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.

Can you give the Infiltrate rule to an opponent's unit? The rule just specifies non-vehicle units, not 'your units' or 'friendly units.'

Why would you assuming you could ?

You give it to an IC, they are unable to join non-infiltrators during deployment, unless they go in reserve. That could certainly wrong foot your opponent.

No that's why you would want to.

Why do you think you can?

Because the rule says you can give the rule to any three non vehicle units. Not your units, friendly units, or units in your army. Just non vehicle units. Your opponent's units fit the criteria.

Unless otherwise specified, your special rules affect only your own units.

Trasvi wrote:
Unless otherwise specified, your special rules affect only your own units.

I accept it's common sense and a reasonable assumption to make, but do you have a reference to support that?

 Mr. Shine wrote:

Trasvi wrote:
Unless otherwise specified, your special rules affect only your own units.

I accept it's common sense and a reasonable assumption to make, but do you have a reference to support that?

I've never seen any language to that affect, but I suppose the rules around warlord traits would have something to do with it. I don't think you could apply infiltrate to something outside your own army.

 Jimsolo wrote:
You give it to an IC, they are unable to join non-infiltrators during deployment, unless they go in reserve. That could certainly wrong foot your opponent.

This is an incorrect assumption.

The ic doesn't deploy with the unit in regular deployment, but can be deployed into and join the unit during the deploy infiltrators step(including deploying him into a transport).

There is 0 negative impact.

 Kommissar Kel wrote:

 Jimsolo wrote:
You give it to an IC, they are unable to join non-infiltrators during deployment, unless they go in reserve. That could certainly wrong foot your opponent.

This is an incorrect assumption.

The ic doesn't deploy with the unit in regular deployment, but can be deployed into and join the unit during the deploy infiltrators step(including deploying him into a transport).

There is 0 negative impact.

It was recently FAQd. An IC without infiltrate cannot join a unit of infiltrators during deployment, and vice versa.
Since infiltrating is not optional it means for example, I could never start my Destroyer Lord joined to flayed ones to soak up the first turn of fire(regardless of where I deployed them). However I could join him during he movement phase of my first turn.

Ah, I see.

Although I am fairly certain that it is just poor wording on the FAQs part; meaning you couldn't infiltrate the unit with the ic that has the rule. As it is written now it conflicts with the ic rules. Oh well.

BRB:
Strategic Traits are skills that affect your entire army, representing
tricks or gambits your Warlord sets in motion long before the battle
begins.

As it states your army I would say no you can not pass the infiltrate onto an enemy unit.

It's dirty.

Arthurmw43 wrote:
BRB:
Strategic Traits are skills that affect your entire army, representing
tricks or gambits your Warlord sets in motion long before the battle
begins.

As it states your army I would say no you can not pass the infiltrate onto an enemy unit.

Princeps of Deceit and Divide and Conquer are also strategic warlord traits, and neither buffs your army directly, but rather causes bad effects directly against the enemy army.

but

Both of those specifically affect the enemy. Master of Ambush doesn't say one way or the other, but I think the clear hidden assumption here is that you can't just arbitrarily apply special rules to enemy units unless you have permission to do that. The logic I've seen so far in this thread is "well, mom didn't say we COULDN'T play with her vibrator..."

A better analogy for the logic you've seen in this thread so far is
"Mom said I could give this family heirloom to anyone I wanted". It would make sense for you to only be able to give it to family members since it is a family heirloom, but your mom said you could give it to anyone.

People are pointing out that the game is giving them permission to do something that doesn't really make sense, not pointing out that the book doesn't say they can't.

Also, the bits of text at the top of the warlord trait tables are fluff descriptions, not rules. If they were rules, then the Comand Traits table would only be usable by Imperial Guard HQs since they're the only ones that can "issue orders". They only help to provide reasoning for why your warlord has these extra rules, not give rules for how (s)he may use them.

