Per Yak's suggestion, posting here instead of the INAT thread.

Basically, since it has been determined that the Spirit Leech works against embarked troops in their transport for a variety of reasons, the question arises. Does the same apply to the explosion from a Destroyed-Exploded result on a vehicle? Seems to have the same parameters as the SL. IE models in range by way of the transport hull being in range, not a shooting/psychic power, doesn't need LOS, etc.

Edit: corrected spelling

Well, I suppose that I disagree with the INAT ruling and this also falls along very similar lines, I'd think explosions would also not affect troops inside vehicles.

The rule specifies "models in range".

Right, and the INAT Spirit Leech ruling basically declares that if the transport is in range, then all embarked models are in range................

A vehicle explosion affects all embarked models found to be within D6" of the exploding vehicle.

An observer not distracted by other concerns may notice that vehicle explosions measure to models rather than units, and GW has to this date failed to produce rules enabling measurement of effects and rules to individual embarked models. In fact, they went so far as to put an answer in the main rulebook FAQ eliminating the possibility of psychic powers targeting embarked units just so they could avoid the issue.

Can you find a better straw man?

Um, wait a minute, WHY does having one vehicle exploding next to another cause issues with embarked troops? The explosion won't even glance the armor of the other vehicle. And having units inside the transport get hurt doesn't make sense, how does the explosion go through?!

don_mondo wrote:Right, and the INAT Spirit Leech ruling basically declares that if the transport is in range, then all embarked models are in range................

That is not what the INAT ruling, or the RAW, says. Models and Units are entirely different beasts in this case.
See Solkans post.

Shouldn't think so, no.

In this instance the unit is defined by being comprised of models. No models, no unit. How are you arguing that the unit is in range but some how none of the models that define the unit are? Please... Explain.

solkan wrote:A vehicle explosion affects all embarked models found to be within D6" of the exploding vehicle.

An observer not distracted by other concerns may notice that vehicle explosions measure to models rather than units, and GW has to this date failed to produce rules enabling measurement of effects and rules to individual embarked models. In fact, they went so far as to put an answer in the main rulebook FAQ eliminating the possibility of psychic powers targeting embarked units just so they could avoid the issue.

Can you find a better straw man?

And the exploding vehicle is not a psychic power, is it? So that doesn't apply.

And as Chris already pointed out, does the "unit" not consist of "models"? Measure to a model, you've measured to the unit, and to measure to the unit, you must measure to a model.

This is pointless and i am sure has NEVER come up in ANY game of 40k to date.

-You can't just take rulings meant for The Doom of Malan'tai and skew it towards vehicle explosions just because of how the ruling for spirit leech was worded.

Neither had the Doom/Spirit Leech, until now. Since it has now come up, what are all the extensions of that ruling? Kind of like all the questions that are being raised now that GW has finally made a call on Deffrollas. Lots of questions being raised about 'what if' based on that initial ruling.
The explosion has the same rules parameters as the Spirit Leech. So, does it also affect embarked units?

If Leech applies, then the explosion applies................

I still see no way, how is an explosion from the outside going to penetrate the armor of the vehicle and kill models that are inside the vehicle? There is no way and i'm pretty sure they're trying to keep things as real as possible and having the spirit leech affect units in transports seems real since he's drawing their spirits towards him and not actually aiming at them, its just an area of effect spirit suck and vehicle explosions can't suck people's souls out of a vehicle.

Spirit Leech - Sucks the spirits towards the Doom of Malan'tai which is why it's called a Spirit Leech. If you believe anything about souls then you can agree that they arn't represented in the physical world and can float THROUGH objects.

Explosions - EXPLODE, the damage is done where the explosion happened, explosions don't pass through objects unless it penetrates them. Seeing as a strength 3 hit isn't going to even glance any vehicle I think its safe to assume that the models inside will not be harmed in any way.

don_mondo wrote:Right, and the INAT Spirit Leech ruling basically declares that if the transport is in range, then all embarked models are in range................

That is not what we have ruled...the opposite actually.

1) Spirit Leech affects all units within a certain range, therefore all units within this range are affected.
2) The rules for embarked units specifies that for ranges involving the embarked unit you measure to and from the vehicle's hull.
3) Ergo, when checking range for Spirit Leech if a transport vehicle with an embarked unit on it is found to be in range then by the rules the embarked unit is indeed in range.



In the case of an exploding vehicle:

1) Models within a certain range are affected by the blast.
2) Models in an embarked unit are not on the table and therefore no models are found to be within the specified range.
3) Ergo, when a vehicle explodes, embarked models are never within the specified range (even though their unit technically is).

Thank you Yakface.

OK, so how is the unit consisiting of models within range but the models making up the unit aren't? They're one and the same. From page 3: "In Warhammer 40,000, we represent this by grouping models together into units." and "A unit will usually consist of several models that fight as a group, but it can also be a single, very large or powerful model," Units consist of models, models make up units. Only attacks that are able to specifiy a specific model (Mind War, Vindicare, initial placement of a blast marker, etc) measure to a specific model. Otherwise, when "targeting" or measuring to a unit, you measure to the neasrest model, right?

And if the models of a unit are not on the table and not in range, then Spirit Leech can't affect them either, as none of the models that make up the unit are in range. (technically). The unit/models are either on the table and in range or off the table and out of range. Can't have it both ways. Yes, it's silly, but IMO so is the Spirit Leech answer that prompted this question.................

don_mondo wrote:OK, so how is the unit consisiting of models within range but the models making up the unit aren't? They're one and the same. Units consist of models, models make up units. Only attacks that are able to specifiy a specific model (Mind War, Vindicare, initial placement of a blast marker, etc) measure to a specific model. Otherwise, when "targeting" or measuring to a unit, you measure to the neasrest model, right?

And if the models of a unit are not on the table and not in range, then Spirit Leech can't affect them either, as none of the models that make up the unit are in range. (technically). The unit/models are either on the table and in range or off the table and out of range. Can't have it both ways. Yes, it's silly, but IMO so is the Spirit Leech answer that prompted this question.................

Except, you can't say "oh I measured to that unit and it was in range so all models are in range", you can't use the range to a unit to determine the location of the models in any way, and there is a specific rule allowing measuring to a vehicles hull to locate an embarked unit EVEN THOUGH the models aren't on the table.

It works exactly how you are claiming it can't.

I agree with Don Mondo here.

Yak, your explaination seems self defeating, as Mondo has pointed out, how can SL work but nothing else? It looks like a double standard and a poor ruling for the INAT FAQ.

Drunkspleen wrote:

don_mondo wrote:OK, so how is the unit consisiting of models within range but the models making up the unit aren't? They're one and the same. Units consist of models, models make up units. Only attacks that are able to specifiy a specific model (Mind War, Vindicare, initial placement of a blast marker, etc) measure to a specific model. Otherwise, when "targeting" or measuring to a unit, you measure to the neasrest model, right?

And if the models of a unit are not on the table and not in range, then Spirit Leech can't affect them either, as none of the models that make up the unit are in range. (technically). The unit/models are either on the table and in range or off the table and out of range. Can't have it both ways. Yes, it's silly, but IMO so is the Spirit Leech answer that prompted this question.................

