The new tyranid codex has been giving me a headache, in a good way, when it comes to the elite slots for my FOC. Not because we have too few choices, but now we have so many viable options for our lists and not enough places to put them!

I found a pewter model at my FLGS made by Warlord called the "Devourer of Mashaf". Basically it was a $10 blister that looked like a giant spore mine with fangs. After some green stuff and a few extra bits from my trygon kit, however, I have a floaty, large-brained, DOOM OF MALAN'TAI!

Now playing with the doom so far has been very fun for me and not so for my opponents. The best trick (and a dirty trick i might add) I have found for him is to place him in a spod with a tyranid prime bodyguard, and deep strike amidst the enemy's gunline (or parking garage, if they're mech'ed up). During the shooting phase, every unit within 6" has to take the Ld test on 3D6 or suffer wounds with no armor save, and at the same time buff the Doom for his template attack. What makes him so delicious is this ability will affect units within transports as well, just not the transports themselves. What's that, you say? His rule states "non-vehicle units"? Yes. Yes it does. And so, I quote from the 5th ed. FAQ released from GW themselves:

Q. Must passengers fire at the same target that
their vehicle is firing at?
A. No, they are a separate unit (albeit they are
temporarily co-existing with the vehicle) and so
can fire at a different target."

Therefore, if DOOM is within 6" of a full transport the vehicle itself suffers no soul-sucking but the occupants do. And if the transport somehow becomes stunned or immobilized, they have to get out to prevent it happening again on their turn, thus negating any heavy weapons in the squad. The bodyguard HQ can take any S8 or S9 hits to keep his charge alive from instant death, etc, etc.

Cheesy? Beardy? What are your thoughts on this combo?

Many people will probably argue with your interpretation of that rule, but regardless of that, this trick seems really gimmicky, and I can't imagine you'll really get to pull it off more than once.

What's to argue? The FAQ explicitly says "separate unit" when referring to models inside of a transport. The Doom's ability is a non-targeted 6" area effect, affecting all 'units' within the range. I see no point that can be made against my interpretation.

Also, the intent of the doom is not to decimate the entire opposing force, but to take whatever chunk out of it that he can, while distracting them from shooting the rest of my forces podding in/moving across the board/waking up in terrain, etc. I LOVE the new codex with the multiple deployment abilities! You never know where my bugs are going to come from next!!!

I think people are going to argue that designer intent makes units in transports immune to this ability, similar to how they are immune to psychic powers. We'll see how it plays out in the FAQ.

the disparity between RAW and RAI is something that does hinder the flow of games, especially when a new codex comes out with sometimes strangely worded special rules.

I will probably end up arguing a lot about this ability with people because they don't want it to be as powerful as it can be rules-lawyered out to be. Hopefully a simple dice roll-off will be enough to settle most of these arguments.

Also, as an afterthought, does the BRB specifically state that units in transports are IMMUNE to psychic powers, or simply cannot be targeted by them? an example that comes to mind is lash of submission; you cannot target the units in a transport to lash them. However, an untargeted effect, in my opinion, could cause some kind of effect except for leadership check to the embarked unit. (Heh, ever seen a rhino falling back? lol)

The rulebook FAQ says that psychic powers can't be used at all against units in transports, unless the psyker is in the unit being transported.

again, and i'm not trying to be argumentative here but inquisitive, the wording is where this rules-lawyering makes all the difference. does the BRB say 'affected by psychic powers' or 'targeted by psychic powers'? i will stop by my FLGS on my lunch break and look it up, because the wording does make a very big difference in this tactical combo.

"Can psychic powers be used on a unit embarked on a transport?"

"No, unless the psyker himself is in the unit being transported."

I would argue that the Doom's Spirit leech is not a power that you elect to use; rather it is something that just happens every shooting phase. it says every enemy unit within 6" must make a ld test on 3d6, blah blah blah, whether you want them to or not. It just happens. Were it a targeted ability, such as the hive tyrant's paroxysm, i would completely agree that units within the transport cannot be targeted by the psychic power.

Spirit Leech isn't a psychic power, so it's not affected by this ruling specifically, but I think there's a good chance that the FAQ will not allow Spirit Leech to work on units in transports. Keep in mind that this ruling exists "for simplicity's sake." RAW, I'd say Spirit Leech probably works on units in transports, but I think the FAQ will probably not allow this to continue.

were this to be the case 2+ months from now when the FAQ gets written, the doom will go from a must-have staple unit to a 'maybe' in my book. Everybody who plays guard and SM at my flgs locks their infantry up in sardine cans every game.

I don't think the Doom is really a staple unit regardless of whether its power works on models in transports, as it's quite easy to kill and uses a precious Elites slot. It's a cool power, but not one you can really rely on. Zoanthropes or Hive Guard seem generally more threatening to enemies in transports anyway.

based on the 3 games i've fielded him, he's caused enough disruption to allow my other units to move into position and wreak havoc. That alone is what makes him a must-have for me. The HQ bodyguard Tyranid Prime is my answer to krak missiles and lascannons. Railguns and Demolisher cannons are what i try to avoid, which is what makes deep-striking with a spod so great for this combo. At the very least i can attempt to cause a squad of broadsides to die before they get a chance to fire their S10 shots at my unit, or i can drop behind a railhead and hopefuly a s5 d.spitter can glance and cause it not to be able to shoot either. 40k is a game of dice rolls and gambits, which do not always pay off, but i have found the most fun games are the ones where you take chances. When a random or risky move pays off it feels way better than when you do the same tried-and-true method repeatedly. Again, another reason why i love the new 'nid dex, it allows for so many ways to deploy your troops onto the battlefield the opponent (and I) never know where the bugs will be coming from until the game is underway.

Alright tetrisphreak, please do me a favor. Measure the distance from the doom to the embarked unit. Not to the transport, as that is not the embarked unit. Measure to the embarked unit itself, and let me know if it's within 6".

Now no using reverse terminology. Just because psychic powers from a transported psyker are measured from the hull of the vehicle does not mean that the transported unit is at the hull, just the same as a unit firing from fire points measures from that fire point. Since these are 2 different cases yet apply to the same idea, it can't be used as a general "here is where the embarked unit is" rule.

So please, measure to the base of the embarked unit so I know it's within 6".

Also the doom is not an IC, and I believe that units that only ever consist of 1 model that is not an IC cannot be joined by other ICs.

Q. Must passengers fire at the same target that
their vehicle is firing at?
A. No, they are a separate unit (albeit they are
temporarily co-existing with the vehicle) and so
can fire at a different target."

It says right there they are 'co-existing' with the vehicle. Therefore the measurement distance is to the hull of the vehicle, which they are occupying the same space, or 'footprint' as we say here.

I.C.'s can join any unit, including other I.C.'s. Otherwise Tyrant guard would come in broods of 2-3, not 1-3.

By that definition, The Nightbringer's Etheric Tempest ability also affects embarked enemies.
In addition, if a model suffers 25% casualties from the spirit leech, they have to take a morale check. Now let's say that this is a model embarked in a wave serpent that moved flat out, and they fail their morale check (we'll say that the person was stupid enough to flat out the serpent to within 6" of the Doom so this happens in their shooting phase). How do you resolve the enemy disembarking? Also, how do you resolve how far the models move, and what happens if they force disembark? The concept of affecting embarked models brings up so many problems that it shouldn't even be considered. Similarly with the Etheric Tempest, if models have to move directly away from the Nightbringer, and so are forced to disembark, are they allowed to do anything for the rest of the turn? This is also a problem because force disembarkation is only used when models cannot be placed so that they are more than 1" away from an enemy and/or are not in impassable terrain. So in essence it is an illegal force disembark that has to happen and can't happen at the same time.

One other thing, I'd like to present a funny situation: A squad of fire dragons moves just past the doom (ie just a little closer to the Tyranid edge than the Eldar edge) in their serpent. The doom uses its ability, which kills off enough dragons to force a test which they fail. They run out of the serpent, but it is still their shooting phase. Since units are allowed to shoot while falling back, the dragons fire at the doom, causing it to fail one of its invulnerable saves and instant killing it.


Also I said "units that only ever consist of 1 model" not "units that may exist only as one model but can exist as more than 1 if you want to shell out the points for it."

Pg48 of the BRB states that ICs can't join units that always consist of a single model (or else I'm putting my farseer with a wraithlord making those pesky anti infantry weapons worthless against him). However, yes, ICs can join other ICs (the book states this).

edited to further clarify my point.

Hrm. Psychic powers (which Spirit Leech isn't) can't affect units in vehicles unless the psyker is in the unit (irrelevant in this case).

But the only way to measure to the unit would be to backwardize the Psychic effects emanating from the Hull rule, which wouldn't really apply since Soul Leech isn't a psychic power. I don't know of anywhere else in the rules that would let you measure to a vehicle to see if you can affect the passengers.

So either Soul Leech doesn't work because it's a psychic ability and cannot be used against a target unit in a transport, or Soul Leech doesn't work because it's not a psychic ability and has no rules for measuring range to an embarked unit inside their transport.

I was unaware of the IC + unique character = illegal rule. Apart from that though, i have an issue with saying that i cannot measure to the embarked squad. They are in that tank! That tank right there! The one 5" from my base! how is that not good enough measurement? And fluff-wise, if ceramite and plasteel plating can prevent your soul from being sucked out of your body by a psychic entity able to single clawdedly remove all life from an eldar craftworld, why did the eldar not just get in wave serpents and shoot star cannons at the doom? He'd just be another zoanthrope were that the case with nothing special going on for him.

I do think when the FAQ is eventually released it will rule in favor of embarked units being required to take the test. A good example is to look at the parasite of mortrex's entry: If an outflanking unit is in a vehicle, it still has to take the test to see if one of its passengers dies from a ripper infestation. This is a similar ability, requiring a test to be taken by a unit inside a vehicle, it is simply more situational.

We will see. Until then i will play the rule as agreed upon by my local players, with dice-roll-offs as necessary to resolve disputes.

Is the Doom of Malan'tai an Independent Character?

No, i just looked at the codex and he does not have the "independent character" special rule. His composition is 1 (Unique) and his type is Infantry.

Well, I guess it comes back now to wrecking/exploding transports with zoeys while moving the doom towards the occupants, forcing them to ld check on their shooting phase unless they can move far enough away from me.

Again, he's a very distractionary character and still serves what i consider to be a good purpose, even if i am totally wrong on the transport thingy.

I don't think that it would affect units in a transport. I cannot target a unit in a transport, only the transport, If I drop a template on a transport, I do not target the units inside only the transport. If I assualt a Chimera with Yeril and use his Bale Eye template attack which is not targeting anything, just a template over hiim, I cannot hit the unit in the transport. If i use the halocaust Psk ability and it hits a loaded transport. If I explode a vehicle, and the explosion reaches a loaded transport, the embarked unit is unaffected. These are examples of abilities that work the same as Doom's. They affect a non-targeted area, not a specific unit. You are trying to take a new badly worded ability and get everything you can get out of it. You will be argued with every time and as you can see there are many examples of similar abilties to back up the no you can't viewpoint. Also this thread should maybe be in You Make Da Call

At this point, you may be right, as my tactic listed in the OP is now a highly contended ability that nobody who uses transports likes because it hurts their army. I do not know how to move a thread, perhaps a mod could do it?

I don't think anybody disagrees because it "hurts their army", it just doesn't seem to be legal.

This kind of started out in Tactics, but has rapidly evolved into a YMDC kind of thread.

Heh, and I just now saw your move request. Done!

tetrisphreak wrote:I was unaware of the IC + unique character = illegal rule. Apart from that though, i have an issue with saying that i cannot measure to the embarked squad. They are in that tank! That tank right there! The one 5" from my base! how is that not good enough measurement? And fluff-wise, if ceramite and plasteel plating can prevent your soul from being sucked out of your body by a psychic entity able to single clawdedly remove all life from an eldar craftworld, why did the eldar not just get in wave serpents and shoot star cannons at the doom? He'd just be another zoanthrope were that the case with nothing special going on for him.

