HaR and FC on a wednesday afternoon just after lunch they can't use it at that time.

Basically just as guide isn't a shooting power because not being used in the shooting phase is exception enough, so should being required to be part of the unit be exception enough? Given the will of the developers shown though the FAQ for an alike situation in Embolden, I think the situation is tipped in favour of being inclusive in such cases there something is effecting the unit to cause a rule or condition.
Natrually I would extend this the other way, if you case Doom onto a unit with an IC the IC is part of the unit as per his rules and suffers the effects of that.

As a side note:
I do believe that neither the Painboy nor Mad Dok get the FNP them self since Doks Tools only refer to the attached unit.

And just out of curiousity how are you defining the painboy as not part of his own unit? He isn't an IC you know..

Hymirl wrote:
It depends somewhat on how 'specific' you demand the permission is before being satisfied. Similar in some ways to non-shooting pychic powers don't specificly say "this is not a shooting power," but its completely impossible to claim that something like "fortune" is a shooting power even before the FAQ arrived for it.

This is true, but there is no indication that the rules demand a more specific text than is currently given in most of the rules. The rule in question is actually the only general rule that governs how ICs and special rules interact in the manner we are discussing so we have to look at it as the foundation of the interaction. All it is really saying is that special rules do not affect ICs (and vice verse) unless stated in the rule. There can be no levels of "specificy" (is that a word?) since the rules give us nothing solid to compare to. Saying that the stubborn example gives us some guideline will only end in endless debate over what is enough and what isnt. An herein lies the difference in your example. There we can pinpoint attributes from the rules and deduct from them, like "does it happen in the shooting phase" or "is there a roll to wound"?

Hymirl wrote:
Similarly any demand for a specific rule can be taken to ridiclous extreme, it wouldn't be a valid like of argument to suggest that, since no permission is given for (eg) Khan to give a unit HaR and FC on a wednesday afternoon just after lunch they can't use it at that time.

I think we can both agree that this is nothing like asking for the words: "and any ICs joining that unit".

Hymirl wrote:
Basically just as guide isn't a shooting power because not being used in the shooting phase is exception enough, so should being required to be part of the unit be exception enough? Given the will of the developers shown though the FAQ for an alike situation in Embolden, I think the situation is tipped in favour of being inclusive in such cases there something is effecting the unit to cause a rule or condition.

I must admit that the Embolden issue complicates things. However, since the question was specifically worded for Ld (Psychic) test I think we have to bypass it for now and hope it gets clarified.

Hymirl wrote:
Natrually I would extend this the other way, if you case Doom onto a unit with an IC the IC is part of the unit as per his rules and suffers the effects of that.

By that logic a blast that would cover the whole unit would not affect the IC. But since we are arguing about special rules, not attacks from the enemy, I think we can bypass this also.

Hymirl wrote:
And just out of curiousity how are you defining the painboy as not part of his own unit? He isn't an IC you know..

Ill give you that this is somewhat a long shot but when reading the Ambush rule I noticed that it refers twice to Snikrot and his unit. Doks Tools say that they confer FNP to the Painboys unit. Therefor I think that we can at best assume that he is also affected.

Hymirl wrote:
As such it sidesteps the rule preventing unit special rules

I'm really curious how you're making this leap. Why should there be a sudden "sdestep" of the rule preventing the transfer of special rules from units to ICs simply because the special rule results from a purchased wargear item?

There is nothing in the rules that state that universal special rules gained from an item of wargear are different from the universal special rules inherent to the unit. If no differences are explicit in the rules themselves, then why should they act in any way other than expressly stated by those rules themselves?

Also, I think the timing you mention in conferring the FNP to the IC is in error. When you purchase the 'Nobs unit while building your army, the Painboy w/Dok's Tools is purchased at the same time. Therefore, at the instant of army creation, the unit has the Feel No Pain ability. The Warboss cannot possibly join the unit of Nobs until the beginning of the game. At the point the Warboss joins the unit, that unit already has FNP. Your presentation of timing somehow has the Warboss joining the unit prior to the unit obtaining the FNP ability, and there's no way to do that with the current army list creation and deployment rules.