Except, you can't say "oh I measured to that unit and it was in range so all models are in range", you can't use the range to a unit to determine the location of the models in any way, and there is a specific rule allowing measuring to a vehicles hull to locate an embarked unit EVEN THOUGH the models aren't on the table.

It works exactly how you are claiming it can't.

Yet that's what the Spirit Leech ruling is indeed saying.....................

don_mondo wrote:
Yet that's what the Spirit Leech ruling is indeed saying.....................

No, now you're just arguing for the sake of arguing. Spirit Leech measures to units, not models. That is the entire point.
The person who wrote the ruling just told you that that is what the ruling says. The situations are entirely different.

Models are units, units are models. That's the whole point.

And pardon me if I disagree with Yak as to whether unit and model means one and the same, as the rulebook seems to say on page 3.................

don_mondo wrote:NModels are units, units are models. That's the whole point.

Your point is not supported by the rules at all. Measuring to a unit is not the same as measuring to all of the models in that unit. You cannot measure to the individual models in an embarked unit, only to the unit. That is all that the rules, and the ruling, allow.

don_mondo wrote:Models are units, units are models. That's the whole point.

And pardon me if I disagree with Yak as to whether unit and model means one and the same, as the rulebook seems to say on page 3.................

Don,

A unit is comprised of its models, but just because a unit is in range of something doesn't necessarily mean all the models are. Yes, normally at least one model has to be in range of something for the 'unit' to be in range, but in this case the embarked rules tell us how to measure range to and from the unit in lieu of the models being on the board.

But just because a unit is considered in range in no way means that every model in the unit is also in range...that isn't ever true. A unit is normally in range of something when at least one model is, but the individual models can still be out of range of something that specifically affects individual models. So yeah, if the explosion rule asked if a UNIT was in range it would definitely be an issue, but in this case it does specify individual models in the unit, none of which are actually in range because they are not on the table.

I don't agree with the DoM INAT ruling on this one so take what I say with a grain of salt.

Wouldn't that depend on whether or not the vehicle is open or close topped? How are the occupants of a Land Raider going to get hit by shrapnel with all the hatches closed? If I were to try to pull this on someone I'd hope he would tell me the occupants of said nearby vehicle ran to the corner out of scatter range and are thereby unaffected.

Sometimes I think we try to read too much into the rules. Serioulsy where is common sense when these questions come up? I know that how the rules are worded this may be interprted to be possible but come on.

So if I'm shooting at a "unit", how many "models" have to be in range for me to be able to kill all of the models in the unit.......................?

I agree that specific models in a unit can indeed be out of range of something that affects specific models. Can't mind war the sgt if he's out of range but one model of his unit is. But in the case of an embarked unit, isn't the entire unit (ie all of it's models) considered to be in range if the hull of the vehicle is in range. So if we are going to say that non-shooting/non-psychic area of affect abilities can damage embarked units because the hull of their transport is in range, then we should say that for all of them. Or conversely, none of them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Boss GreenNutz wrote:I don't agree with the DoM INAT ruling on this one so take what I say with a grain of salt.

Wouldn't that depend on whether or not the vehicle is open or close topped? How are the occupants of a Land Raider going to get hit by shrapnel with all the hatches closed? If I were to try to pull this on someone I'd hope he would tell me the occupants of said nearby vehicle ran to the corner out of scatter range and are thereby unaffected.

Sometimes I think we try to read too much into the rules. Serioulsy where is common sense when these questions come up? I know that how the rules are worded this may be interprted to be possible but come on.

I don't agree with it either........

And couldn't the same thing be said for Spirit Leech, hey, they're all running to the back corner so they're not in range, or it only clipped the right front bumper, nobody sits there. But the ruling has been made that if it touches the transport, it touches every model in the embarked unit. So which is right, that an explosion does affect an embarked unit or that spirit leech does not affect an embarked unit?

Thanks Yak for showing the difference.

However, let me get this straight. The Doom's SL works on embarked units because it specifies unit, not model.

Don Mondo's example of a vehicle exploding does not because it specifies models in range.

Models in a vehicle are not on the table, so they can not be measured to. But, if units are comprised of models they can not be measured to either as the unit is not on the table.

But, if the main rule book specifies that a unit in a vehicle measures from the hull of the vehicle, than that unit can make measurements, but not its individual models in said unit?

So a Necron Monoliths Flux arc doesnt work on embarked models as it says all unit with a model within 12"... As the model part makes it defunct, but if it simply said all units within 12" then it would work on embarked troops?

Njal's Lord of Tempest in game result of 7+ states "at the end of Njal's shooting phase, unengaged enemy units within 12" of Njal take D6 S8 hits with an AP of 5" so since models are not specified units in transports are hit?

Well, the Necron Monolith doesn't work because the target has to be a legitimate target for a shooting attack. No LOS (high wall between), can't shoot at them even if they're only 3" away. And since you cannot shoot at a unit in a transport................... Something about not having LOS to at least one model in the target unit.

BTW:
+TYR.58B.02 – Q: Can cover saves be taken against wounds caused by „Spirit Leech‟, especially in the case of embarked models?
A: Yes they can, check line of sight from the Doom of Malan‟tai model to see if the affected unit(s) are in cover or not. Embarked units always count as in cover for this purpose and so will get a „4+‟ cover save, although they cannot „[go] to ground‟ while embarked [clarification].

don_mondo wrote:
BTW:
+TYR.58B.02 – Q: Can cover saves be taken against wounds caused by „Spirit Leech‟, especially in the case of embarked models?
A: Yes they can, check line of sight from the Doom of Malan‟tai model to see if the affected unit(s) are in cover or not. Embarked units always count as in cover for this purpose and so will get a „4+‟ cover save, although they cannot „[go] to ground‟ while embarked [clarification].

Is there a reason that you bolded models, as if it helped your point? Models take saves, not units, and the ruling specifies that the unit must be in cover.

don_mondo wrote:
So if we are going to say that non-shooting/non-psychic area of affect abilities can damage embarked units because the hull of their transport is in range, then we should say that for all of them. Or conversely, none of them.

No, we don't, as the rules specifically allow a way to handle one subset of the effects and give no way to initiate another. You claiming that they are the same does not make them the same or change the rules.

Actually, I bolded two words. First word "embarked", second word "models". Put them together and what have you got (wasn't that a Disney song?), you've got a INAT ruling talking about "embarked models", but wait, I thought the models weren't embarked, only the unit was embarked................... Because the models aren't on the table? Sorry, one or the other, one or the other.

And those rules are?

Boss GreenNutz wrote:I don't agree with the DoM INAT ruling on this one so take what I say with a grain of salt.

Wouldn't that depend on whether or not the vehicle is open or close topped?

No, the rules for transports tell you to remove the models from the table, players sometimes leave models in open topped transports to help it look nicer, but they function no differently and by RAW, the models shouldn't be in the back of the transport.

don_mondo wrote:Actually, I bolded two words. First word "embarked", second word "models". Put them together and what have you got (wasn't that a Disney song?), you've got a INAT ruling talking about "embarked models", but wait, I thought the models weren't embarked, only the unit was embarked................... Because the models aren't on the table? Sorry, one or the other, one or the other.