I do think when the FAQ is eventually released it will rule in favor of embarked units being required to take the test. A good example is to look at the parasite of mortrex's entry: If an outflanking unit is in a vehicle, it still has to take the test to see if one of its passengers dies from a ripper infestation. This is a similar ability, requiring a test to be taken by a unit inside a vehicle, it is simply more situational.

We will see. Until then i will play the rule as agreed upon by my local players, with dice-roll-offs as necessary to resolve disputes.

When a unit embarks on a transport, you remove the unit from the table. Units in transports can not be targeted, fired at, pinned, or have any status effected on them until their transport is removed or they disembark. You can't measure 6" to something that's not on the table.

In terms of your fluff-answer....ceramite and plasteel probably can't prevent your soul from being sucked out of your body. But when your unit deep-strikes onto the table in the middle of some enemy tanks, exactly how is it supposed to know that the tank is full of people without peeling it open to see what's inside?

there is no example of ANY enemy ability (shooting, psychic, morale, whatever) that affects a unit embarked in a transport. using an FAQ (which according to GW is not official and just house rules) doesn't help you, especially since the "ruling" your using doesn't apply to what you're saying since it's talking about the owning player controlling the embarked unit. the rules SPECIFICALLY say that although you remove transported units off the table top, they can fire and move out per the firepoint and transport rules. they say NOTHING about enemy units affecting an offboard unit. you have to quote a rule that allows you to do something in order to do it. blast templates affect everything under the template (or to use your example, everything within 2.5 inches); would you take wounds for your 10 guardmsen in a chimera because a template landed on a vehicle and they are within 2.5 inches?

Whether or not the Doom is supposed to work as if it were targeting each unit within that distance, or whether it's simply an involuntary special rule which happens to cause damage, is something which needs to be FAQ'd.

If the doom special rule specifies units within X", then absent other considerations the rule which would allow a embarked unit to be affected is on page 66, "If the players need to measure a range involving the embarked unit (except for its shooting), this range is measured to or from the vehicle's hull." If the Doom is on the board and it's 9" away from a transport, then the embarked unit is also 9" away, according to page 66. As much as some posters will vehemently disagree, there are no official GW FAQ statements which say "Harmful effects cannot affect embarked units".

Very many abilities specify models within X", and those abilities run into the complications alluded to in the main rulebook FAQ response, questions such as "If a unit is X" away, how many of the models are actually X" away?" "If only part of the transport is within X", how many of the embarked models are within X"?" There are enough FAQ answers to argue precedent that if a special rule for any single embarked model needs to be measured, that measurement can be done from any point on the hull of the embarked vehicle. Note that "units with models within X"" has the same issue as "models within X"" because it is necessary in both cases to establish distance to a particular model.

So as long as the Doom special rules specifies "units within X"" and not "units with models within X"", then by RaW (and not yet FAQ'd), the special rule should apply.

There is one ability that works on embarked units, The parasite of mortrex. However I agree with warboss and dash of pepper that the Doom of Malantai cannot affect embarked units. For the Parasite of Mortrex gw had to actually state that it worked that way. No such clarification exists for the Doom of Malantai.

Overall this character isn't as great as people think he is. Its definitely not bad for sure, and will cause a lot of pain for horde armies. However some important things to note.

1. Unlike regular Zoan's it isn't a synapse creature. This means it has to test for IB. Thats cool though right? All I wanna do with it is shoot? Well guess what IB it is? Its a feeder not a lurker.

2. It can be instant killed.

3. Even though its soul sucker ability works in the opponents shooting phase you have to remember that your opponent will get a movement phase in which they are pretty much going to move everything out of its range before its ability gets off. This is even helped further by them allocating wounds to the models closest to it.

4. You know how you gain wounds from dealing them right? Well don't forget using your big potential demolisher cannon psychic power will deal d3 wounds to it with no save possible. Furthermore these wounds are dealt BEFORE you gain wounds back. Your first shooting attack can't kill you (unless you get unlucky and take a perils), however it does mean you can be stuck with stuff all wounds when it comes time to shoot back at you.

this is a flat out nope. If my Necron Lord's Nightmare Shroud can't make units in transports run out in terror then I'm sure your little DOOM thing can't target them inside

solkan wrote:Whether or not the Doom is supposed to work as if it were targeting each unit within that distance, or whether it's simply an involuntary special rule which happens to cause damage, is something which needs to be FAQ'd.

If the doom special rule specifies units within X", then absent other considerations the rule which would allow a embarked unit to be affected is on page 66, "If the players need to measure a range involving the embarked unit (except for its shooting), this range is measured to or from the vehicle's hull." If the Doom is on the board and it's 9" away from a transport, then the embarked unit is also 9" away, according to page 66. As much as some posters will vehemently disagree, there are no official GW FAQ statements which say "Harmful effects cannot affect embarked units".

Very many abilities specify models within X", and those abilities run into the complications alluded to in the main rulebook FAQ response, questions such as "If a unit is X" away, how many of the models are actually X" away?" "If only part of the transport is within X", how many of the embarked models are within X"?" There are enough FAQ answers to argue precedent that if a special rule for any single embarked model needs to be measured, that measurement can be done from any point on the hull of the embarked vehicle. Note that "units with models within X"" has the same issue as "models within X"" because it is necessary in both cases to establish distance to a particular model.

So as long as the Doom special rules specifies "units within X"" and not "units with models within X"", then by RaW (and not yet FAQ'd), the special rule should apply.

Thank you Solkan, I was trying to explain all this but didn't even know where to start given the abundance of misinformation in the thread. Solkan is 100% correct on this issue.

solkan wrote: As much as some posters will vehemently disagree, there are no official GW FAQ statements which say "Harmful effects cannot affect embarked units".

nor is there anything in the rules or the faq's that state "Harmful effect CAN affect embarked units". if you allow this to work on embarked units, then so should template and pie plates affect embarked units. they affect everything within 1" or 2.5" of the center and templates affect everything under them.

hey OP, how about adding a neutrally worded poll along the lines of "Can the Doom of Malantai affect units within range but embarked on transports? yes no".

You did see that he is not an eternal warrior right?

Even if you find some judge to agree with you he will get little or no chance to use this power.

Yeah, last time I saw this discussion I thought 'Hmmm, T4 eh?'

Really, he's only 5 (on average) high strength shots away from death.

*counts his EMLs, Bright Lances, and Fire Dragons*

That'll do.

Orkestra wrote:Yeah, last time I saw this discussion I thought 'Hmmm, T4 eh?'

Really, he's only 5 (on average) high strength shots away from death.

*counts his EMLs, Bright Lances, and Fire Dragons*

That'll do.

hell i popped it first turn with a my chaos dread's multimelta. It's just another Zope, it pops like all the others

Solkan has once again saved me from having to type out a long answer. His post is correct.

If the transport is within 6" the *unit* is within 6", thus will be effected by Doom.
Blast markers work by counting models under the marker, which is why they fail in this situation.

And of course Doom is only T4, it is only 90pts, not supposed to be an IWIN button. But can show up, make 2-3 units lose some guys, toss a S8 AP2 pie plate.... and then if it dies... oh well.

6 Genestealer squads, each with a Broodlord with Aura of despair.

"This psychic power is used at the beginning of your Assault phase. If successful, all enemy units within 12" of the Broodlord suffer a -1 penalty to their Leadership until the end of the following player turn. If an enemy unit is within range of several Broodlords using this power, the modifiers are cumulative."

Stack a bunch of them up then deep strike Doom of Malan'tai in near them to annihilate some squads with life drain and get off a S10 AP1 Large Blast on the turn you arrive.

Sure it's a huge investment in a not too effective army, but the look on your opponenets face if he has any units bunched up together would be almost worth it...

The Spirit Leech power is used in your shooting phase I thought? Which suggests you couldnt get the Aura off...

nosferatu1001 wrote:The Spirit Leech power is used in your shooting phase I thought? Which suggests you couldnt get the Aura off...

The Aura is just a thing that happens every shooting phase, it's not shooting, he would in theory use the aura then shoot every time his own shooting phase came up (assuming he passes the Psychic test and has a target in LOS)

edit: Wait I was confused... maybe we both were... Spirit Leech is the life draining aura, Cataclysm is the Psychic Shooting attack.

I meant Spirit Leech - in order to get the extra wounds you use Spirit Leech first, then fire the big boom attack.

However, as the Aura happens in your assault phase, unless Spirit Leech goes off every turn you would not get the benefits of the lowered leadership - as Spirit Leech happens before your Assault phase.

WOuld mean you would have a turn of shooting the Thrope (assuming Leech works every player turn) before you get the massive leadership drop...

nosferatu1001 wrote:I meant Spirit Leech - in order to get the extra wounds you use Spirit Leech first, then fire the big boom attack.

However, as the Aura happens in your assault phase, unless Spirit Leech goes off every turn you would not get the benefits of the lowered leadership - as Spirit Leech happens before your Assault phase.

WOuld mean you would have a turn of shooting the Thrope (assuming Leech works every player turn) before you get the massive leadership drop...

Oh wow, somehow I missed that the genestealer psychic power was from your assault phase, thus the confusion, I see your point now, oh well, guess all you can do is use Deathleaper on a character and then drop Doom of Malan'tai near him, no genestealer leadership modifier spam :(

Alas a slow connection creates yet another double post....

All I need are my D cannons or Wraithguard...one shot no big slimmy bugger in my lines....

tetrisphreak wrote:again, and i'm not trying to be argumentative here but inquisitive, the wording is where this rules-lawyering makes all the difference. does the BRB say 'affected by psychic powers' or 'targeted by psychic powers'? i will stop by my FLGS on my lunch break and look it up, because the wording does make a very big difference in this tactical combo.

That's all I needed to know about your attitude towards playing this game....

I fielded the doom last night and did not allow him to affect vehicles or embarked units, and his power did suffer in that respect than when i first used him. However, it seems as if the ruling from page 66 saves my cheesy tactic and will help when drop podding behind tau and IG enemy lines in the future. Sure if i fail a 3+ save from a railgun or demo cannon i will lose the model, but for 90 points plus the cost of a drop spore the potential for damage and disruption is great enough for me to warrant the elite slot.

thanks for the BRB reference i can take to my FLGS the next time i play with this unit, hopefully it keeps things on the table top civil, just as i like them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Saldiven wrote:

tetrisphreak wrote:again, and i'm not trying to be argumentative here but inquisitive, the wording is where this rules-lawyering makes all the difference. does the BRB say 'affected by psychic powers' or 'targeted by psychic powers'? i will stop by my FLGS on my lunch break and look it up, because the wording does make a very big difference in this tactical combo.

That's all I needed to know about your attitude towards playing this game....

Apparently you've never played magic the gathering...rules lawyering is the only way to competitively survive with that game. I have carried that attitude over to warhammer 40k, and i'll be the first to admit it.

Drunkspleen wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:I meant Spirit Leech - in order to get the extra wounds you use Spirit Leech first, then fire the big boom attack.

However, as the Aura happens in your assault phase, unless Spirit Leech goes off every turn you would not get the benefits of the lowered leadership - as Spirit Leech happens before your Assault phase.

WOuld mean you would have a turn of shooting the Thrope (assuming Leech works every player turn) before you get the massive leadership drop...

Oh wow, somehow I missed that the genestealer psychic power was from your assault phase, thus the confusion, I see your point now, oh well, guess all you can do is use Deathleaper on a character and then drop Doom of Malan'tai near him, no genestealer leadership modifier spam :(

You can still do the -LD bomb with Spirit Leech. remember Spirit Leech goes off at the beginning of EVERY shooting phase (before the opponent shoots), and Aura of Despair lasts through the enemy turn also. So your opponent will have to move his models during their turn, or they are going to get hit by Spirit Leech, and take the -LD from the Broodlord(s) too.

tetrisphreak wrote:I fielded the doom last night and did not allow him to affect vehicles or embarked units, and his power did suffer in that respect than when i first used him. However, it seems as if the ruling from page 66 saves my cheesy tactic and will help when drop podding behind tau and IG enemy lines in the future. Sure if i fail a 3+ save from a railgun or demo cannon i will lose the model, but for 90 points plus the cost of a drop spore the potential for damage and disruption is great enough for me to warrant the elite slot.

thanks for the BRB reference i can take to my FLGS the next time i play with this unit, hopefully it keeps things on the table top civil, just as i like them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Saldiven wrote:

tetrisphreak wrote:again, and i'm not trying to be argumentative here but inquisitive, the wording is where this rules-lawyering makes all the difference. does the BRB say 'affected by psychic powers' or 'targeted by psychic powers'? i will stop by my FLGS on my lunch break and look it up, because the wording does make a very big difference in this tactical combo.