Lastly, I really don't understand any of the questioning of FNP being a special rule. I mean, there is exactly one place that an acceptable definition of Feel No Pain exists as Orks can take it. That is under the USR section of the main rule book. If the FNP granted to a unit by a Painboy is somehow not this special rule, then where are the rules for it? If it uses the same rules, how come it gets to use the rules that benefit the player but not the ones that limit the player?

I just wanted to say that I really appreciate this thread. It is very well thought out, explained and (for the most part) well-mannered discussion on a very complex subject.

It's funny because we're working on the new version of the INATFAQ this week and we just spent quite a while tonight discussing this issue.

I still really don't know exactly which way to go on this issue, and even if I do decide on a course of action I still have to convince the rest of the FAQ council members, so my opinions I voiced before (or now) most certainly may not end up being the final ruling we go with. Although I think I can safely say that whatever ruling we do decide upon I guarantee we will have spent more time thinking and agonizing over it than GW ever did when they wrote the damn thing!

I tend to find myself agreeing almost completely with arnaroe. While the IC rules do give an example of a special rule that specifies how it functions with ICs/units ("stubborn") that doesn't necessarily mean this is the only way such specificity can be achieved. I think the vast majority of players intuitively understand that when an IC has a special rule that applies to "his unit" the definition of that term means it applies to any unit he is part of.

While an IC is indeed a unit on his own, the words used "his unit" indicate that it is referring to a unit that he is part of, for at least the reason that nowhere else in the game is that term ever used to describe a lone IC.

So to me, it really isn't a question of whether or not someone like Mad Doc Grotsnik passes his FNP ability onto the unit he joins (he does), but the crux of the issue still remains whether or not another IC joining such a unit gains the special rules granted by 2nd IC joined to the unit (like Snikrot or a Chaplain, etc) or piece of wargear (like a Waaagh Banner, etc).


The more I think about it, the more I think you have to rule one way. If you're going to allow ICs to gain abilities from joining a unit sometimes then you have to do it all the time, which means Ghazghkull ambushing with Snikrot. And if you're going to rule the opposite way, then again you have to go all the way, which means an Apothecary doesn't provide FNP to ICs joined to a command squad. Because there just isn't any defining line you can draw in the sand to clearly make a ruling one way on one and the other way on the other.


Although I do think you can stick just with "special rules" a.ka. those rules found in the "special rules" of a unit's entry. That would clear things like the Waaagh Banner and allow its ability to be used by ICs joined to the unit. Even if you agree with this, Nartheciums and Doks Tools are still troublesome because although they are technically wargear (and not special rules) they most certainly do infer a universal special rule (FNP) onto the unit and therefore should likely fall into the non-transference camp.


I believe at the end of the day, the whole purpose of the rule on page 48 was to limit the ability of ICs to get crazy abilities by joining units. While the designers may likely have intended them to be able to utilize some things like the Dok's Tools FNP, I think if you go down that road as a 'ruling' you have to then allow things like the Snikrot combo. . .and that, I believe, is most certainly a case of an IC gaining a special rule simply by joining a unit, something that the rule on page 48 is expressly in place to stop.



So keep up the good discussion (if there's anything left to discuss) and most importantly if you guys can find more instances of where this issue rears its head in other codexes (something labeled a "special rule" or that provides a "universal special rule" to a unit that many people play is gained by an IC joining it) I would love to hear about it.

Trust Yakface to look beyond the immediate question and see the implications that extend beyond. I guess working on a project as broad-reaching as trying to FAQ all the issues within the GW rules set gets one to broaden one's perspective.

Cheers mate!