Models can be embarked, and are referred to in the rulebook as such (on page 67 for example). The fact that they aren't on the table does not change their embarked status.
You're being quite pedantic at this point, and this sidetracking red-herring approach isn't helping your argument at all.

don_mondo wrote:
And those rules are?

The rules on measuring to units embarked in a transport, on page 66, the entire basis for the ruling and RAW that you are ignoring.

Darkness wrote:I agree with Don Mondo here.

Yak, your explaination seems self defeating, as Mondo has pointed out, how can SL work but nothing else? It looks like a double standard and a poor ruling for the INAT FAQ.

I don't know what to tell you...the argument is logically valid. If a rule asks for range to be measured to specific models then it is impossible to do so with embarked models, but if the rule only asks for range to a unit then you follow the printed rule and measure range to the transport vehicle's hull. I'll be the first in line to agree that this ruling can create some odd situations that will have to be dealt with on a case by case basis, but I want point out that, regardless of what you may believe, there is no easy ruling to make here...either way would be considered 'poor' by a whole lot of players even if they don't even realize the real problem behind the issue.

Most people think that 'Spirit Leech' is the problem, but the reality is that 'Spirit Leech' is simply a symptom of a much bigger problem that GW has failed to properly address since releasing the 5th edition rulebook and with each codex they continue to exacerbate the problem without ever giving us guidance on what we're supposed to be doing.


The real issue is that nothing in the rulebook says that embarked units are immune to anything. That's just not in there. It doesn't say they're immune to shooting attacks, it doesn't say they're immune to psychic powers, it doesn't say anything.

The only thing it does say is (pg 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."

Since the general rules in the game allow you affect units, and that embarked rule tells us to measure range to the embarked unit to the hull of its transport vehicle that's all the instruction in the game that the rules give us to work with.

Obviously normal shooting is out, since we can't draw line of sight to the embarked models (the rules tell us to remove the models from the table).


Barrage weapons can technically affect the unit, but once you try to place the blast marker over the vehicle you discover that none of the embarked models are under the blast, so we're safe there.


But with weapons that don't require line of sight but don't use a blast...now we have a problem. By the rules, these weapons (such as Tau Smart Missiles & Tyranid Impaler Cannons) should be able to shoot at the embarked unit. But this falls into the absurdity category, right? I mean, you ask the average gamer, can I fire my Tau Smart Missile through the walls of your tank at the guys inside and everyone can agree that this would be nuts, so nobody does it.


Psychic powers should work on embarked units and there are a whole lot of kooky effects that can happen from that, so GW puts a band-aid over a gaping wound and says in their rulebook FAQ that embarked units can't be affected by psychic powers unless the psyker is also on board. Cool, that's taken care of.


Now there is just those pesky general special rules and wacky effects to deal with. Tau Ethereals dying (among other things) can theoretically cause embarked units to take morale checks and potentially fall back. But the disembarking rules only allow disembarking in the movement phase and besides, 'falling back' isn't the same as disembarking, so if the unit falls back is it destroyed? Or are embarked units immune to morale? Or do they fall back out of their transport when required? Who knows? Certainly not anyone definitively.


When we come to things like vehicle explosions we walk right into another landmine, as GW has been incredibly sloppy with defining how things that cause hits/wounds outside of the normal shooting or assault rules are actually resolved. Although everyone plays that a hit always equals a wound which always equals an armor/invulnerable save (unless specified otherwise) which potentially results in unsaved wounds which result in casualties...none of this is covered fully in the rules outside of the shooting rules, an area which things like an exploding vehicle are.

Which is exactly why when we come to something like cover saves and casualty removal from an exploding vehicle, the arguments begin. Do units affected get a cover save as the only full casualty rules (the shooting rules) seem to specify? If so, what counts as the 'firer' for checking line of sight for cover saves? And can any model from the affected unit be removed as a casualty as the shooting casualty rules say, or only the models within range? If you play that the individual models are individually affected by the blast by what basis is this derived? There are no general rules covering individual models being assigned a hit, converting this to a wound, taking saves (and which one allowed?) and then removing that model as a casualty if it suffers enough wounds to do so. These are all issues just not covered by the rules which is why you find different players trying to play these situations entirely differently without realizing the reason they're having the issue is because a giant chunk of rules is essentially missing from the game (general rules on how to resolve damage that occurs outside of the shooting/assault processes).

Now coming back around to embarked models vs. exploding vehicles, we're into the same absurdity defense territory that barrage weapons fall into. You ask anyone and they'll plainly tell you that it would be stupid for an exploding vehicle to affect embarked models so they're just not going to play that way...so regardless of whether you bust out the minutiae of the actual models being impossible to measure range to or not, the whole issue is a moot point in real life and would only be brought up online as a form of argument.


All of which brings us back to Spirit Leech. Here you have a non-shooting attack/non-psychic power that inflicts wounds onto units within range. By all accounts the rules tell us this power should affect embarked units as they is nothing preventing them from being affected by it, and the embarked rules tells us how to measure range to the embarked unit.

But the problem is, here we don't have the absurdity defense. You ask your average gamer whether Spirit Leech should affect embarked units and you'll get half saying it should and half saying it shouldn't...because there is nothing nutty (within the context of the 40k universe) about the idea of life-energy being sucked out of your body from through a wall. And thus we have the issue with no easy solution.


In reality, I think GW should probably just go full bore and say that embarked units cannot be affected by anything unless the rule specifically says it affects embarked units...they basically did so with psychic powers, so it shouldn't be too big a stretch to apply that same rules change to all strange effects.

I'm not sure exactly what that rule on page 66 allowing range to be measured TO the embarked unit is for...perhaps just to fit with their ruling on measuring range at the end of the game for embarked scoring units from an objective, who knows? What I do know is that in general the amount of things that can successfully affect embarked units without causing a stink is small compared to the number of things that should be able to affect the embarked unit that do cause a stink amongst many gamers.

By that yardstick, the right answer seems to point to GW simply making embarked units completely immune, but then that leaves the door open for making embarked armies even that much more dangerous as psykers, for example, can sit inside their vehicles shooting psychic attacks out of fire points without worrying about special rules that prevent them from casting powers...an idea that seems unfair and pretty dumb to most people.


So where does that leave us? The INAT FAQ has always put a premium on trying to create rulings that follow the way most people naturally play, so as to create as few arguments as possible at the tournament. Obviously this is a goal that isn't always easy to quantify and for the really hard split issues, we often have to just try to use our best judgement and then see how it plays. Sometimes that means we come back for the next update and say, 'yeah I think we got that one wrong'.

This was especially tough with the Tyranid codex which came out relatively close to Adepticon and we needed to put out a near final version ASAP to give people as much time as possible to prepare for the tourney. That meant we had a slightly abbreviated time to make our rulings, we couldn't spend as much time trying to find out how people were reading and playing the new codex as much as we normally do.

But when we sat down and looked at Spirit Leech, most of us agreed that if you read the rule as written and then you read the embarked passenger rules most people's natural inclination would be to say: 'yeah, I think it affects the unit in the vehicle.'

The only real reason to go ahead and rule against Spirit Leech affecting embarked units IMHO, is from the perspective of game simplicity. Once you allow Spirit Leech to affect vehicles you have to go over whether the embarked unit gets a cover save, whether it can go to ground and/or fall back and all the nuances that would come with saying yes to falling back and/or going to ground when embarked. In other words, you have to make up some rules in order to follow the rules for affecting embarked units.