That's all I needed to know about your attitude towards playing this game....

Apparently you've never played magic the gathering...rules lawyering is the only way to competitively survive with that game. I have carried that attitude over to warhammer 40k, and i'll be the first to admit it.

The first rule of 40k, don't talk about 40k. Wait....oh yeah. It is have fun. Honestly, trying to create all this cheesy tactics, rule bending and whatnot, it just loses the spirit of the game and people will learn that more of the game will be spent arguing over a rulebook rather than having fun and rolling dice.

As for the whole 'rule lawyering' from MTG, you are going to learn alot of people don't put up with that, so best try to work on toning it down a bit.

Why do people consider Rules Lawyering bad? I always assumed clarifying rules and following them as they are written, rather than some made up version, was how people enjoyed the game?

considering other powers which target units have no effect on embarked units I find this highly unlikely.

examples; Nurgles Rot, slave snares, crucible of malediction, etc.

theres no way this power effects embarked models, unless the rule for the power specifically states "as well as models embarked" or something along the lines of "even models embarked".

It doesn't have to say that. The Unit is within the range of the power. Nothing says they are not affected, so they are affected.

so if I fly a raider with slave snares over a rhino that targets any units moved over I can hit the models in the rhino?

blaktoof wrote:so if I fly a raider with slave snares over a rhino that targets any units moved over I can hit the models in the rhino?

No, because Slave Snares has completely different Language.

Slave Snares state "If the Raider passes over an enemy unit". The Unit is not on the table, so it cannot be passed over by the raider.

Spirit Leech, on the other hand, states "At the beginning of every Shooting phase, including the foe's, every non-vehicle enemy unit within 6" of the Doom of Malan'tai [...]"
Page 66 of the BRB states "If the players need to measure a range involving the embarked unit (except for its shooting), this range is measured to or from the vehicle's hull."

Thus, you measure to the hull for Spirit Leech.

So next time you try and be snarky, try and do it right.

the unit is not on the table for the spirit leech power if its in a transport either...so how is it within 6"?

your not making any kind of logic.

and if you just want to use the rule from pg 66 of the BRB then for the purpose of slave snares the unit is measured to be at the hull of the vehicle, the raider can move over the hull of a vehicle. If I want to measure range of the unit from the path of raider movement and check that the range is 0" deviation then It would be at the 0" point of the raider being over a rhino during movement.

blaktoof wrote:the unit is not on the table for the spirit leech power if its in a transport either...so how is it within 6"?

your not making any kind of logic.

-Sigh- Did you read my post? Specifically where I pointed out page 66 which is the rule that allows Spirit Leech to affect the unit?

pg 66 doesnt say spirit leech.

blaktoof wrote:and if you just want to use the rule from pg 66 of the BRB then for the purpose of slave snares the unit is measured to be at the hull of the vehicle, the raider can move over the hull of a vehicle. If I want to measure range of the unit from the path of raider movement and check that the range is 0" deviation then It would be at the 0" point of the raider being over a rhino during movement.

Errm... No? You don't measure the range for the Slave snares, so page 66 never comes into play.

blaktoof wrote:the unit is not on the table for the spirit leech power if its in a transport either...so how is it within 6"?

your not making any kind of logic.

and if you just want to use the rule from pg 66 of the BRB then for the purpose of slave snares the unit is measured to be at the hull of the vehicle, the raider can move over the hull of a vehicle. If I want to measure range of the unit from the path of raider movement and check that the range is 0" deviation then It would be at the 0" point of the raider being over a rhino during movement.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sure you do, the range is 0" from the vehicle along the path of the vehicle.

blaktoof wrote:pg 66 doesnt say spirit leech.

No, it has a generic rule that allows it to work with Spirit Leech, Rites of Battle, and other affects. The rulebook doesn't say I can't launch ICBMs at your Dog either.

blaktoof wrote:Sure you do, the range is 0" from the vehicle along the path of the vehicle.

What? Have you actually read the DE codex?

The rule is thus:

[Fluff]
If the Raider passes over an enemy unit during the Movement phase, and does not move more than 12" in total, the unit takes D6 Strength 4 hits, with normal armour saves allowd.
[Victory Point Rules]

At what point do you measure any form of range there?

So my Nightmare Shroud WILL work on units embarked in transport then by your logic

Kurgash wrote:So my Nightmare Shroud WILL work on units embarked in transport then by your logic

Yes, it works. However, the problem being discussed is what happens if they fail the Morale test. That problem has nothing to do whether it affects the unit or not.

awesome! so i can slavesnare a unit that is 0" from my raider embarked in a rhino.

I can also now use boon of mutation on embarked models who turn into spawn inside the vehicle that I control since it states "if the enemy model is found to be within 6" of the daemon, no line of sight is required" Does the spawn end up in hand to hand or what? how do you do assaults inside a vehicle?

I guess aura of decay and nurgles rot now effect models embarked as it states "all enemy models within 6" and pg 66 states......

or possibly the rule on page 66 pertains only for things involving the unit inside the embarked vehicle since embarked models cannot be target by anything.

blaktoof wrote:awesome! so i can slavesnare a unit that is 0" from my raider embarked in a rhino.

Errm, were you listening at all? You can't. I have pointed out (twice) why you can't.

actually you didnt.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

blaktoof wrote:

I can also now use boon of mutation on embarked models who turn into spawn inside the vehicle that I control since it states "if the enemy model is found to be within 6" of the daemon, no line of sight is required" Does the spawn end up in hand to hand or what? how do you do assaults inside a vehicle?

I guess aura of decay and nurgles rot now effect models embarked as it states "all enemy models within 6" and pg 66 states......

or possibly the rule on page 66 pertains only for things involving the unit inside the embarked vehicle since embarked models cannot be target by anything.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
btw yall didnt even qoute the rule from the BRB right. its


"If any of the models in the transport have abilities that function within a certain range, this range is measured from the vehicle’s hull."

there are no rules granting distance to the models embarked on a vehicle for any other purpose.

There is no provision for granting range to the units embarked only from the units embarked.

Modquisition on:
Everyone play nice and remember Dakka Rule #1.
Also its good to remember, there is no scorecard here. once you've made your point, if others disagree then there's no need to further post-you've made your points and can agree to disagree.

Finally pro-tip, and from a frequent offender. Grammer, spelling, and punctuation are especially helpful for people taking your argument seriously. Additionally, we have a variety of posters including many to whom English is a second or third language. This will help them understand more easily.

I think the Doom is actually a pretty great unit. I do, however, think play-wise it will end up functioning almost exactly like Marbo in most lists.

Doom comes in
He does his ability
He shoots
Opponents turn
He does his ability
He dies

This could be very game changing.
On the subject of his ability effecting units in a vehicle... there is absolutely no way RAI or RAW that his ability is able to effect an embarked unit.
DELETED BY THE MODQUISITION SCANS OF GW RULES ARE NOT PERMITTED.
Unfortunately my post was not allowed to have screen captures, which I wasn't aware of, and since the post was edited it makes a lot less sense now. That being said I hope it's alright if I repost what I had but typing up the quotes.

First you would have to measure to the model

BRB p3 wrote:
A model is considered to occupy the area of its base, so when measuring distances between two models, use the closest point of their bases as your reference points. For models supplied without a base (like some large vehicles) use the model's hull or body instead.

However since we had to remove the models for the embarkation rule we are unable to do that.

BRB p66 wrote:
When the unit embarks, it is removed from the table and placed aside, making a note or otherwise marking that the unit is being transported(we find that placing one of the unit's models on top of the transport works well!).

Now the thought process is you measure to the vehicle instead of the unit per this rule.

BRB p66 wrote:If the players need to measure a range involving the embarked unit (except for its shooting), this range is measured to or from the vehicle's hull.

Now if we follow this logic, it would allow because you have LOS to the vehicle: shooting at an embarked unit, psychic powers at an embarked unit, blasts/explosions and templates to effect the embarked unit, but this is not the case.
Furthermore it creates another problem in that there are currently no rules that exist for Morale Checks and embarked units. What happens if the embarked unit fails a morale check? Are they destroyed? Do they get out?

Since the logic is that the vehicle + unit are synonymous we must look at vehicles and morale

BRB p63 wrote:Vehicles never take Morale Checks for any reason. It is assumed that in all cases the vehicle's crew has unshakable faith in their vehicle and their orders. Any occasional lapses that do occur are represent by crew shaken and stunned on the Damage table.

The RAI and RAW indicate that you are unable to effect a unit INSIDE a vehicle while OUTSIDE of it, and there are multiple references from other Codex and places in the rules that support this. For it's cost the Doom is still a great unit even without it being able to effect embarked units.

Modquisition on: The initial portion of this post viotaed Dakka Rule #1. PM to follow. I have edited it out. The remainder, which was not flaming has been retained.
So, lets review:
Q:Can you fly over a unit that isn't physically on the table?
A:No, as it's not actually on the table, it's only logically on the table.

Q:Is there a distinction between "models" and "units"?
A:Yes, a unit is one or more models as a selection from your codex.

Q:Can a unit take casualties whilst embarked?
A:Yes, under certain circumstances.

Q:Is a unit carried in a transport considered to be within 6" of anything in question based on hull measurement?
A:Yes, as troops choices housed within transport vehicles can be considered to be holding an objective if the transport itself is within 3" of the objective.

As long as a transport with a squad of troops can hold an objective from inside a vehicle, the vehicle is effectively the unit footprint for the sake of measurement for this effect.

Paldinful - you have conflated "range" and "LOS" to create your illogical result.

While you can measure range "to" the unit, nothing states this gives you Line of Sight to the unit - so the first part of firign a weapon fails as you do not have LOS

nosferatu1001 wrote:Paldinful - you have conflated "range" and "LOS" to create your illogical result.

While you can measure range "to" the unit, nothing states this gives you Line of Sight to the unit - so the first part of firign a weapon fails as you do not have LOS

You're statement makes an assumption that all weapons require LOS which they don't, as you have Barrage weapons and similar weapons that do not require LOS, like the Hive Guard weapons.

Would you permit a Hive Guard to fire at a unit embarked in a transport?

Or let's forget about the Tyranid codex all together.

Your logic allows Eldar Doom, which does not require LOS to target a unit within 24" of the Psyker, to be cast on an embarked unit.

paidinfull wrote:
Your logic allows Eldar Doom, which does not require LOS to target a unit within 24" of the Psyker, to be cast on an embarked unit.

Spirit Leech does not require a target.

kirsanth wrote:

paidinfull wrote:
Your logic allows Eldar Doom, which does not require LOS to target a unit within 24" of the Psyker, to be cast on an embarked unit.

Spirit Leech does not require a target.

Check, and Mate as they say in Belgium!

This thread began based on that single fact; the doom's ability does not specifically target out any enemy units, which to me said that all were affected, embarked or no. It seems we still have a large divide on whether or not this is the case. Does anybody have Robin Cruddace's cell phone number?

In reference to a previous poster who said i need to tone down my 'lawyering' I agree that arguing over every rule to gain a slight advantage takes away from the game. I am posting here and trying to come to a conclusion based on this rule outside of the gaming arena so that these sort of arguments DON'T come up during a game. I want to play for fun, but also to win, and that requires having some sound tactics pre-game. Therefore, if this is not a legal ability to use the Doom against embarked transports, i won't do it. If it is, i will.

And thanks to Gwar! for helping support this tactic, even if we do seem to be on the less popular side.

paidinfull wrote:You're statement makes an assumption that all weapons require LOS which they don't, as you have Barrage weapons and similar weapons that do not require LOS, like the Hive Guard weapons.

Barrage weapons require you to count the models under the Marker, whcih you cannot do....

I was simply pointing out that you conflated Range with LOS, when that is incorrect.

So since it's not targeting anything it works?