Referring to Yakface's thoughts on the subject

I honestly believe that FNP would apply from Dok's tools to the Warboss or any other IC in the squad, just like the Apothecary's equipment 'should do' to his commander in the same squad.

I honestly do not see the difference in the interpretation of the wording such as "members of the same squad" "the unit he is with" and "his unit". To me these are all the same thing. Just worded different, because thats what GW does, look at the 5th ed SM codex and the Special Character rules, a few are worded differently, but applied the same.

I am referring to (I know this has been gone over 100 times) to the 'fact' that IC in a unit/squad/mob/whatever are part of that unit, and the BGB makes several mentions of that 'fact'. I do believe that 'specify' does not specifically mean it 'has' to say IC included in the rule. "Specify" IMHO means exactly what it says, if it applies to someone else besides the squad it is made for. It only gives the "stubborn" USR as an example because-------> its in the same book, so everyone has access to it so they can see an example first hand. If they gave any other example, it would have to come from a codex that not everybody owns. And btw, the Stubborn rule specifies that only an IC gives it to the squad and *not* the other way around. Meaning if you take this to the extreme, than no ability can possibly apply to ICs, only ICs to units, if you say that "stubborn USR" was given as an example for a reason by GW.

Also if it is ruled that this would work for the Apothicary and not Dok's tools to ICs, I will seriously have problems interpreting future codex rules and other rules in the future, because all these examples listed are so close, I honestly can not say they are different in meaning in any way.

Yes, by making a ruling on one way or another you have to go all the way. But could not Snkirot's special rule be the one that's in error? And truly the writer really had no intention for IC's to gain this special rule (total speculation here), but it would make it extremely more powerful than it already is for a pretty cheap price.


This is all I have to say on the subject, let the merry-go-round continue.

Padixon, yes that COULD be the case.

padixon wrote:
I honestly do not see the difference in the interpretation of the wording such as "members of the same squad" "the unit he is with" and "his unit". To me these are all the same thing. Just worded different, because thats what GW does, look at the 5th ed SM codex and the Special Character rules, a few are worded differently, but applied the same.

I agree with you on this matter, all those different wordings mean the same thing. I used "joined" but yakface used a better term, "part of".

padixon wrote:
I am referring to (I know this has been gone over 100 times) to the 'fact' that IC in a unit/squad/mob/whatever are part of that unit, and the BGB makes several mentions of that 'fact'. I do believe that 'specify' does not specifically mean it 'has' to say IC included in the rule. "Specify" IMHO means exactly what it says, if it applies to someone else besides the squad it is made for. It only gives the "stubborn" USR as an example because-------> its in the same book, so everyone has access to it so they can see an example first hand. If they gave any other example, it would have to come from a codex that not everybody owns. And btw, the Stubborn rule specifies that only an IC gives it to the squad and *not* the other way around. Meaning if you take this to the extreme, than no ability can possibly apply to ICs, only ICs to units, if you say that "stubborn USR" was given as an example for a reason by GW.

Here is where p. 48 comes in and makes an distinction. The normal order of things is that if an source in a unit confers an ability to other members all the unit gains that ability. However, when an IC joins the unit the "Special Rules" rule kicks in and interrupts the normal order. If this was not the case the rule would be meaningless.

"Unless specified in the rule it self (...) the units special rules are not conferred upon the character..."

We have two possible interpretations:

1) Specify means that the rule must say that they work for more than just the source of the ability ('specify' does not specifically mean it 'has' to say IC included in the rule)

2) Specify means that the rule has to say "IC included".

If we look at option 1) and keep in mind that the normal state of things is that abilities confer to all members in a unit the rule looks pointless. "Only when the normal conditions apply an IC gains abilities," is another way of putting it, or "Unless the rules specify that they affect other members of a unit the special rules..." As I see it this cant work since there is no point in repeating in a special rule that things work like they should under normal conditions, it is already how things work.