On the other hand, you can simply rule that Spirit Leech cannot affect embarked models, which by all accounts appears to be a flat-out rules change, but its effect is to have a much simpler set of consequences to deal with.

I think either way you rule you anger a whole lot people who tend to only think about the immediate issue at hand without considering the wave of other crap involved in this issue.

Although we've ruled that shooting can't affect embarked units (easy absurdity ruling) and that embarked units can't fall back out of vehicles (based on the vast majority of players seem to play that way from all our experiences) when it comes to Spirit Leech it isn't easy. We did have some members pushing for the overall 'simpler' ruling of saying Leech doesn't affect embarked units, but at the end of the day we all think that with most people who pick up the codex, read the rules and then their sneaky buddy says: 'Hey, can Spirit Leech affect embarked units?' After looking over the rules for a reason why not, they'd say 'yeah, I think it does'.


Hopefully GW will take the bulls by the horn and change the rules saying that Spirit Leech cannot affect embarked units in their FAQ. If not, we'll definitely come back and revisit this ruling after Adepticon and see if we think we blew it or not.


And I wrote all this because I don't think there is a 'good' or 'poor' ruling on this matter...only different shades of crap.






Automatically Appended Next Post:

Darkness wrote:
So a Necron Monoliths Flux arc doesnt work on embarked models as it says all unit with a model within 12"... As the model part makes it defunct, but if it simply said all units within 12" then it would work on embarked troops?

Njal's Lord of Tempest in game result of 7+ states "at the end of Njal's shooting phase, unengaged enemy units within 12" of Njal take D6 S8 hits with an AP of 5" so since models are not specified units in transports are hit?

P.S. The flux arc require line of sight to its targets as does Njal's Lord of Tempest (although that restriction is a little hard to find in Njal's rules).

yakface wrote:

But the problem is, here we don't have the absurdity defense.

In the opinion of a majority of the INAT council at least....................
Oh, I get the "fluff" behind it. But how many times have we heard on here that fluff ain't rules. Absurd or not, they are indeed similar situations. And that is the point I've been trying to make. We cannot make a rules decision based on "fluff"that it's a mind /soul stealing attack or whatever. It's a area of affect ability that causes wounds. That's the rule portion. So if we have previously decided that Game as Played determines that such non-shooting/non-psychic area of affect whatevers cannot damage models (unit) in a transport, then a sudden shift in that paradigm is going to raise questions. And yeah, I will agree about GW rules writing in general.

Anyways, thanks for the time and effort to explain your position. You are, as ever, a gentleman and a scholar.

Don is wrong. Gorkamorka and Yak are correct.

Actually, I bolded two words. First word "embarked", second word "models". Put them together and what have you got (wasn't that a Disney song?), you've got a INAT ruling talking about "embarked models", but wait, I thought the models weren't embarked, only the unit was embarked................... Because the models aren't on the table? Sorry, one or the other, one or the other.

And those rules are?

You had me sold for a while until I read the rationale behind Yak''s ruling...I guess I will accept SL affecting me until GW makes their own FAQ

Don is wrong. Gorkamorka and Yak are correct.

So constructive, as always

I think the points people are missing are:

The INAT ruling is consistent with Farseers in Wave Serpents being effected by Psychic hoods (or indeed other libbies in Razorbacks, Rhinos etc).

However what this argument is trying to equate is units=models for measuring. Hence from that conclusion should one of by Tac marines be in rapidfire range then the unit is in rapid fire range as unit=models therefore all the models are in rapidfire range. Which of course clearly isn't the case.

The reason the vehicle explodes can't effect the models is because you have no way of measuring to those models and therefore have no way of knowing how many models are effected. You know the unit is in range as pg 66 tells us that but not how many, if any, models are considered in range, hence they remain uneffected.

The way I have always played it, even with GW staff is it effects every model in range so it would only effect the other transport.

An excellent and informative post Yakface, however, I would like to highlight one thing I see as an issue with it.

yakface wrote:But with weapons that don't require line of sight but don't use a blast...now we have a problem. By the rules, these weapons (such as Tau Smart Missiles & Tyranid Impaler Cannons) should be able to shoot at the embarked unit. But this falls into the absurdity category, right? I mean, you ask the average gamer, can I fire my Tau Smart Missile through the walls of your tank at the guys inside and everyone can agree that this would be nuts, so nobody does it.

The rules actually prevent it, because to determine range to a target unit you "simply measure from each firer to the nearest visible model in the target unit".

Obviously if you have a LOS ignoring weapon, you could presumably ignore the "visible" caveat, but you still must measure to the nearest model to determine range, something you cannot do to an embarked unit.

AFAIK there are yet to be any non-los weapons with infinite range, but if GW create one it will open up a whole new kettle of fish with "infinite means everything is in range" vs "you can't determine they are in range if they are removed from the board, even at infinite range, they aren't on the board to be measured to, they are effectively infinite distance away".

edit: oops, discounted seeker missiles since they need a markerlight hit to fire, but just remembered the Tau Apocalypse Strategem where they can put a markerlight counter on every unit within 24" of a point. So Seeker Missiles in games of Apocalypse are the only place this is an issue.

yakface wrote:
3) Ergo, when a vehicle explodes, embarked models are never within the specified range (even though their unit technically is).

How is a unit, which is clearly defined by being comprised of several models, able to be in range and yet none of the models are? How is that "technically" true?
Is it like the Russian hockey team is comprised of 23 players, and none of them were in the game against Canada even though "technically" the Russian team was? Is it that type of "technically"?

Sorry Jon, I gotta call 'malarky' on that. "Technically" if one is there so is the other. It's the exact logic you are using to say that the unit is on the table while embarked. No, if a unit is there a model has to be there, as a unit is defined by the models it is comprised of, and you simply can't have one without the other. In your case, the model(s) being used to determine model(s) in the unit would be the vehicle model.

yakface wrote:
The real issue is that nothing in the rulebook says that embarked units are immune to anything. That's just not in there. It doesn't say they're immune to shooting attacks, it doesn't say they're immune to psychic powers, it doesn't say anything.

That's definitely part of it, but if I have clearly removed the models from the table, I have also removed the unit from the table. So either the unit, and therefor the models, are considered to be on the table while embarked or they aren't.

yakface wrote:
The only thing it does say is (pg 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."

Yet again, if I am attempting to measure a range to a model in a unit, how am I not meeting the criteria "measure a range involving the embarked unit"? The models are a part of the unit, attempting to measure, or actually measuring, to or from them would be "involving the unit". You would then, "technically", be measuring a range that is involving the unit. Again it's the identical inference most players are using to support Spirit Leech working against embarked units.

yakface wrote:
And I wrote all this because I don't think there is a 'good' or 'poor' ruling on this matter...only different shades of crap.

I agree, though I will say there is a lot more "crap" in having a more complex ruling as is done in the INAT, ie creating rules for cover saves and morale that don't actually exist in the RAW.

yakface wrote:P.S. The flux arc require line of sight to its targets as does Njal's Lord of Tempest (although that restriction is a little hard to find in Njal's rules).

just stumbled on this thread and was about to post this same thing in response

Don,

There are many times in the various books that models and units are treated differently. Some rules affect models, some affect units.