That logic implies that a KFF that grants units within 6" a cover save allow orks suffering hits & wounds from kaboom results a save.

It also allows Chain Lightning to work
At the end of Njal's shooting phase, unengaged enemy units within 12" of Njal take D6 S8 hits with an AP of 5.

There is no way it works, by RAI or RAW. You are, however, welcome to play it by not following the rules for the next two months until a FAQ clarifies it doesn't.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

paidinfull wrote:You're statement makes an assumption that all weapons require LOS which they don't, as you have Barrage weapons and similar weapons that do not require LOS, like the Hive Guard weapons.

Barrage weapons require you to count the models under the Marker, whcih you cannot do....

I was simply pointing out that you conflated Range with LOS, when that is incorrect.

Not all barrage weapons use templates.

paidinfull wrote:So since it's not targeting anything it works?

There is no way it works, by RAI or RAW. You are, however, welcome to play it by not following the rules for the next two months until a FAQ clarifies it doesn't.

The point of this thread is to help determine how the ability was meant to be used on the battlefield. I do not plan on using a rule that i know to be wrong, that is dirty.

paidinfull wrote:Not all barrage weapons use templates.

Firstly, not a SINGLE barrage weapon I have ever seen uses a Template.

However, all Barrage Weapons DO use Blast Markers, as per page 32 of the BRB, which states:
"All barrage weapons use blast markers".

paidinfull wrote:So since it's not targeting anything it works?

Kinda like pro-white creatures in Magic: The Gathering when staring down the barrel of a Wrath of God, yea. The Wrath goes off, and no amount of protection can save them.

That logic implies that a KFF that grants units within 6" a cover save allow orks suffering hits & wounds from kaboom results a save.

I'm going to assume that we're talking about the trukk getting nailed... in which case, I think so, by the wording of the rule.

It also allows Chain Lightning to work
At the end of Njal's shooting phase, unengaged enemy units within 12" of Njal take D6 S8 hits with an AP of 5.

Yea... that kinda works the same way.... kind of an ugly power, isn't it?

There is no way it works, by RAI or RAW.

Methinks we've been through this argument, actually.... and you can't really argue RAI without having one of the people that wrote the rule on hand to tell you what he/she/it meant.

All that being said, It works by RAW based on the fact that you are able to differentiate logical position versus physical position.

You are, however, welcome to play it by not following the rules for the next two months until a FAQ clarifies it doesn't.

I will, but it's likely that it won't.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

paidinfull wrote:You're statement makes an assumption that all weapons require LOS which they don't, as you have Barrage weapons and similar weapons that do not require LOS, like the Hive Guard weapons.

Barrage weapons require you to count the models under the Marker, whcih you cannot do....

I was simply pointing out that you conflated Range with LOS, when that is incorrect.

Not all barrage weapons use templates.

Cite your counterpoint.... I have my doubts to that one...

And by "Template", I'm referring to blast templates... also referred to as "blast markers" by some people (and/or the book).

paidinfull wrote:Not all barrage weapons use templates.

None of them do, in fact. Which is why I said Markers.

ALL of them do, however, use Blast Markers. Tip: check the rulebook before making blanket statements....

@tetrissphreak
I'm not saying it's dirty, nor am I implying you are if you play it that way. There are a lot of instances where the rules seem to be one way when in fact they are not, and in some instances the intent is the exact opposite.

From my experience playing and how the current rule system is structured I would be more than happy to wager that this ability does not nor will not effect a unit inside a transport. The model is far too cheap for it to be that powerful.

The current rules, and previous, have always treated models within transports as being pseudo "untouchable". Only in this edition were you allowed to cast abilities on your own units if you were embarked inside and did they include rules to allow wargear like KFF to work while embarked. As I pointed out with Njal's ability, it is almost identical wording and there was never any consideration that this ability was intended or worked as is being suggested in this thread.

You seem like you want to play it correctly, and it is pretty obvious you cannot effect units in transports unless you are in the transport with them.

This is definitely one of those "It looks sorta grey" instances that I will guarantee you will be FAQ'd to not work as you think it does.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@Gwar & Nosferatu
Sigh... you all knew to what I was referring to and yet you continued to make it necessary to clarify the difference between a flamer template and a small blast template oh I mean, small blast "marker".

Regarding rules as intended, there are instances when you can make a RAI argument as is the case here. The simplest reading of this rule is [enemy units within 6"] not [enemy units within 6" and units that were removed from the table but sort of count for some purposes on the table which may or may not be embarked in a transport] Do you see my point?

It is much easier to make a statement that the intent was what was written... not what was twisted or extrapolated from what was written to be the intent.

I don't see it mentioned, but the Parasite's ability affects units in transports... it's wording is "every infantry unit that outflanks", but doesn't give any exception to vehicles. It then goes on to say what happens if the unit is in a vehicle. As the wording is similiar, I don't know how it affects the rules if at all.

@gornall
This rule is clearly a take on the Chest Burster from the "Aliens" series, and is actually one of my favorite rules from the new codex. As you've pointed out, this particular rule clearly points out how to handle units embarked in a transport. This to me further supports that the Doom's rules were built on the general understanding that an enemy ability can not effect embarked units (unless it specifically permits it of course).

Oddly enough the parasite ability creates a situation that is not covered anywhere in the Rulebook. That is, the event that the embarked unit has to take a Morale Check. Does it follow the posted rules above for vehicles, ie they don't take it? Or if they do take it, what happens if they fail?

My point is the wording of both is the same "Every unit that meets condition X (within 12" vs outflanking) has Y happen to it."

Well this doesn't solve the actual RaW question but at my FLGS we have decided that for simplicity's sake the doom's ability doesn't affect units in transports, it's one benefit of putting your guys inside a tin can and such. Also while i don't 100% agree with it, units affected by spirit leech get a cover save if they are in area terrain or behind cover from the PoV of the doom. Mostly i'm letting that one by because i know people who rather than just take the loss and move on would whine and bitch and moan repeatedly over it. Is that common in the 40k universe?

The stuff on the GW website is calling the ability a psychic shooting attack, and that ends up strongly implying that it's a psychic power which attempts to target all enemy units within X" rather than something which just happens to affect all units within X".

There are enough of these area effect rules around that you'd think eventually GW would have to FAQ one of them to actually specify one way or the other.

solkan wrote:The stuff on the GW website is calling the ability a psychic shooting attack, and that ends up strongly implying that it's a psychic power which attempts to target all enemy units within X" rather than something which just happens to affect all units within X".

Sadly, no clarification from the 'what's new' article. Absorb Spirit is a special ability, not a psychic power, and isn't even mentioned in the article that was posted. /lame

I'm of the mind that it can affect units in the transport. If they are "within 6" enough for the KFF/Corbulo to be "within 6" when you are within 6 of the vehicle then the guy holding it should be "within 6" of the life sucky dude. Just fair play.

Can't see it mattering though, the Life Sucker is just asking for ID.


EDIT: There's actually a more classic way to say this:

"Gwar has it right!"

Trust me, I'm all about dropping my funky zoanthrope behind enemy lines, causing a few crazy no-save wounds, and then hoping i roll nothing but 3+ for the duration of their turn while they fire lascannons and other ID weapons at it. If he dies, he did his job. If he lives, he'll do his job again on the following turn UNTIL he dies. Tyranids are so fun because every unit is basically a kamikaze and as long as they take something out when they fall i'm a satisfied general. BUT in the essence of fun and preventing certain IG and SM players in my metagame from calling "foul" I will play the doom in a much less powerful fashion until the FAQ is released and addresses this directly.

Omg why is everyone thinking the DoM has a 3++ save! It doesn't!

What's the purpose of Warp Field then?

tetrisphreak wrote:What's the purpose of Warp Field then?

Zee Warp Field! She doez Nozeeeng! (RaW of course )

Does it not take into account that in the description of the Doom on his storyline page he is a "modified zoanthrope"?

@40kenthusiast
See that's where the rub of the conversation is occurring.
You are saying that the embarked unit because it is "logically" inside the transport is "actually" within that 6" that's being measured and is there for effected.
You then continue to site p66 in regards of the ability, and say well because I'm measuring to the edge of the vehicle because the rule says I do, so I'm actually measuring to the embarked unit.

@all

BRB p66 wrote:If the players need to measure a range involving the embarked unit (except for its shooting), this range is measured to or from the vehicle's hull.

What a lot of players are remiss to look at it in this statement is:
When you are measuring a range involving the embarked unit, you are not measuring a range involving the embarked unit when you are using Spirit Leech. The range is from the Doom model to 6", not from the Doom model to the embarked unit.

C:T p58 wrote:At the beginning of every Shooting Phase, including the foe's, every non-vehicle enemy unit within 6" of the Doom of Malan'tai must take a LD test on 3d6. If the test is failed the unit suffers a single wound for each point they failed by, with no armor saves allowed

*random note you will notice that Absorb Life permits wounds in HTH to buff its wound total.

The range you are measuring is already determined as 6" from the Doom model. It's not 2,3,4, 5 or 6" from the Doom model to the embarked unit so you are not measuring to the embarked unit at all. When you measure the range from the Doom model, 6" and you get to the transport you are instead using "logic" not "rules" to say that the embarked unit is treated as within 6" even though the unit is not actually within 6". When you measure from the Doom model out the unit inside the transport is not within 6" as it has been removed from the table.

Furthermore, almost ALL of the Tyranid Psychic powers have wording that is identical to this, so why are we even discussing that this is only applicable to the Doom? Take a look. These may all be found on p62
The Horror: This is a psychic shooting attack that automatically hits a single non-vehicle unit enemy unit within 12"
Paroxysm: This is a psychic shooting attack that automatically hits a single non-vehicle unit enemy unit within 12"
Psychic Scream: This is a psychic shooting attack that automatically hits a all non-vehicle unit enemy unit within 12"

The ability to effect a unit while in a transport from outside of the transport whether by shooting, psychic, or ability, is neither RAW nor RAI.

As I've continued to point out, the other huge issue behind saying "Yes, it works against embarked units is" there are absolutely no rules written that tell us how to handle morale checks inside a vehicle. So I suffer 4 wounds from this ability, there are absolutely no cover saves from this as it's not defined as a shooting attack and the words "with no armor saves allowed" is consistently used in reference for CC attacks, so the models are "removed"(they aren't even there to remove) as casualties and now I must take a Morale Check at the end of the phase for suffering 25% casualties by RAW. If I am suffering these casualties because you say its RAW then by RAW I have to take this Morale Check. I happen to fail the test... what in the RAW happens next? What? Does the unit disembark then run? Well what if I embarked that turn I can't embark and disembark in the same turn by RAW. Also nothing says that I can perform an action like this to get out and fall back. So are they destroyed because they are unable to make their fall back move? Where does it support this? Now effecting embarked units becomes catastrophic, and other abilities like Njal's are game breaking, when in fact the RAW isn't broken it's players trying to say that it is.

Fine. You still don't agree with me. "I'm measuring a circular area around my model and because I'm measuring a range it counts"

Q. Must passengers fire at the same target that their vehicle is firing at?
A. No, they are a separate unit (albeit they are temporarily co-existing with the vehicle) and so can fire at a different target."

Since the unit is "co-existing" it is both a vehicle and an infantry unit at the same time, that means in game terms the vehicle is both the transport and the embarked unit. Because it is both, yes because it's co-existing, it is ineligible.

Lastly, on the subject of Parasite of Mortrex "The sarge is acting strangely..." as supporting all of these abilities to effect embarked units as RAI, and believe me it is NOT just DOOM we are discussing here as you can see.

C:T p60 wrote:"The Sarge is acting strangely..."
Every enemy infantry unit that arrives using the outflank ability may harbor a squad member infested with Ripper parasites. At the end of their movement phase, one model in each of these units (owning player's choice) must take a Toughness Test. If the test is failed that model is instantly removed as a casualty and the Tyranid player may place a Ripper Swarm unit consisting of D6 bases anywhere within 6" of the victim. If the victim was inside a transport vehicle it is assumed he staggered out before dying. Any bases that cannot be placed due to impassable terrain, enemy within 1" or because you have run out of models, are lost.