If we look at option 2) and keep in mind that the normal state of things is that abilities confer to all members in a unit the rule makes perfect sense. "The normal rules for special rules do not apply for ICs when they are a part of a unit," or "Unless the rules specify they affect an IC they do not." This meaning also fits with the rest of the sentence in the sense that the rule is an deviation from the norm.

As for the stubborn example, Fearless is an ability that works on ICs since it says so in the text of the rule.

Hymirl:

Sorry for my bad answer on the Painboy question. It is unclear, to say the least.

What I wanted to say is that the wording for Ambush clearly states that the ability works for bot the character and the unit. This is mentioned twice in the rule. The rule for Doks Tools clearly say they affect the Painboyz unit so why should they also affect him? Because he is a part of the unit? Then why do rules like Liturgies of Battle and Ambush state that they also affect the character in question? In my opinion the unit concept is being stretched way to far in this argument.

What I wanted to say is that the wording for Ambush clearly states that the ability works for bot the character and the unit. This is mentioned twice in the rule. The rule for Doks Tools clearly say they affect the Painboyz unit so why should they also affect him? Because he is a part of the unit? Then why do rules like Liturgies of Battle and Ambush state that they also affect the character in question? In my opinion the unit concept is being stretched way to far in this argument.

Well worded post, the whole thing I mean, not just this part

I brought this one up, to bring up a weird point. There are also some rules meant to work for the unit as an upgrade item, but specifically mention they don't work with an IC (chaos icon comes to mind, but I believe there is at least one other example).

What I mean, is that why make that distinction in a clear unit upgrade (note: this rule in question is in fact in the 4th ed book, so applies to all the 4th ed codices)?

Clearly, GW either forgot about the IC special rule, or know about it and wanted to make this rule (Chaos Icon as an example) a clear no no for ICs.

This also applies to the Painboy and the "his unit" thing as well. is not the painboy in that unit? Does Grotsniks FNP rule only work for himself when by himself, and for his unit and not him when he is in a unit, or only for himself in a unit or not? Clearly GW did not mean for us to have to keep track like this, when they themselves wanted a streamlined approach to gaming.

What I mean is the codex was written in a "high" school equivalent writing format. It is meant for us to understand without having to hire lawyers.

What we need to do is apply all the ways we read this rule to every codex and special rule out there and see which one makes the most sense. Surely, GW is not trying to trip us up on this.

Thanks padixon!

One point on the ambush case, Snikrot is not an IC so I find comparing him to the Painboy issue appropriate. In one example we have clear wording that every member in the unit gets to enter from any table edge and in the other we have clear wording that it is only the unit that gets FNP.

In my opinion it is the stretching of the unit concept that is causing all the misunderstanding. "His unit" means only his unit (or a unit he is a part of) but not him self. For that to happen the rule would have to be worded like Snikrots rule, "Doks Tools confer FNP to the Painboy and his unit".

Mad Doks case becomes clear with this in mind. He never gets FNP when alone since the tools say his unit but not him self.

You are right that the latest codices are written for high school equivalents and that is why we should not stretch concepts too far.

arnaroe wrote:Thanks padixon!

One point on the ambush case, Snikrot is not an IC so I find comparing him to the Painboy issue appropriate. In one example we have clear wording that every member in the unit gets to enter from any table edge and in the other we have clear wording that it is only the unit that gets FNP.

In my opinion it is the stretching of the unit concept that is causing all the misunderstanding. "His unit" means only his unit (or a unit he is a part of) but not him self. For that to happen the rule would have to be worded like Snikrots rule, "Doks Tools confer FNP to the Painboy and his unit".

Mad Doks case becomes clear with this in mind. He never gets FNP when alone since the tools say his unit but not him self.

You are right that the latest codices are written for high school equivalents and that is why we should not stretch concepts too far.

I honestly do not believe that Snikrot's wording is an example on 'how' a rule is to be written when talking about units.