Necron res orb measures to the unit
Necron WBB measures to the model
Exploding vehicles damage the unit inside
exploding vehicles damage the models outside

If the exploding rules said it "causes d6 wounds to every unit in range", then it would affect the unit in a transport. But it doesn't, it effects models.

The rules allow for determining if an embarked unit is in range, it does not allow for determining if an embarked model is in range.

Measure to a model, you've measured to the unit, and to measure to the unit, you must measure to a model.

Except this is not true for embarked units. to measure to the unit, you measure to the hull.
Why? I can give you a fluffy reason, but the rules reason is because that is what the rules say.

So if I'm shooting at a "unit", how many "models" have to be in range for me to be able to kill all of the models in the unit.......................?

If they are out of a vehicle, then at least 1 model. If they are in a transport, then you can't shoot at them, but you can affect the unit if the hull is in range.
And... this helps emphasize my point.
When shooting, you are shooting at the *unit*, not the models, so if any of the unit is in range, you can affect the entire unit; you don't need to measure to any models. Even if the only model in range could not be harmed by your guns, you can still kill the rest of the *unit*, because you are not shooting at that one model, but shooting at the unit.

Again, while units are made up of models, the rules treat them differently in many many places.
One of those places is when embarked, you can measure to a unit, you cannot measure to models.

coredump wrote:
Necron res orb measures to the unit
Necron WBB measures to the model
Exploding vehicles damage the unit inside
exploding vehicles damage the models outside

Necron Res orb... to measure to the unit are you not measuring to a model?
Exploding vehicles damage the unit inside... are the models not effected by the damage?

coredump wrote:

Measure to a model, you've measured to the unit, and to measure to the unit, you must measure to a model.

Except this is not true for embarked units. to measure to the unit, you measure to the hull.
Why? I can give you a fluffy reason, but the rules reason is because that is what the rules say.

So if I'm shooting at a "unit", how many "models" have to be in range for me to be able to kill all of the models in the unit.......................?

If they are out of a vehicle, then at least 1 model. If they are in a transport, then you can't shoot at them, but you can affect the unit if the hull is in range.
And... this helps emphasize my point.
When shooting, you are shooting at the *unit*, not the models, so if any of the unit is in range, you can affect the entire unit; you don't need to measure to any models. Even if the only model in range could not be harmed by your guns, you can still kill the rest of the *unit*, because you are not shooting at that one model, but shooting at the unit.

Again, while units are made up of models, the rules treat them differently in many many places.
One of those places is when embarked, you can measure to a unit, you cannot measure to models.

You are attempting to create a distinction in which "the unit" exists, but the "models" do not. You cannot have a unit without having a model, per BRB.

paidinfull wrote:

coredump wrote:
Again, while units are made up of models, the rules treat them differently in many many places.
One of those places is when embarked, you can measure to a unit, you cannot measure to models.

You are attempting to create a distinction in which "the unit" exists, but the "models" do not. You cannot have a unit without having a model, per BRB.

He's really not. There are no rules for handling a measurement to individual embarked models, only rules for handling measurements involving the unit. They are not the same thing. Measuring to a unit and measuring to a model are entirely different cases.

The unit can still exist and be measured to while the models are off the table and unmeasurable because the rules specifically allow that case.

What they don't specifically allow is a way to measure to each individual embarked model for individual measurement requirements, despite how much sense it makes to abstract each model to the hull because the unit is abstracted by it.

@gorkamorka
Set aside the embarked unit discussion, for a moment.

Can you provide me with an instance when you are measuring to a unit, that a model in that unit is not involved?

You will never, ever have an instance where you are measuring to a unit where a model in that unit is not involved.

"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 I need to measure to a model, that is a part of that unit, by measuring to the hull of the vehicle I have met the criteria provided above.

I need to measure a range to model A. Model A is a part of Unit B. By needing to measure a range to Model A, I am involving Unit B. Since I need to measure "a range" which is "involving the embarked unit", Unit B, by following the above rule on p66 I measure to the hull of the vehicle.

This is the exact same logic being used to SUPPORT Spirit Leech working against the embarked unit. No, your claim that the unit exists while the models off the table and unmeasurable is not supported per BRB and the BRB FAQ that points to the two coexisting.

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.

Measuring to the vehicle model is measuring to the embarked unit and as the vehicle model and embarked models coexist, measuring to the vehicle model is legal for permitting shooting, explosions, Spirit Leech, and other absurdities.

paidinfull wrote:Can you provide me with an instance when you are measuring to a unit, that a model in that unit is not involved?

Yes, when measuring the distance for the Doom of Malan'tai's Spirit Leech.

paidinfull wrote:

coredump wrote:
Necron res orb measures to the unit
Necron WBB measures to the model
Exploding vehicles damage the unit inside
exploding vehicles damage the models outside

Necron Res orb... to measure to the unit are you not measuring to a model?
Exploding vehicles damage the unit inside... are the models not effected by the damage?

I'm not sure if you're being deliberately obtuse (i.e., Devil's Advocate), but I'll chime in anyway. Yes, when you measure to a unit you are indeed measuring to a model. What you're ignoring is that when you measure to a unit you typcially only measure once, and only to the closest model. The models that make up the unit are not measured to individually. Once you complete that measurement you have now measured to the unit. As opposed to being required to measure for 'all models' within X. In which case you must measure to each individual model. As Yak pointed out we have a general rule speaking to measuring embarked units.

paidinfull wrote:You are attempting to create a distinction in which "the unit" exists, but the "models" do not. You cannot have a unit without having a model, per BRB.

Obviously he's not. There really is a distinction, spelled out in the rules as to 'unit' and model'. Sure you can't have a unit without a model, and models make up a unit. The rules however make a distinction between measuring to a unit (not every model in said unit), and measuring to individual models.

-Yad

Is this really an arguement over the difference between a unit and a model?



a unit is comprized of models, a model is a member of a unit.

Although a model is a part of a unit, a set of 10 models may only be 1 unit, to claim that models=units is not accurate. otherwise abilities such as Njals lord of Tempests would give him D6 S8 hits on every single model in the unit of 30 ork boys within 12" of him.

see the difference now?

if not....

@Yak, that was very well written and explained I appreciate it alot.

One more question. Since the INAT FAQ is filled with rules changes, why not this one?

paidinfull wrote:@gorkamorka
Set aside the embarked unit discussion, for a moment.

Can you provide me with an instance when you are measuring to a unit, that a model in that unit is not involved?

Does it really come as a surprise that if you ignore something which provides you with a way to measure to a unit even if said unit's models aren't on the table, it's hard to find places where you can measure to a unit and not measure to a model?

You are basically saying "set aside the fact that the sky is blue, now tell me what colour the sky is?"

Clearly none of the people who are claiming that unit = model are going to have their mind changed, because they are blatantly ignoring the fact that there is a rule that lets you measure to a unit without measuring to a model in that unit in a specific instance, and claiming you can't measure to a unit without measuring to a model.

Darkness wrote:@Yak, that was very well written and explained I appreciate it alot.