This rule also specifically tells us that it effects units within a transport while the others do not. More over, it details how to handle this event. Unfortunately after reading this rule it is still unclear how it will effect some units for Morale and Leadership purposes.
For example you can have 4x Pathfinders in a Fish outflanking, losing 1 causes a check if it is indeed taken.
- Ogryns in a Valk
- Allies in a Valk
- Allies from Creed's Scout rule

As the units are embarked and are temporarily co-existing with the transport you can see that it makes a lot more RAW sense that the morale checks and leadership tests(psychic tests not included of course) are not something an embarked unit is subject to.
Arguing that it is RAW and "I can do it" opens up broken logic, discussions of events where the rules don't exist, and generally shows that not only does the RAW support you can't but the RAI is more than clear... you can't effect embarked units from outside of the transport.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

tetrisphreak wrote:Does it not take into account that in the description of the Doom on his storyline page he is a "modified zoanthrope"?

Dude he has a 3++, that's not a RAW discussion that's just being ridiculous.

tetrisphreak wrote:Does it not take into account that in the description of the Doom on his storyline page he is a "modified zoanthrope"?

Fluff is not rules.

The rules clearly state "The Zoanthrope has a 3+ invulnerable save", not "The Zoanthrope (including the Doom of Malbiscuits) has a 3+ Invulnerable save".

Now, in pure RaW form, the DoM was a Zoanthrope, then it was modified, now it is a DoM.

Just saying. (Note: this is not how I would play it)

Gwar! wrote:

tetrisphreak wrote:Does it not take into account that in the description of the Doom on his storyline page he is a "modified zoanthrope"?

Fluff is not rules.

The rules clearly state "The Zoanthrope has a 3+ invulnerable save", not "The Zoanthrope (including the Doom of Malbiscuits) has a 3+ Invulnerable save".

Cite your source. There is no unit called the "Doom of Malbiscuits" nor rules referencing it.

ph34r wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

tetrisphreak wrote:Does it not take into account that in the description of the Doom on his storyline page he is a "modified zoanthrope"?

Fluff is not rules.

The rules clearly state "The Zoanthrope has a 3+ invulnerable save", not "The Zoanthrope (including the Doom of Malbiscuits) has a 3+ Invulnerable save".

Cite your source. There is no unit called the "Doom of Malbiscuits" nor rules referencing it.

Ok, fine, you smartarse.

The Rules for the Tyranid Unit called "Zoanthropes", found on page 44 of the 5th edition Tyranid Codex, has a special rule called "Warp Field" which states: "A Warp Field grants a Zoanthrope a 3+ invulnerable save."
The Tyranid Unit "Doom of Malan'tai", found on page 58 of the 5th edition Tyranid Codex, has the Special Rule "Warp Field", which additionally states "see page 44", thus referring back to the Zoanthropes rule. Thus, the "Doom of Malan'tai" has a special rule which states "A Warp Field grants a Zoanthrope a 3+ invulnerable save."

As the "Doom of Malan'tai" is not a "Zoanthrope" it does not get the 3+ invulnerable save stated in the Warp Field Special Rule.

Happy now?

Unfortunately this brings up more questions than answers! You see, "A Warp Field grants a Zoanthrope a 3+ invulnerable save." It does not specify "the zoanthrope" or "the bearer of this". It says *a* Zoanthrope. As it does not specify which, there is no way of knowing which Zoanthrope is supposed to receive the invulnerable save, unless there is only one Zoanthrope in game. Therefore, playing that your Zoanthropes have an invulnerable save if you take more than one is Cheating.

ph34r wrote:Unfortunately this brings up more questions than answers! You see, "A Warp Field grants a Zoanthrope a 3+ invulnerable save." It does not specify "the zoanthrope" or "the bearer of this". It says *a* Zoanthrope. As it does not specify which, there is no way of knowing which Zoanthrope is supposed to receive the invulnerable save, unless there is only one Zoanthrope in game. Therefore, playing that your Zoanthropes have an invulnerable save if you take more than one is Cheating.

Actually, no. If you had a BASIC understanding of the English (as opposed to whatever you speak over there) Language, you would know that the phrase "A Zoanthrope" can, in fact, refer to any Zoanthrope, mainly because the Special rule is a Special rule that applies only to the actual model itself, rather than a army wide special rule that can apply to multiple models.

Gwar! wrote:You constant (and pitiful) attempts at trolling are getting quite tiresome.

So are yours!

It could refer to any zoanthrope, but it does not specify which. Basic English comprehension reveals that this is a lot more vague than you would hope.
I would hope that you would accept criticism of your bad rules interpretations without accusations of trolling, as you are aware that you yourself are sometimes accepted as not trolling as well.
EDIT: I suppose in a friendly game against you I might let you randomize which invulnerable saves go where, but that feels too RAI and I would prefer to follow the RAW.

ph34r wrote:It could refer to any zoanthrope, but it does not specify which.

Yes, it does. It refers to the Zoanthrope which has the special rule. This would be important were it possible for a Zoanthrope NOT to have Warp Field, but a Zoanthrope always does, rendering it redundant in fact.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ph34r wrote:EDIT: I suppose in a friendly game against you I might let you randomize which invulnerable saves go where, but that feels too RAI and I would prefer to follow the RAW.

You mean, the RaW that each Zoanthrope has a 3+ Invulnerable save? Because Each model has the Warp Field Special rule? Because it is not Possible for a Zoanthrope model to NOT have the Warp Field Rule?

Is this argument honestly happening?

I would hope my opponent would see the warp field as a 3++ save, because that is one thing that i'm fairly sure the Doom is SUPPOSED to have, RAW be damned.

tetrisphreak wrote:I would hope my opponent would see the warp field as a 3++ save, because that is one thing that i'm fairly sure the Doom is SUPPOSED to have, RAW be damned.

I agree.

Fetterkey wrote:

tetrisphreak wrote:I would hope my opponent would see the warp field as a 3++ save, because that is one thing that i'm fairly sure the Doom is SUPPOSED to have, RAW be damned.

I agree.

I don't. Doom is not a Zoanthrope. He is a Doom of Malan'tai.

InquisitorFabius wrote:I don't. Doom is not a Zoanthrope. He is a Doom of Malan'tai.

Indeed. RaW, the DoM does not get the save.

However, would you, InquisitorFabius, be willing to allow the DoM to benefit from the Warp Field rule in the Spirit of Good Sportsmanship (on the condition that your opponent was not a complete Richard, in which case you are well within your rights to pull a Richard out the box)?

Do my SW drop pods suddenly get to transport 12 models?

InquisitorFabius wrote:

Fetterkey wrote:

tetrisphreak wrote:I would hope my opponent would see the warp field as a 3++ save, because that is one thing that i'm fairly sure the Doom is SUPPOSED to have, RAW be damned.

I agree.

I don't. Doom is not a Zoanthrope. He is a Doom of Malan'tai.

And i can argue that he IS a zoanthrope. a *Mutated* zoanthrope, but a zoanthrope nonetheless. He should have a 3++ save like the others. Hopefully I don't run into any Richards myself.

tetrisphreak wrote:What's the purpose of Warp Field then?

I was just thinking this...

Fluff does not make rules.

InquisitorFabius wrote:Fluff does not make rules.

That is true. Hopefully they release errata that modifies the WarpField entry, and until then i hope i do not play against anyone who feels as strongly as you seem to about disallowing the Doom's 3++ save.

I feel the same way about Deathleaper's Chameleonic Skin, since the special rule states Lictors, and never mentions a Deathleaper.

It's also the same for Old One Eye and Living Battering Ram

Yes, but we have already had that conversation.

Gameplay and rules aside, however, can you at least admit that perhaps they should have written those entries better to reflect the fact that Death Leapers *are* lictors, and DoM *is* a Zoey?

tetrisphreak wrote:Gameplay and rules aside, however, can you at least admit that perhaps they should have written those entries better to reflect the fact that Death Leapers *are* lictors, and DoM *is* a Zoey?

They should have.

Sadly, they did not. Thus, they do not benefit from the rules. It's really that simple I am afraid.

I do, with all my heart, wish they had included the wording that it would cover the relevant special chars, but they chose not to.

Gwar! wrote:

tetrisphreak wrote:Gameplay and rules aside, however, can you at least admit that perhaps they should have written those entries better to reflect the fact that Death Leapers *are* lictors, and DoM *is* a Zoey?

They should have.

Sadly, they did not. Thus, they do not benefit from the rules. It's really that simple I am afraid.

I will have to discuss this with my local tournament organizer before metagaming for our 2500 pt game on 2/6/2010

tetrisphreak wrote:I will have to discuss this with my local tournament organizer before metagaming for our 2500 pt game on 2/6/2010

That you should.
If I may Humbly suggest that you suggest he use the Unofficial Codex: Tyranids FAQ v1.1 by Gwar! (link found in my Signature)? I can assure you that it will cover the majority of issues that may arise on the day.

I have read the FAQ and feel it does clarify a lot of murky areas in the new codex.

A little background info, the man who runs the 40k tournaments is the store owner who has been wargaming longer than i've been alive. He's pretty genial and tends to play by the RaW. there are a few instances, however, where the codex wording is obviously an oversight (in his opinion) and he allows certain things RaI. Since he is the store owner and contributor of the prizes for our monthly outings, and there are no entry fees to play, we usually have no trouble following his consensus on some ambiguous rules. (for example, his house rule is DoM does NOT affect units embarked in vehicles, which is why i am metagaming as if that is the actual rule). I'm hoping he will allow the 3++ save. If not i will probably not field the doom.

Gwar! wrote:

InquisitorFabius wrote:I don't. Doom is not a Zoanthrope. He is a Doom of Malan'tai.

Indeed. RaW, the DoM does not get the save.

However, would you, InquisitorFabius, be willing to allow the DoM to benefit from the Warp Field rule in the Spirit of Good Sportsmanship (on the condition that your opponent was not a complete Richard, in which case you are well within your rights to pull a Richard out the box)?

If your opponent is such a jerk you probably should not play him in the first place, instead of trying to force your "right" of taking away his 3+ invulnerable. Because really, if he is so bad that you being a total jackass is less bad, something is wrong.

Unless of course you are at a tournament, in which case you would not be able to deny playing someone. Fortunately I think you will find that tournament organizers will not agree with Gwar's misinterpretation.

the phrase 'misinterpretation' is a bit harsh. I can see Gwar!'s point on this one, but i feel the Warp Field ability would not be given to a model simply to be ineffective, and that the wording in warp field's entry refers to zoanthropes because that's the unit for which it's being described. However, the fact that the Doom has the ability, along with it's reference to the rule's 3++ granting ability, tells me the author intended for DoM to have the save.

ph34r wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

InquisitorFabius wrote:I don't. Doom is not a Zoanthrope. He is a Doom of Malan'tai.

Indeed. RaW, the DoM does not get the save.

However, would you, InquisitorFabius, be willing to allow the DoM to benefit from the Warp Field rule in the Spirit of Good Sportsmanship (on the condition that your opponent was not a complete Richard, in which case you are well within your rights to pull a Richard out the box)?

If your opponent is such a jerk you probably should not play him in the first place, instead of trying to force your "right" of taking away his 3+ invulnerable. Because really, if he is so bad that you being a total jackass is less bad, something is wrong.

Unless of course you are at a tournament, in which case you would not be able to deny playing someone. Fortunately I think you will find that tournament organizers will not agree with Gwar's misinterpretation.

It is not a Misinterpretation. As has been pointed out, MULTIPLE times, the rules for Warp Field do not mention the Doom of Malan'tai in any way, shape or form. Just because you do not like what the rules say, does not mean you can call people who want to play by the rules Jackasses.

Gwar! wrote:

ph34r wrote:It could refer to any zoanthrope, but it does not specify which.

Yes, it does. It refers to the Zoanthrope which has the special rule. This would be important were it possible for a Zoanthrope NOT to have Warp Field, but a Zoanthrope always does, rendering it redundant in fact.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ph34r wrote:EDIT: I suppose in a friendly game against you I might let you randomize which invulnerable saves go where, but that feels too RAI and I would prefer to follow the RAW.

You mean, the RaW that each Zoanthrope has a 3+ Invulnerable save? Because Each model has the Warp Field Special rule? Because it is not Possible for a Zoanthrope model to NOT have the Warp Field Rule?