For example, look one page over at Boss Zagstruk, and under his 'swoop attack' special rule. This is another non-USR and ork specific rule. This rule only says "Vulcha Squad" as the unit being affected, and does not name Zagstruck whatsoever.

or Ghazghkull's Waagh rule it says it effects all ork infantry and that all non-fleeing orks friendly 'units' are fearless, does this mean Ghazghkull is *not* affected by his own rule because he is not listed any where in his own rule? (this is in reference to Mad Doks tools not working for him)

To be honest, I don't know why GW makes a distinction when adding an IC or special upgrade character in their rule (like the Chaplain, Librarian psychic powers, ere we go [weird boy power] or snikrot), and when sometimes they don't make that distinction (Narthecium, Dok's tools, Ghaz, Zagstruck, Warpath [weird boy power] and heck we can even pile in the Mek's Kustom Force field, because they effect all 'units' within 6" and don't say himself)

My point is, I don't think GW is making any distinction what so ever, its just the way they decided to write it. I mean surely, you don't think that the Big Meks Kustom force field doesn't effect the mek or Ghaz's rule not effecting himself either?

1) Zagstrucks rules reference USRs right? don't have my codex.. can't check.

2) Gazzies rules say "ALL orks". You can't be any more inclusive then ALL ORKS... unless you are trying to argue ghazzie isn't an ork?

I think it is interesting that no one has brought up Grotsniks specific wording of what his "unit" is during the game.

From "one scapel short of a medpack", last sentence

This means that once Doc Grotsnik has joined a unit, he may not leave it unless he is the last remaining member of that unit

So the unit he is joined with is his unit. Otherwise he couldn't ever be the last remaining member of that unit.

from the dok tool rule:

He confers the FNP ability to his unit.

so since Grotsnik has dok's tools and he is part of a unit, the unit he is joined with gets FNP.

In same way, an IC is always part of the unit with the exception of attacking in combat.

Once all attacks have been resolved, these characters are once again treated as normal members of the unit they have joined (from determining assault results onwards).

So yes, a painboy would confer FNP to any (and all) ICs with the unit as they are part of the painboy's unit during gameplay.

I'll admit that I've continued to follow this thread. I like to read rule interpretations from the forums becasue this gives me an idea of how people that I play will inpterpreate the rules, since I only really ever play pick up games in a GW store, as well as how my understandings mesh with the rest of the community. It seems that this topic has come back to a reasonable debate and it has gained some scope from all the wild posts that were out there.

I do think that with the post from Yakface that this gray area has gotten some bit of clarity. The discussion of the rule on pg. 48 of the BRB now seems to only be centered around the USR section of the rules. This would exclude things like Psychic powers and added bonuses such as banners (waaagh! and command). With that in mind I believe that the rule on pag. 48 is really refering to the listed "special Rules" in each units army list. Not to any added rules that are granted to a unit. My belief is that this was to prevent the Fleeting broodlords, and Dance of death Farseers. This would mean that if the rule is listed in entry of the army list than any attached / joining IC would not also gain those abilities.

To take the example of Snikrot. Now that I have really read his entry I know for certain that attaching Ghazghkull to the kommando unit while it is in reserves would not work at all. Ghazghkull has IC, Mob rule, Ferious charge, Prophet... He does not have Infiltrate as the komandos and Snikrot do. Ambush is merely an added bonus or granted rule. Now if there was an IC in the ork army that also had the special rule Infiltrate could he attach to the komando unit and infiltrate with them from any board edge? I say Yes. Because that is how I see the special rules working.

Now does my interpretation allow for some really crazy combos? Sure. I don't see it being game breaking though. Feel no pain is cool until the Pathfinders Rend you with sniper riles or I blast you with Star cannons. I think if the rule on pg 48 were clarified to read " from the special rules section of the unit entry" or something along those lines this would be an easier problem to solve.

All just my opinion.

Zero

herozero, where in the special rule Ambush does it say infiltrate?

I can't find it.