One more question. Since the INAT FAQ is filled with rules changes, why not this one?

I think I answered that exact question in my...uh...treatise (sorry about that) above.


Essentially we felt that in this particular case more people would read the rules for Spirit Leech and embarked units and naturally think...yes, the rules allow me to do this than the other way around.


And I do believe that no matter which way we ruled on this topic, there would have been a horde of vocal gamers opposed to it. Its really a lose-lose situation.

@drunkenspleen
It's not like your example at all. You are claiming that you are measuring to a unit without ever measuring to a model which is completely wrong. There has to be a model in order for the unit to exist in the context you are describing.

Did you even read my post?
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.

The vehicle MODEL represents every model in the unit, as they are "coexisting". If the rationale to have the unit be effected via Spirit Leech is that the unit is there, a model representing the unit has to be there. In this case, the vehicle MODEL.

@Demogerg please read my post. I never said this was an argument over the difference of a unit and a model.

paidinfull wrote:@drunkenspleen
It's not like your example at all. You are claiming that you are measuring to a unit without ever measuring to a model which is completely wrong. There has to be a model in order for the unit to exist in the context you are describing.

Did you even read my post?
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.

The vehicle MODEL represents every model in the unit, as they are "coexisting". If the rationale to have the unit be effected via Spirit Leech is that the unit is there, a model representing the unit has to be there. In this case, the vehicle MODEL.

Epic Fail @Demogerg for not reading my post. I never said this was an argument over the difference of a unit and a model.

Exactly, we are finally seeing eye to eye. The vehicle model is the model representing the unit in this case, and MODELS in range are effected, the fact that the vehicle is representing the unit makes no difference, because the other models in the unit are out of range.

But somehow because you continue to debate I get the feeling, despite hitting the nail perfectly on the head, you still aren't seeing why you can measure to an embarked unit but not to the models that make up that embarked unit.

The reason I gave my example (which you claim is an inaccurate representation of the situation) is because, you couldn't measure to a unit without measuring to atleast 1 model, except for when given another method for doing so, like in the vehicle rules. It just so happens, that Transports are the only thing given this exception. So you are dismissing the one thing relevant to the debate in trying to prove your point, which is, there is a special rule for measuring to embarked units, but not to embarked models.

Do you think it's equally ridiculous that drop pods can avoid deep strike mishaps but teleporting terminators can't? Because that's the same situation, one of those things has a special rule allowing for it to work a certain way, the other does not. The insistance that, just because the standard way to measure to a unit is to measure to a model, any time you measure to a unit you can determine models are in range, is patently untrue. Maybe we should be ignoring the fact that for shooting a vehicle's weapons we measure from the gun's instead of just the hull, because it says for all measurements involving vehicles to use the hull, who cares that firing is given a special exception to that rule which allows, and even forces, you to do it differently.

yakface wrote:

Darkness wrote:@Yak, that was very well written and explained I appreciate it alot.

One more question. Since the INAT FAQ is filled with rules changes, why not this one?

I think I answered that exact question in my...uh...treatise (sorry about that) above.


Essentially we felt that in this particular case more people would read the rules for Spirit Leech and embarked units and naturally think...yes, the rules allow me to do this than the other way around.


And I do believe that no matter which way we ruled on this topic, there would have been a horde of vocal gamers opposed to it. Its really a lose-lose situation.

As you mentioned though, does not ruling the way INAT did in regard to DoM cause more problems? I mean as ruled by the INAT, no one would have to call over a judge to determine if Leech works on a unit embarked, however they will have to call over a judge for the number of other reasons you listed that now arise. Whereas if the INAT ruled that DoM did not affect embarked units, you avoid opening the proverbial can'o'worms for the other issues you mentioned.

Seems like a ruling to please the masses, but breaks the game.

Brother Ramses wrote:
As you mentioned though, does not ruling the way INAT did in regard to DoM cause more problems? I mean as ruled by the INAT, no one would have to call over a judge to determine if Leech works on a unit embarked, however they will have to call over a judge for the number of other reasons you listed that now arise. Whereas if the INAT ruled that DoM did not affect embarked units, you avoid opening the proverbial can'o'worms for the other issues you mentioned.

Seems like a ruling to please the masses, but breaks the game.

Most of the issues already exist in the game anyway. 'Gets Hot!' for example can wound a unit inside a vehicle and bring almost all of the same issues to the table.

Gorkamorka wrote:

Brother Ramses wrote:
As you mentioned though, does not ruling the way INAT did in regard to DoM cause more problems? I mean as ruled by the INAT, no one would have to call over a judge to determine if Leech works on a unit embarked, however they will have to call over a judge for the number of other reasons you listed that now arise. Whereas if the INAT ruled that DoM did not affect embarked units, you avoid opening the proverbial can'o'worms for the other issues you mentioned.

Seems like a ruling to please the masses, but breaks the game.

Most of the issues already exist in the game anyway. 'Gets Hot!' for example can wound a unit inside a vehicle and bring almost all of the same issues to the table.

So issues already existing seems like a good reason to introduce more?

Brother Ramses wrote:So issues already existing seems like a good reason to introduce more?

It's a Good Reason to allow it, since it already happens, rather than disallow it.

Drunkspleen wrote:Exactly, we are finally seeing eye to eye. The vehicle model is the model representing the unit in this case, and MODELS in range are effected, the fact that the vehicle is representing the unit makes no difference, because the other models in the unit are out of range.

Seems to me you misunderstand how "representing" works. A plastic space marine model represents an imaginary warrior. If something effects the plastic space marine model it is effecting the imaginary warrior. The argument is clear that if you are using the vehicle model to represent the unit you are also using the vehicle model to represent every model by inference.

You've completely missed my point.

Gwar! wrote:It's a Good Reason to allow it, since it already happens, rather than disallow it.

And yet GW FAQ's consistently use the phrase "simple", for example "For simplicity sake". Creating arbitrary rules that don't exist and using multiple rules to create a complex scenario that is not "simple".

FlingitNow wrote:However what this argument is trying to equate is units=models for measuring. Hence from that conclusion should one of by Tac marines be in rapidfire range then the unit is in rapid fire range as unit=models therefore all the models are in rapidfire range. Which of course clearly isn't the case.

Uhh...

What? It plays out that all the models are in effective range, as you can wound and kill more than just the one model in range.

FlingitNow wrote:The reason the vehicle explodes can't effect the models is because you have no way of measuring to those models and therefore have no way of knowing how many models are effected. You know the unit is in range as pg 66 tells us that but not how many, if any, models are considered in range, hence they remain uneffected.

Correct. Only models within the range of the explosion are hit automatically by the explosion, not the entire unit.

I can see the op's point, but it doesn't shake down with the vehicle explosion rules.

imweasel wrote:Correct. Only models within the range of the explosion are hit automatically by the explosion, not the entire unit.

I can see the op's point, but it doesn't shake down with the vehicle explosion rules.

If a model represents a whole unit, at the same time it is representing each model in the unit.

Unit A is comprised of 6 Models. Model B represents unit A. If something effects Model B, all 6 models are effected.
This is the same principle behind Epic and swarm bases with wounds... not sure why this is still confusing...

paidinfull wrote:If a model represents a whole unit, at the same time it is representing each model in the unit.