I guess I am just following the exact meaning of the rules a bit more than you. It says that A zoanthrope gets the invulnerable save. It does not specify. "each" zoanthrope does not have an invulnerable save, A zoanthrope does. Which zoanthrope? A zoanthrope. If I was feeling REALLY rai then I might just say that the zoanthropes can all have 3+ invulnerables, but against you I would make sure to play it the RAW way.

It is not a Misinterpretation. As has been pointed out, MULTIPLE times, the rules for Warp Field do not mention the Doom of Malan'tai in any way, shape or form. Just because you do not like what the rules say, does not mean you can call people who want to play by the rules Jackasses.

It's like the old argument of Terminators not having Terminator armor, which was by RAW perfectly valid. If you are going to be so picky about the wording of the rules that you suggest something so unambiguously wrong about a game of toy soldiers, you need to step away for a second and think about it.

ph34r wrote:I guess I am just following the exact meaning of the rules a bit more than you. It says that A zoanthrope gets the invulnerable save. It does not specify. "each" zoanthrope does not have an invulnerable save, A zoanthrope does. Which zoanthrope? A zoanthrope. If I was feeling REALLY rai then I might just say that the zoanthropes can all have 3+ invulnerables, but against you I would make sure to play it the RAW way.

It does not have to say each Zoanthrope. Each Zoanthrope has a Rule called "Warp Field". The Rule "Warp Field" states that a Zoanthrope has a 3+ Invulnerable save. Thus, any Zoanthrope has a Rule saysing "A Zoanthrope has a 3+ Invulnerable save". Now, is the model a Zoanthrope? If so, it has a 3+ Invulnerable save, if not, then it doesn't.

Gwar! wrote:

ph34r wrote:I guess I am just following the exact meaning of the rules a bit more than you. It says that A zoanthrope gets the invulnerable save. It does not specify. "each" zoanthrope does not have an invulnerable save, A zoanthrope does. Which zoanthrope? A zoanthrope. If I was feeling REALLY rai then I might just say that the zoanthropes can all have 3+ invulnerables, but against you I would make sure to play it the RAW way.

It does not have to say each Zoanthrope. Each Zoanthrope has a Rule called "Warp Field". The Rule "Warp Field" states that a Zoanthrope has a 3+ Invulnerable save. Thus, any Zoanthrope has a Rule saysing "A Zoanthrope has a 3+ Invulnerable save". Now, is the model a Zoanthrope? If so, it has a 3+ Invulnerable save, if not, then it doesn't.

It's another interpretation. You think that "a" refers to the Zoanthrope bearing the Warp Field. I think that there is not necessarily enough evidence to suggest this if you want to pursue RAW as far as possible.

ph34r wrote:It's another interpretation. You think that "a" refers to the Zoanthrope bearing the Warp Field. I think that there is not necessarily enough evidence to suggest this if you want to pursue RAW as far as possible.

No, it is not. It is called "The English Language", you know, the language that the rulebooks were written in?

Look, if it was "Having a warp field grants the Zoanthrope a 3+ invulnerable save" I would be on your side, but it is phrased so as to not specify what zoanthrope gains the invulnerable save.

ph34r wrote:Look, if it was "Having a warp field grants the Zoanthrope a 3+ invulnerable save" I would be on your side, but it is phrased so as to not specify what zoanthrope gains the invulnerable save.

Are you seriously contesting the fact that there is an entire special rule in the codex dedicated to one type of model, but on the table top your opponent will not benefit from it because you don't like the way it's *worded*? I'm glad you are not one of my common opponents, that just seems a little over the top, and i'm sorry if that comes off sounding harsh.

ph34r wrote:Look, if it was "Having a warp field grants the Zoanthrope a 3+ invulnerable save" I would be on your side, but it is phrased so as to not specify what zoanthrope gains the invulnerable save.

Are you being intentionally dense? It does not need to specify "which" Zoanthrope gets it, for a number of reasons.
1) All Zoanthropes have this special rule
2) A Zoanthrope model with a rule saying "A Zoanthrope gets a 3+ Invulnerable Save" is a Zoanthrope, thus the rule grants the save.

tetrisphreak wrote:

ph34r wrote:Look, if it was "Having a warp field grants the Zoanthrope a 3+ invulnerable save" I would be on your side, but it is phrased so as to not specify what zoanthrope gains the invulnerable save.

Are you seriously contesting the fact that there is an entire special rule in the codex dedicated to one type of model, but on the table top your opponent will not benefit from it because you don't like the way it's *worded*? I'm glad you are not one of my common opponents, that just seems a little over the top, and I'm sorry if that comes off sounding harsh.

Don't worry, I would not want to play against someone that argued RAW as much as I am right now, but am merely playing the devil's advocate for the sake of argument. RAW interpretations don't stop where Gwar wishes they might. RAW can be taken too far, and I would consider saying that zoanthropes might not get invulnerable saves "unreasonable", but then again I would also consider denying a model use of wargear/special rules that it is listed as having "unreasonable".

Gwar! wrote:

ph34r wrote:Look, if it was "Having a warp field grants the Zoanthrope a 3+ invulnerable save" I would be on your side, but it is phrased so as to not specify what zoanthrope gains the invulnerable save.

Are you being intentionally dense? It does not need to specify "which" Zoanthrope gets it, for a number of reasons.
1) All Zoanthropes have this special rule
2) A Zoanthrope model with a rule saying "A Zoanthrope gets a 3+ Invulnerable Save" is a Zoanthrope, thus the rule grants the save.

No, I am being intentionally RAW. It doesn't matter what you might interpret the developers as intending the Warp Field to do based on what units have them, that is for RAI to deal with.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, for the record the first sentence of Old One Eye's description says that he is a Carnifex, granting him use of Living Battering Ram even if you think that it only works on "Carnifexes". Similarly Death Leaper is stated to be a Lictor.

FLUFF does not make rules, the descriptions are fluff.

Yeah, if you want to really RAW it, like Gwar seems to occasionally, then they would not count as Carnifex/Lictor/whatever. However, you would have to be totally clueless to not see that the Carnifex, Old One Eye, is a carnifex.

Not really, all I would have to do is read the relevant entry in the codex.

I play by RAW and by Errata. I do not infer any meaning.

I like to make the massive leap of faith that is assuming that the rules developers give models do things. I have found that 100% of people I have played in real life agree with me. Luckily I do not have to deal with you

The word Zoanthrope is mentioned in the description of Doom -- that's enough for me to recognise that he's a Zoanthrope. Sometimes RAI is so abundantly clear that it overrides the occasional bit of sloppy language in RAW.

Again, fluff does not make the rules.

It may describe itself as much as it wants to, until its RULES say it is one, it isn't.

So, where in any of the rulebooks is this "fluff does not make the rules" rule written? Or is it just -- you know -- your interpretation.

It's abundantly clear that the Doom has a 3+ invulnerable save from its Warp Field. Otherwise, what does its special rule "Warp Field" do? What would be the point of a rule that did nothing? A rule that had no way to have an effect on the game would not, by definition, be a rule.

I don't think it's a stretch, at all, for us to interpret "See page 44" as "See page 44 and apply the rule that's on page 44 as though it applied to the unit that's on this page, seeing as it does, by definition, apply to the unit on this page, because if it didn't apply to the unit on this page, it wouldn't appear in the unit's list of 'Special Rules'."

Gwar, unusually, is wrong.

Ian Sturrock wrote:So, where in any of the rulebooks is this "fluff does not make the rules" rule written? Or is it just -- you know -- your interpretation.

It's abundantly clear that the Doom has a 3+ invulnerable save from its Warp Field. Otherwise, what does its special rule "Warp Field" do? What would be the point of a rule that did nothing? A rule that had no way to have an effect on the game would not, by definition, be a rule.

I don't think it's a stretch, at all, for us to interpret "See page 44" as "See page 44 and apply the rule that's on page 44 as though it applied to the unit that's on this page, seeing as it does, by definition, apply to the unit on this page, because if it didn't apply to the unit on this page, it wouldn't appear in the unit's list of 'Special Rules'."

Gwar, unusually, is wrong.

So can I use the Fluff for Ultramarines and declare that I automatically win every game or use the fluff to automatically Kill Eldar Avatars that get into Close Combat with Calgar?

Yeah, that's what I thought.

Even though as strict RAW , Gwar! is right about Doom is not a zoanthrope thus the warp field shouldnt work.

However , see as they bother putting the specific line in to refer back to page 44's warp field, i think its safe to say the intended purpose
was to refer the warp field of 3++ applying on the Doom.

So -- you've replied to my 1st paragraph, Gwar -- what about the rest? It's OK to admit you're wrong, sometimes, you know.

Ian Sturrock wrote:So -- you've replied to my 1st paragraph, Gwar -- what about the rest? It's OK to admit you're wrong, sometimes, you know.

He isnt wrong for stating the RAW though.

How can a rule that doesn't have any effect on any game that will ever be played, be a rule? It can't, by definition. Game rules tell you how to play a game. So what does the Doom's Warp Field rule do, if it doesn't give the Doom a 3+ invulnerable save? If it doesn't do anything at all, it isn't a rule -- but it's right there, in the rules section. So it must be a rule. So what does it do?

Ian Sturrock wrote:How can a rule that doesn't have any effect on any game that will ever be played, be a rule? It can't, by definition. Game rules tell you how to play a game. So what does the Doom's Warp Field rule do, if it doesn't give the Doom a 3+ invulnerable save? If it doesn't do anything at all, it isn't a rule -- but it's right there, in the rules section. So it must be a rule. So what does it do?

It's a rule that does nothing. The same way as you can have wargear that does nothing, like the T'au Command and Control node.

And actually, the rule DOES do something. It gives a Zoanthrope a 3++ save. Sadly, the DoM isn't a Zoanthrope, so it doesn't get the save.

Rules can't do nothing... text in the rulebooks that has no effect on the game is fluff, not rules. But there it is -- right there in the rules section!

C'mon Gwar! -- you even "clarified" this in your own FAQ...

The Warp Field rule for Doom doesn't require a whole lot of interpretation. RAI is *so* clear that anyone who insisted on playing "this rule has no effect on Doom" wouldn't be worth playing against at all. Usually I'm in agreement with you that RAI is impossible for us to gauge, but here, that's not the case; there's no reason Cruddace would have inserted a rule that had no game effect.

(Although personally I blame the developers & editors for not having caught this stuff.)

Ian Sturrock wrote:Rules can't do nothing... text in the rulebooks that has no effect on the game is fluff, not rules. But there it is -- right there in the rules section!

Actually, rules can do nothing. As I have pointed out, the Command and Control node has a rule that does nothing.

C'mon Gwar! -- you even "clarified" this in your own FAQ...

No, I pointed out a RULES CHANGE. Because that is what allowing the DoM to have a 3++ save is. A Rules change.

The Warp Field rule for Doom doesn't require a whole lot of interpretation.

No, It doesn't, because the DoM doesn't benefit

from Warp Field. RAI is *so* clear that anyone who insisted on playing "this rule has no effect on Doom" wouldn't be worth playing against at all.

Huh, I didn't know Robin Cruddace was on Dakka. Hey, Robin, why did you nerf Carnifexes?

For anyone to pull these kinds of shenanigans just stinks to high heaven. It would be a very obvious tell as to how that particular game would progress. You would have to be utterly lacking in any degree of sportsmanship to try to pull this in an actual game.

Unless you were pointing it out to your opponent in a joking sort of manner, I would instantly label you as hey, that's the guy who would deny your Doom a Warp Field save. I wonder what other sort of obvious ridiculousness he's going to try to pull" guy. You'd be damn sure that would get around the store right quick.

As an exercise in rules review, it's certainly a good catch, but the manner in which I see it discussed here (I may be way of base) looks like it would actually be something you'd try to enforce. Nuts to that!

I'm only halfway through my coffee so if I'm coming off a bit hot under the collar I apologize. I'd just hate to see someone new to that game come to this site looking for information and come away thinking that this was an OK thing to do.

-Yad


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I would liken the Doom to a Zoanthrope the same way that the Swarmlord is a Hive Tyrant. So yes, he gets the Warp Field save.