Personally, I'd totally allow you to give my units extra special rules. The worst thing that could happen would be you prevent one of my buffing units from joining a squad on your first turn. It could just as easily benefit me if there are any well placed objectives, or i could potentially zone your infiltrators if i win the roll off. If I seize initiative I might even be able to just join the squad first turn anyways and nullify the entire tactic. It's definitely not game breaking, and appears to be completely allowed by the rules, so I'd say go for it.

Give it to a Farseer in a Seer Council?

Must join the unit. Cannot join the unit. Universe segfaults.

Bharring wrote:
Give it to a Farseer in a Seer Council?

Must join the unit. Cannot join the unit. Universe segfaults.

Codex vs BRB. Codex wins....

There is no "codex vs brb" rule, that's just something commonly said on forums. The rule is called "Basic vs Advanced". But, this actually does not come into play in this circumstance.

An IC with infiltrate cannot join a unit without Infiltrate during deployment. To join a unit during deployment, you simply deploy the IC within 2" of the unit it wishes to join.

The Farseers in a Seer Council must join the unit BEFORE deployment, and then cannot leave. When it comes time to deploy, the entire seer council is one unit, and can be deployed as normal. No joining is happening during deployment, so no rule is being broken.

Bojazz wrote:
There is no "codex vs brb" rule, that's just something commonly said on forums. The rule is called "General vs Specific". But, this actually does not come into play in this circumstance.

An IC with infiltrate cannot join a unit without Infiltrate during deployment. To join a unit during deployment, you simply deploy the IC within 2" of the unit it wishes to join.

The Farseers in a Seer Council must join the unit BEFORE deployment, and then cannot leave. When it comes time to deploy, the entire seer council is one unit, and can be deployed as normal. No joining is happening during deployment, so no rule is being broken.

Codex vs BRB is just a shortening of the bit in gen vs specific where it tells you if there is a conflict between BRB and Codex, to side with codex.
It would come up, as one entry says, "must join" and one says "may not join" with this conflict, you side with the codex. Joining happens at deployment, whether in reserves or on the table, the unit doesn't exist beforehand. The IC must join the unit and may not leave, still means they join the unit, and being told they can't creates a conflict (which is then solved by Codex vs BRB)

Bojazz wrote:
There is no "codex vs brb" rule, that's just something commonly said on forums. The rule is called "General vs Specific". But, this actually does not come into play in this circumstance.

Yes there is. Its on Pg13 if I remember correctly

I hate extraneous discussion to show off apparent rules knowledge. Let it die on the vine.

 CrownAxe wrote:
Yes there is. Its on Pg13 if I remember correctly

Nope. It's just basic vs advanced. It gives the example of special rules in army list entries within codexes, but does not state anywhere that codex always beats BRB. It just states that advanced rules trumps basic rules. "Codex beats BRB" is just something we've come to say because it is commonly true. But it is most definitely not a rule.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
I hate extraneous discussion to show off apparent rules knowledge. Let it die on the vine.

Personally I think it best to correct incorrect statements when they're made lest they lead to an entirely new thread being created on the misunderstood/incorrect statement...

1/2 dozen or 6 if you catch my drift.

Yep, I agree Dozer. It's a VERY small point to make. I didn't think it'd get that much response. I certainly didn't intend to flex my brain muscle or anything, I just share Mr. Shine's line of thought where I have the urge to help people understand the reasoning behind the way some things work so it (hopefully) leads to less rules misunderstandings in the future.

Bojazz wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:
Yes there is. Its on Pg13 if I remember correctly

Nope. It's just basic vs advanced. It gives the example of special rules in army list entries within codexes, but does not state anywhere that codex always beats BRB. It just states that advanced rules trumps basic rules. "Codex beats BRB" is just something we've come to say because it is commonly true. But it is most definitely not a rule.

Yes it is, it's right there. It is the last sentence of the "Basic vs Advanced" box

Oh, put him out of his misery, will you?

"On rare occasions, a conflict will arise between a rule in this rulebook, and one printed in a codex. Where this occurs, the rule printed in the codex or Army List Entry always takes precedence."

Codex > BRB (but only when an actual conflict arises)

Jeeze, I read that twice and missed it twice. Thanks CrownAxe! (and Mr. Shine)