No. Just because I can wound other models that are not in 'rapid fire' range, as one example that was given, it doesn't mean the whole unit is in range. The shooting rules are different than the vehicle explosion rules.

paidinfull wrote:Unit A is comprised of 6 Models. Model B represents unit A. If something effects Model B, all 6 models are effected.
This is the same principle behind Epic and swarm bases with wounds... not sure why this is still confusing...

Completely incorrect that if something effects model B, all 6 models are effected. There are several rules where this is not the case, with vehicle explosions being one of them.

imweasel wrote:No. Just because I can wound other models that are not in 'rapid fire' range, as one example that was given, it doesn't mean the whole unit is in range. The shooting rules are different than the vehicle explosion rules.

You're joking right? You are shooting the unit not each model, if a model is in range the whole unit is in range. How else would you be able to remove models that are NOT in rapid fire range? If the unit doesn't represent every model it is comprised of how can you remove models? They wouldn't be related, shooting the unit wouldn't effect the models.

imweasel wrote:
Completely incorrect that if something effects model B, all 6 models are effected. There are several rules where this is not the case, with vehicle explosions being one of them.

You're obviously a little confused.

A = 3
B = 4
C = A

What is C + B = ?
The answer is 7.

Think of the units as the letters representing their respective # of models and units.
In my example if the vehicle model did not represent the unit you would be right but because it does, it also represents the models in the unit. C = A = 3

If I have something that effects the unit... I don't know, say Eldar "Doom"... you mean to tell me each model in that unit isn't effected? That doesn't hold true in every instance of playing 40k I've experienced.

So Yak what was the justification for 4+ cover save for embarked units versus Spirit Leech?

G

paidinfull wrote:

imweasel wrote:No. Just because I can wound other models that are not in 'rapid fire' range, as one example that was given, it doesn't mean the whole unit is in range. The shooting rules are different than the vehicle explosion rules.

You're joking right? You are shooting the unit not each model, if a model is in range the whole unit is in range. How else would you be able to remove models that are NOT in rapid fire range? If the unit doesn't represent every model it is comprised of how can you remove models? They wouldn't be related, shooting the unit wouldn't effect the models.

I strongly recommend you re-read the rulebook a few times, you seem to seriously lack the understanding of models and units and when measuring to which is used for what purpose.

Although I assume it's futile I will try to explain it to you again (did anybody count how many times it has been tried during this thread?)

If you shoot you measure to a model in the unit you shoot at. The rules tell you that if one model is in range the whole unit can suffer wounds caused by the weapon, so you measure to a model to see if the unit counts as being within range.

Explosion says all models under the marker are affected, it does not say anything about unit. So the models in the unit that are not under the marker can not be hit, as an exception to the rules from shooting.

The rules for units in transporters gives you a way to measure to the unit, not to single models. Therefor, if you need to measure to individual models and not units within a certain area to see if they are affected you have no rule for it.

@paidinfull

I am not the one confused. You are trying to apply rules where the rules don't apply.

Green Blow Fly wrote:So Yak what was the justification for 4+ cover save for embarked units versus Spirit Leech?

G

Don't want to put words in anyone's mouth but my guess would be it's because they are transferring the shooting cover save to the unit.

Now why this would not work if the unit was outside the vehicle and had the vehicle between the Doom and them is beyond me. Maybe it would? I dunno.

Wish they would have just called this a Psychic power and cleared the whole damned mess up.

Nope, they are not effected. Location of model =/= location of unit. Here's why:


x x x x x---------11.99"--------y

a unit x and a model y are 11.99" apart.


model y is within 12 inches of unit x. If y's power affects a UNIT, then unit x and all the models that make up the unit is in range. There are rules in the bgb for measuring to embarked units

now, if y's power affects MODELS, then only the leading model is in range of y, and therefore only that x is effected. if unit x is embarked, there are no rules for determining exactly which model is in range. To say that we measure to the hull to determine model position is incorrect, as if we measure to a single position we are saying that all of the models are on top of one another.

Since we can't determine where in the transport the unit sits, we can't hit it at all.

The Green Git wrote:

Green Blow Fly wrote:So Yak what was the justification for 4+ cover save for embarked units versus Spirit Leech?

G

Don't want to put words in anyone's mouth but my guess would be it's because they are transferring the shooting cover save to the unit.

Now why this would not work if the unit was outside the vehicle and had the vehicle between the Doom and them is beyond me. Maybe it would? I dunno.

Wish they would have just called this a Psychic power and cleared the whole damned mess up.

I think that is what is going to happen since it would then be covered by the other FAQ. Simple and clear.

Green Blow Fly wrote:So Yak what was the justification for 4+ cover save for embarked units versus Spirit Leech?

G

Because the only full rules for converting wounds into saves into unsaved wounds into casualties are the shooting casualty rules.

The shooting casualty rules allow cover saves to be taken against wounds suffered by models, so in general (although not always possible) cover saves should typically apply to wounds except for situations where it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever to do so. Again, it is impossible to be completely consistent on this matter because GW isn't. Sometimes they seem to act as though cover saves are the default unless they specify otherwise and in other situations they seem to act as if the reverse is true.

So when we're looking at a bizarre special attack like this we try to figure out if a cover save could theoretically be included against such an attack and if it can, then yes cover saves should apply.

The Green Git wrote:Don't want to put words in anyone's mouth but my guess would be it's because they are transferring the shooting cover save to the unit.

Now why this would not work if the unit was outside the vehicle and had the vehicle between the Doom and them is beyond me. Maybe it would? I dunno.

Wish they would have just called this a Psychic power and cleared the whole damned mess up.

Are you talking about us on the INAT ruling it a psychic power? Because if we did that it would mean the DoM would be unable to ever use its normal shooting pyshic attack (as models can only use one psychic power per turn unless specified otherwise), so ruling that way would represent a pretty major change in the DoM's abilities, and it would allow 'Spirit Leech' to be shut down by a psychic hood, etc, which is not how it currently behaves.


Now, GW could have made it a psychic power and allowed the model to use two powers in a turn...but they seem to be staying away from the 'always on' psychic powers now and just calling them 'special rules'. I think they're doing this because those types of powers raise serious questions when encountering other abilities that automatically nullify psychic powers...so its just easier to start turning any psychic power that is 'always on' into a special rule, and then you never need to worry about any kind of nullification.

Or they could say it "counts as a psyhic power" in regard to embarked models. If they specify how it counts as, then it wouldn't count as for psychic hoods or one power per turn.

Still too circuitous. How about "It cannot affect vehicles or models embarked in vehicles".

DONE.

Kinda like how they should really say "Boarding planks don't work on walkers" or "walkers get to strike back when something attempts to boarding plank them", etc.

But hey, they don't.

paidinfull wrote:

Drunkspleen wrote:Exactly, we are finally seeing eye to eye. The vehicle model is the model representing the unit in this case, and MODELS in range are effected, the fact that the vehicle is representing the unit makes no difference, because the other models in the unit are out of range.

Seems to me you misunderstand how "representing" works. A plastic space marine model represents an imaginary warrior. If something effects the plastic space marine model it is effecting the imaginary warrior. The argument is clear that if you are using the vehicle model to represent the unit you are also using the vehicle model to represent every model by inference.