So, Gwar!, what other possible RAI interpretation is there, that doesn't give the Doom a 3+ invulnerable save?

Okay people, calm down. I cannot speak directly for Gwar! but based on his Rules Change listed in the FAQ i would imagine that in a game, he would allow the 3++ save on Doom. From what i gather, he has been stating on this forum strictly RAW, which is what the point of YMDC is. Mr. Gwar! if i am wrong on that, i apologize for speaking on your behalf.

Ian Sturrock wrote:So, Gwar!, what other possible RAI interpretation is there, that doesn't give the Doom a 3+ invulnerable save?

Easy. The RaI is the RaW. After all, Robin Cruddace did not unintentionally write a codex did he? Thus, the Rules as Intended are the Rules that he Wrote, because if he did not Intend to write them, they would not have been written.

Thus, the RaI is that the Doom Of Malan'tai has the Warp Field Rule but it doesn't actually benefit him/her/it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

tetrisphreak wrote:Okay people, calm down. I cannot speak directly for Gwar! but based on his Rules Change listed in the FAQ i would imagine that in a game, he would allow the 3++ save on Doom. From what i gather, he has been stating on this forum strictly RAW, which is what the point of YMDC is. Mr. Gwar! if i am wrong on that, i apologize for speaking on your behalf.

Nope, you are spot on. In any case, what I may or may not allow in games that I play is of no consequence. The Rules are exceptionally clear, only Zoanthropes get the save granted by Warp Field, so by the rules, the DoM does NOT have a Invulnerable save. If you wish to change it, then bully for you. Just understand that, should someone request that the rules are followed, you don't actually have a leg to stand on, as the idiom goes.

And there certainly are some competitive types that will call those rules in a game, especially in a tournament like 'ard boyz.

This is You Make Da Call, though, not RAW over everything to the point of absurdity...

Why would he give the Doom a Special Rule that has no effect? What could his Intention have been, when so crafting the rule?

As I've said before, it's really no stretch to assume that the rule applies to the unit that has the rule.

Ian Sturrock wrote:Why would he give the Doom a Special Rule that has no effect? What could his Intention have been, when so crafting the rule?

I don't know. I am not Robin Cruddace.

And that is the problem. You are not Robin Cruddace either, so you do NOT know the Intention behind giving the DoM a rule that does not work.

You're just being silly now!

There can have been no reason for him to give Doom a rule that doesn't work. So, it must work. How can it work? Well, we can assume that it applies to Doom in exactly the same way that it applies to the unit on p. 44, and that the reference in Doom's entry to p. 44 tells us so. It tells me so, anyway. That's how I interpret the rule as written; I'm surprised that any experienced gamer and user of English would interpret it any other way, but I guess I shouldn't be.

I can sum this up:
It was written poorly. (meaning they probably didn't anticipate anyone to get confused)
Whether or not it was intended to affect DoM can not be known to us until an official FAQ or some other errata comes out. We can only play it how we feel it should it played after agreeing with your opponent. I wish I had my rulebook on me... What's the part where it says the rules are merely a guideline? But anyway...
Yes technically Gwar! is indeed correct because it is as a matter of fact RaW BUT if my oppenent tried to pull this I would be finding a new opponent, especially in a friendly game.

Because honestly Gwar!, RaW or not, whether you would play it like that or not, don't you think they probably meant it to have the save?

(it's going to be quite funny when the FAQ comes out and takes it away )

+1 to the above post.


So..where do we stand on whether or not Absorb Spirit grants cover saves?

By your logic in regard to Doom Gwar, the majority of the units in Codex Space Marines do not benefit from "And they shall know no fear".

Not saying that I don't agree with the RAW description, but that painting with such a broad RAW brush seems to open up many more problems then it solves.

Brother Ramses wrote:By your logic in regard to Doom Gwar, the majority of the units in Codex Space Marines do not benefit from "And they shall know no fear".

And how do you come to this conclusion? The problem that I can find is ATSKNF clearly states that the UNIT with the rule may ignore certain things.

CrazyThang wrote:I can sum this up:
It was written poorly. (meaning they probably didn't anticipate anyone to get confused)
Whether or not it was intended to affect DoM can not be known to us until an official FAQ or some other errata comes out. We can only play it how we feel it should it played after agreeing with your opponent. I wish I had my rulebook on me... What's the part where it says the rules are merely a guideline?

The thing is, it's unlikely that this would even be FAQ'ed. I don't think the intention of the FAQs has ever been to turn the rules into a complete air-tight hard rules set (particularly given their "house rule" disclaimer). All the indications I've ever seen from or about the people who handle the rules is that they would never consider this needing a FAQ...I think the reaction of most anybody who's involved in the rules to the question would basically be "of course it has a 3+ invulnerable...it has warp field." By the same token, I've never really thought of the Scout vs. Scouts thing in the SW book as an oversight... more that whomever was writing/reading/proofing the book doesn't care about the technicality of "Scout" not meaning the same thing as "Scouts."

The whole problem is, there are a lot of legitimate arguments that can come down to RaW vs. RaI and both sides think they're right (things like how to place a Mawloc and whether it gets cover)... but arguments about whether Scout=Scouts or whether Terminators are equipped with Terminator Armor or whether the DoM's Warp Field ability is meaningless are taking things to such an extreme that there's is no point in arguing it. Despite what flaws the rules may or may not have, no one is going to legimitely try to argue these things in an actual game...even the worst of the fabled TFG's wouldn't try an argument that he knows he has no chance of winning if put to a TO or judge. Gwar! is a great example...he is providing the role of arguing for RaW, and is doing so very consistently and trying to make his point via rules exactly as written...but his FAQ allows the DoM the 3++ because it's pretty much impossible not to conclude that's the point, or to realistically believe that people would play it another way.

Is there no possible way to just put things like this to rest? Aren't there plenty of actual problems to argue in the Nid book (for example) that have 2 legitimate sides to argue without trying to make the argument that the Doom doesn't benefit from Warp Field, or the Swarmlord isn't a Tyrant for purposes of the Guards' Rage/FC, or that 2 pairs of Scything Talons can't be used because you only get one weapon even though there are specific rules for using two pairs? Can't we give up on the endless arguments on the most obscure corner cases and put more attention into addressing actual questions that could reasonably be interpretted different ways?

So, my ability to read and find a flaw in an entry is meaningless? Also, how is it even remotely impossible to come to a conclusion that DoM receives the benefit of Warp Field?

The problem is they need to actually have rules written that they intend, not some copy-paste method.

I hope they *do* FAQ the doom in a couple of respects. Mainly, does he or does he not affect troops embarked in vehicles. As i've said before I and my fellow 40k'ers here have agreed he does not, to prevent in-game disputes. Personally, i would like an official FAQ to state otherwise so he gets a power "increase" in about 2 months (the typical time it takes from codex release --> FAQ publishing).

InquisitorFabius wrote:So, my ability to read and find a flaw in an entry is meaningless? Also, how is it even remotely impossible to come to a conclusion that DoM receives the benefit of Warp Field?

The problem is they need to actually have rules written that they intend, not some copy-paste method.

I think what Sir means is basically what I said. It's something to decide with your opponent before a game if it bothers you so much because the argument will not cease until GW clarifies or... this thread gets locked .

I didn't say your argument was meaningless, I said that the issue in question was that Warp Field rule is meaningless on the DoM (which seems to be what some people are proposing). I do agree that I would love to see better rule sets, I'd love to see an actual rules department and rules manager (a la M:tG), and that the copy-paste method does indeed lead to issues... but my point was that I can't see how someone could not come to the conclusion that the purpose of putting "Warp Field" in the entry for a special Zoanthrope model was to give it the benefits of Warp Field. I'm aware that by the RaW argument the DoM having "Warp Field" is meaningless... I was simply trying to mention that I can't ever imagine someone taking RaW to such an extreme...insisting that because they didn't completely retype the Warp Field rules in the DoM's entry replacing all instances of "zoanthrope" with "doom of malan'tai" that the person will insist that the Doom does not actually have the 3++. If i'm mistaken, I apologize. I have just never in my entire life met anyone who took RaW to such lengths, not even close. I've never seen a game played that took such minor oversights so seriously when the intention is so obvious. And I say the intention is obvious because while the fluff and descriptions don't actually matter rules-wise, it was all written together by someone who clearly thinks that the Doom is a Zoanthrope, despite not mentioning it officially in the rules part, and it's only a small jump to further conclude that this writer felt that, like other Zoanthropes, he has Warp Field. The argument is basically that because it has a name, it's not a Zoanthrope. Basically that Bob over there isn't a person, he's a Bob. He'd have to have special rules specifying that he's also a person in addition to being a Bob. Otherwise he doesn't get any of the benefits of being a person.

I wasn't trying to insult anyone. I had just been under the impression that people in the real world don't actual play like this, and that no amount of argument about the subject is going to change the fact that all but a negligibly small number of people playing with or agains this book would expect that the Doom gets a 3++. It just doesn't seem like a productive argument, as opposed to questions about whether it allows cover saves (which is a bit murkier), or affects models in vehicles, or any number of other questions.

Wait, wait, wait; I've heard this argument before… from Gwar! no less.

Gwar wrote:
Arjac cannot be attached to another squad unfortunately. Only Wolf Guard may, not "Members of a Wolf Guard Pack". Arjac is a member of a Wolf Guard Pack (so will be Troops if Logan is in etc) but he is an Arjac, not a Wolf Guard, so cannot be assigned to lead another squad.

Yah, there was a LOT of back and forth on this one, he doesn't have "is a wolf guard" written in his entry so he is not a wolf guard. Had that argument at the table once; but then, I had printed out my FAQ for just such an occasion.

GW wrote:
Q. Can Arjac Rockfist be attached to another
squad as a Pack Leader?
A. Yes indeed. He is one of Logan Grimnar’s Wolf
Guard and hence acts as other members of his
brethren do – basically doing what the Great Wolf
tells him!

Now I'm am NOT saying we must apply rulings from the SW FAQ to a different codex, (there's already a thread arguing about that) but when we see one huge argument come down to a ruling for common sense (Arjac is A Wolf Guard and does the things his fellow Wolf Guard do, not an Arjac who can't do those things) I'm going to wager on another ruling coming down the same way.

It all comes down to what sir said. Bob is a Bob not a person. I'm sure a few people here may argue that (you know I say it lovingly don't be taking all kinds of offense now)

That's my point though...do you really insist that Bob would need specific rules text to also be a person before you'd play some game in which that's relevant? If I started taking 3++ saves on the Doom in a game, would you really argue that it's not allowed by the rules? Or is this all just an acadmic argument? I had been under the impression it was just for the purposes of fleshing out specific RaW issues, not that people actually do this.

Also, no offense taken, I'm just trying to gauge how in the majority/minority my opinion is.

Oh no I think you miss my point, that was sarcasm. Of course Bob is a person! Just like the Doom is a Zoanthrope BUT as mentioned, technically RaW does in fact exclude him from the power. Now the very very obvious RaI is that he has the 3++ and I would very heartily enjoy seeing someone try to argue this with my tourny organizer. But as I said, I'm on your side. I would play the Doom with the 3++

@tetrisphreak
Cover saves are not permitted from this ability as it is not considered a shooting attack. More over the wording "armor saves are not allowed from these wounds" is consistent with CC weapons. Had the wording been... these wounds are suffered at AP2, I would be more inclined to say, yes, RAW points to them getting a cover save from Spirit Leech, however since it does not RAW points to effected units NOT getting a cover save.

No, units embarked in a transport are not effected by Spirit Leech.

As I've detailed extensively above, by RAW, the embarked unit are not within 6" of the Doom. The only time you are allowed to measure to the vehicle for the embarked unit is when you are determining a range for an ability. The range for Spirit Leech is already set as a 6" area so you are not measuring from the Doom model to the embarked unit, but from the Doom model to points 6" out. After you have done that you check, what are the units that are within 6". The embarked units are not within 6". The logic that says "Yes, they are" also says that all of the Tyranid psychic abilities and Hive Guard weapons may fire at embarked units, when in fact none of those abilities may be used against embarked units by RAW.

lol... Nice one getting the thread back on track...

Alright, i feel it has been settled that DoM has a 3++ invuln in most friendly games, but the Richards out there have lines of text to prove that he does not if they wish to play that way.

I really cannot see this thread going any further, unless to argue back and forth over a poorly-worded passage.


@paidinfull thank you for the synopsis. that is prettymuch how my friends and i have agreed to play DoM on the tabletop, barring official errata or faq telling us otherwise.

@crazythang
I thought about it awhile ago, honestly, but the truth is even the 3++ discussion is "about the usefulness of the Doom".


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@tetrisphreak
I imagine even tournaments will rule he has a 3++, it's pretty obvious he does. The argument is identical to Nork not being an Ogryn. He's not an Ogryn he's Nork, just like Doom is not a Zoanthrope, he's Doom. Considering that he has a special rule Warp Field, a RAW argument could be made that because he has this rule he is in fact a zoanthrope.

Melcore wrote:Wait, wait, wait; I've heard this argument before… from Gwar! no less.

Gwar wrote:
Arjac cannot be attached to another squad unfortunately. Only Wolf Guard may, not "Members of a Wolf Guard Pack". Arjac is a member of a Wolf Guard Pack (so will be Troops if Logan is in etc) but he is an Arjac, not a Wolf Guard, so cannot be assigned to lead another squad.

Yah, there was a LOT of back and forth on this one, he doesn't have "is a wolf guard" written in his entry so he is not a wolf guard. Had that argument at the table once; but then, I had printed out my FAQ for just such an occasion.

GW wrote:
Q. Can Arjac Rockfist be attached to another
squad as a Pack Leader?
A. Yes indeed. He is one of Logan Grimnar’s Wolf
Guard and hence acts as other members of his
brethren do – basically doing what the Great Wolf
tells him!

Now I'm am NOT saying we must apply rulings from the SW FAQ to a different codex, (there's already a thread arguing about that) but when we see one huge argument come down to a ruling for common sense (Arjac is A Wolf Guard and does the things his fellow Wolf Guard do, not an Arjac who can't do those things) I'm going to wager on another ruling coming down the same way.

Guess what? The GW FAQ is ignoring the rules, again.

Le Gasp!

paidinfull wrote:@crazythang
I thought about it awhile ago, honestly, but the truth is even the 3++ discussion is "about the usefulness of the Doom".

Very true, now that all is answered to tetris' satisfaction though, I suppose this is.... goodbye (to this thread)

quick someone argue something else! (lol)

Ha...Richards...clever.

I think the issue about the Doom affecting embarked units comes down to things like psykers getting to use powers while embarked, or embarked scoring units being able to capture objectives. In both cases, the measurement is made from the hull for the unit embarked, essentially as though it is right there at the vehicle's position. The question is, is it always the case that the unit is treated as being in the vehicle's position for these purposes, or does a specific rule or FAQ answer have to specify it for each situation?

In other words, is it case (a): the unit is treated as being in the position of the vehicle, therefore (among other things) if it contains a scoring unit it can control objectives within 3", embarked psykers can cast measured from the hull, embarked Psychic Hoods or Runic Weapons can operate, embarked Mystics can cause free shots, etc. Or is it case (b): the rules or FAQs specify that for these specific cases and rules and wargear, the unit is treated as being at the vehicles position, but if it's not in this list or specifically allowed by the rules, the unit is not considered to be there.

Case (a) would imply that the Doom can affect embarked units, case (b) would imply it can't. Case (b) was basically the way transports worked in 4th edition (where embarked units could hardly do anything but disembarked, shoot, and get entangled). But case (a) seems to be the case for 5th edition, which seems to be why all those things work from inside the vehicle.

For those that say the embarked unit is not within 6" of the Doom and thus doesn't take the hits, do you also not allow Psychic Hoods to work from inside vehicles? If you do, how can it be claimed that the Hood is within 24" of the Psyker in that case, but claimed that the unit is not within 6" of the Doom in the other case? Is there some specific rule that allows only the first case but not the second?

sirisaacnuton wrote:For those that say the embarked unit is not within 6" of the Doom and thus doesn't take the hits, do you also not allow Psychic Hoods to work from inside vehicles? If you do, how can it be claimed that the Hood is within 24" of the Psyker in that case, but claimed that the unit is not within 6" of the Doom in the other case? Is there some specific rule that allows only the first case but not the second?

That clarification is a little complex. The range to be measured clearly is "measuring a range involving the embarked unit" if you have a SM librarian(example) embarked. Look at the Doom ability and the hood for what they are: an Area of Effect, not from point A to point B, which is what you would need to establish a "range" between the two models. You are not measuring a range from Point A, the embarked psyker, to Point B, enemy psyker. You are measuring from Point A out 24". The Doom Spirit Leech ability, specifically, isn't "measuring a range involving the embarked unit" because you are measuring a range only involving the Doom Model, "Point A", and you already know what that range is... a 6" radius from "Point A" out. Do you see how the RAW doesn't support it? You aren't involving the embarked unit when measuring the range of the ability. It's just 6" out.

Additionally

BRB p90 wrote:
Unit of Troops embarked in a transport can control objectives (measure the distance to their vehicle's hull)

There are a lot of RW logic that we tend to apply to the game that just doesn't translate well. Logically the little moe's are there but not by RAW and not by RAI, I feel though the latter is simply my opinion.

InquisitorFabius wrote:

Brother Ramses wrote:By your logic in regard to Doom Gwar, the majority of the units in Codex Space Marines do not benefit from "And they shall know no fear".

And how do you come to this conclusion? The problem that I can find is ATSKNF clearly states that the UNIT with the rule may ignore certain things.

The ATSKNF states that "SPACE MARINES" benefit from that rule. So according to Gwar's logic, despite Marneus Calgar having that rule in his unit entry, he is not labeled a SPACE MARINE, so therefore cannot benefit from the rule.

Go ahead and look at most of the entries in the codex. You will see things such as chaplains, captains, chapter masters, librarians that under Gwar's logic are not labeled SPACE MARINES so therefore would not benefit from a special rule that only SPACE MARINES benefit.

So, Doom of Malan'tai has a special rule that refers to Zoanthropes. Doom of Mala'tai is not labeled a Zoanthrope so therefore does not benefit from said rule that only benefits Zoanthropes. Marneus Calgar has a special rule that refers to Space Marines. Marneus Calgar is not labeled a Space Marine so therefore does not benefit from a rule that only benefits Space Marines.

RAW is fun!

Re-read the rule. It applies to models subject to it, which means unit entries with the special rule.

Brother Ramses wrote:The ATSKNF states that "SPACE MARINES" benefit from that rule. So according to Gwar's logic, despite Marneus Calgar having that rule in his unit entry, he is not labeled a SPACE MARINE, so therefore cannot benefit from the rule.

Go ahead and look at most of the entries in the codex. You will see things such as chaplains, captains, chapter masters, librarians that under Gwar's logic are not labeled SPACE MARINES so therefore would not benefit from a special rule that only SPACE MARINES benefit.

So, Doom of Malan'tai has a special rule that refers to Zoanthropes. Doom of Mala'tai is not labeled a Zoanthrope so therefore does not benefit from said rule that only benefits Zoanthropes. Marneus Calgar has a special rule that refers to Space Marines. Marneus Calgar is not labeled a Space Marine so therefore does not benefit from a rule that only benefits Space Marines.

RAW is fun!

LMFAO. Protip: Units found in Codex: Space Marines are Space Marines. Units found in Codex: Tyranids are Tyranids.

All Zoanthropes are Tyranids. Not all Tyranids are Zoanthropes.
All Calgars are Space Marines. Not all Space Marines are Calgars.

You do realise you need to use the English Language?

So, what is your argument for the DoM benefiting from a rule that clearly is stated only to affect Zoanthropes?

...

Atleast I didnt throw his logic back at him and declare that no model is truly labeled as a Tyranid, so none could use any biomorphs.

InquisitorFabius wrote:Atleast I didnt throw his logic back at him and declare that no model is truly labeled as a Tyranid, so none could use any biomorphs.

Good Point.

Zomg No Tyranids Nothing Works rabble rabble rabble!

Gwar, you miss the point. According to you, even though DoM is a zoanthrope it can not use Warp Field because it is not NAMED zoanthrope it is named Doom of Malen'tai. Calgar is not NAMED space marine so he doesna't have ATSKNF. Sorry man, just using your own logic, please correct me with how wrong I am (as I know you will).

CrazyThang wrote:Gwar, you miss the point. According to you, even though DoM is a zoanthrope it can not use Warp Field because it is not NAMED zoanthrope it is named Doom of Malen'tai. Calgar is not NAMED space marine so he doesna't have ATSKNF. Sorry man, just using your own logic, please correct me with how wrong I am (as I know you will).

You are very very wrong. On a scale of one to ten, you rate an eleven on the wrongness scale.

Ok, so, again, what is your justification for allowing the DoM to have the save when it isn't a Zoanthrope?

You ignored my post, the wording for ATSKNF states MODELS, thus everything with it as a rule may use it.

Warp Field simply states Zoanthropes.

^ I honestly didn't see that post. Sorry.

So fine in that case I was wrong. But I do agree with you Gwar! on one thing. RaW DOES NOT allow Doom to use Warp Field. But honestly RaI seems to want to give it to it.

Wow, I pretty much had to skip over pages 4+ of this thread which was all back and forth about this 3++ on the DoM.

Strictly RAW Gwar is correct in saying that Warp Field only grants the 3+ invul to models named Zoanthrope. DoM is not a Zoanthrope (even though he is a special character based upon the zoey). However, I'm sure it is safe to say that DoM was meant to have a 3++ given that he has the warp field entry in his rules. So, regardless of whether or not you agree, any reasonable opponent should allow you to field DoM with a 3+ invul.

Gwar! wrote:So can I use the Fluff for Ultramarines and declare that I automatically win every game or use the fluff to automatically Kill Eldar Avatars that get into Close Combat with Calgar?

Yeah, that's what I thought.

No, you can use Calgar's fluff to determine that he is an Ultramarine, and as such if a rule ever referenced Ultramarines he would fall into that category. I am glad that is "what you thought", because thinking otherwise would be quite incorrect.

ph34r wrote:

Gwar! wrote:So can I use the Fluff for Ultramarines and declare that I automatically win every game or use the fluff to automatically Kill Eldar Avatars that get into Close Combat with Calgar?

Yeah, that's what I thought.

No, you can use Calgar's fluff to determine that he is an Ultramarine, and as such if a rule ever referenced Ultramarines he would fall into that category. I am glad that is "what you thought", because thinking otherwise would be quite incorrect.

Sorry, but Fluff is Not Rules. Not Ever.

Please cite your source that says that a unit's fluff description has no effect on rules.

Please cite your source that says Fluff does have a bearing on rules.

Alright, fine. If fluff has no effect on rules, then I guess bone swords do not work.

"No armor saves may be taken by wounds inflicted in close combat from a Tyranid with a bonesword"

I'll try to keep you updated on Things That Your Bad Interpretations Result In That No Real Person Would Play As.

I fail to see how that is fluff, as it is part of an items rules.

For all the items on that page, the first paragraph is fluff, the second one, even if it is just one sentence, is that items rules.

No unit in the Tyranid codex has a rule stating that it is a Tyranid. As far as the rules are concerned they are Models.

As no Models in the codex have a rule indicating that they are Tyranids, boneswords have no effect as they are only considered Tyranids by the fluff.

5th ed rule book Pg 2:
In a game of this size and complexity there are bound to be occasions where a particular situation lies outside these rules, often where unusual models interact.
...
The most important rule then is that the rules aren't all that important! So long as both players agree, you can treat them as sacrosanct or mere guidelines - the choice is entirely yours.

I feel like I'm playing a different game then most people here. I'm not going tell anyone that they can't have a 3++ because the Doom isn't ~really~ a Zoenthrope, and if someone tries to pull that on me I'll just say, "thanks!" and pack-up; I've been in enough games that had all the fun sucked out of them to know what it looks like.
Thats just how I'd make da' call

Yeah, I think this one's gone as silly as it needs to...

Ya know, to all the people who say "I would just pack up and leave", that says a LOT more about your maturity than the person legitimately asking to play by the rules.