You've completely missed my point.

Just like if you measure to a plastic space marine model to measure to the unit you are measuring to every model in that unit by inference?

I know that we aren't actually in agreement, I was having a little dig at what you said, that apparently wasn't clear enough.

Hi, I'm new here, but I would like to try a different tact.

I would argue that passengers are similar to the crew of a vehicle. For the SL to hurt the passengers but not the driver and gunner is not believable. Nothing more protects the crew over the passengers.

BRB pp63

"Vehicles never take Morale checks for any reason... Any occassional lapses that do occur are represented by crew shaken and stunned."

For example, a Callidus assassin's neural shredder is a leadership based area attack, similar to the SL (yes, I know the difference between Leadership and Morale tests). It can kill infantry in the open, but when they are inside a vehicle at best it can do a shaken or stunned... no wounds (iirc WH FAQ, Vehicle Damage Chart -4). The passengers are treated the same as the crew in that they cannot use firing points while shaken or stunned.

The SL only affects "non-vehicle enemy units." Tyranid pp58.
The SL cannot affect a vehicle's crew at all... not even a shaken result.

BRB pp66

Some vehicles can carry infantry... providing speed and protection."

Embarked units have the same level of protection as the crew (or are you saying Chronus can be killed by SL while the driver and tank are unharmed?). That is, the AV protects them until they disembark or the vehicle is destroyed; they do not take morale checks; etc.

While a unit is embarked they count as a vehicle unit (as they are a unit in a vehicle) and are immune to Spirit Leech. It does not matter if you can measure to the hull, and somehow justify the seating position of passengers, because the embarked unit is protected by the vehicle's armor. Any other kind of ruling creates more problems that it solves.

Ironscowl wrote:
For example, a Callidus assassin's neural shredder is a leadership based area attack, similar to the SL (yes, I know the difference between Leadership and Morale tests). It can kill infantry in the open, but when they are inside a vehicle at best it can do a shaken or stunned... no wounds (iirc WH FAQ, Vehicle Damage Chart -4). The passengers are treated the same as the crew in that they cannot use firing points while shaken or stunned.

Embarked units have the same level of protection as the crew (or are you saying Chronus can be killed by SL while the driver and tank are unharmed?). That is, the AV protects them until they disembark or the vehicle is destroyed; they do not take morale checks; etc.

While a unit is embarked they count as a vehicle unit (as they are a unit in a vehicle) and are immune to Spirit Leech. It does not matter if you can measure to the hull, and somehow justify the seating position of passengers, because the embarked unit is protected by the vehicle's armor. Any other kind of ruling creates more problems that it solves.

The last couple of sentences in your post is essentially the crux of your argument. You're saying that an embarked counts as a vehicle unit. Unfortunately the rules do not support that argument. The embarked unit is still a separate unit when embarked...the rules tell us that the embarked unit can still be measured to and from when embarked and the embarked unit is still allowed to fire as a completely separate unit from the vehicle it is embarked on.

In other words, all evidence points to the fact that the embarked unit is still a separate unit while embarked, just that its individual models are removed from the table.

When you bring up that passengers cannot fire from fire points when the vehicle has suffered a 'shaken'/'stunned' result, this is the reason they cannot do so. They are not the crew of the vehicle and if this rule was not in the rulebook then the passengers would be free to fire from the fire points even if the vehicle was shaken/stunned.

In other words, by the rules, the embarked unit is only subject to any additional rules for being embarked that are actually in the rulebook. I agree that the rules *should* give them specific levels of protection for being embarked, but they simply don't.


But as to your specific points, an embarked unit cannot be directly affected by a Callidus's Neural Shredder because it is a template weapon and none of the embarked unit's models will be under the template.

And Chronus as a model does not exist until his vehicle is destroyed and he successfully makes his escape rule. Before that he is simply a profile improvement for the vehicle.

don_mondo wrote:Per Yak's suggestion, posting here instead of the INAT thread.

Basically, since it has been determined that the Spirit Leech works against embarked troops in their transport for a variety of reasons, the question arises. Does the same apply to the explosion from a Destroyed-Exploded result on a vehicle? Seems to have the same parameters as the SL. IE models in range by way of the transport hull being in range, not a shooting/psychic power, doesn't need LOS, etc.

Edit: corrected spelling

Yes, it is technically possible, however, there are stark differences between the two; FYI, it has always been possible irrespective of the ruling of the SL. According to the RAW the SL effect permeates the hull because it affects all non-vehicle units within the radius, the explosion requires an armor penetration in order to have any effect on the embarked troops; that effect could only be if the second transport was destroyed by the explosion.

Spellbound wrote:Still too circuitous. How about "It cannot affect vehicles or models embarked in vehicles".

DONE.

Kinda like how they should really say "Boarding planks don't work on walkers" or "walkers get to strike back when something attempts to boarding plank them", etc.

But hey, they don't.

So they should arbitrarily change the rules you dont like?

Interesting.

SM Codex pp89

"Use the tank commander model of Chronus to represent this."

Therefore, Chronus is a model on the tank before the tank is destroyed.

Besides that, my argument is that it does not matter if you can measure to the unit. They are in a vehicle. SL cannot affect vehicles. Whether the crew and passengers are separate does not matter, the vehicle protects them both.

Much of your argument Yakface is a choice between two evils, and you chose one over the other because of the absurity defense. I find it absurd that SL affects passengers but not crew.

So, you say souls can be sucked through solid objects, and then you wonder if it somehow gets a cover save from solid objects? Either SL hits the crew and passengers and gives no cover, or they are all protected. I can't see any other argument being anything but absurd.

Ironscowl wrote:I can't see any other argument being anything but absurd.

The RAW supporting it entirely is absurd?

Ironscowl wrote:SM Codex pp89

"Use the tank commander model of Chronus to represent this."

Therefore, Chronus is a model on the tank before the tank is destroyed.

I suppose you could say Chronus is a model, but he doesn't have a unit.

@Gorkamorka: The RAW can be argued to measure to the unit, I am not challenging that point (others can and have done so). I am saying that whether you do that or not makes no difference. You are measuring to the hull of the vehicle. The vehicle's hull is impervious to SL. Therefore, the passengers inside are impervious to SL too. If the hull were not impervious to SL then crew members would have their souls sucked out too. But it does not since it only affects "non-vehicle enemy units."

Since the whole measuring to the hull thing is based on the assumption that SL ignores AV, I am challenging that assumption. Since Yak's decision was made based in part on the "absurdity defense" then I am challenging the logic used there too. Without either/both of those legs, then measuring to the hull to get at models inside does not apply. It is not that that RAW rule does not exist, but rather that it is inapplicable to this situation.

@Masterslowpoke: The Chronus example is merely an illustration of unnecessary unintended consequences caused by the overly complex application of rulings. In truth, Chronus has a model; he has a unit (the tank); but he does not have a profile ~yet~. He clearly has a wound to give when he gets out. If SL hits passengers, then Chronus can die too (but that's absurd).

So, if I can't measure to 'models' in a transport, does that mean I can't use a psychic hood to nullify powers if my librarian is inside a transport?

yakface wrote:SNIP
2) The rules for embarked units specifies that for ranges involving the embarked unit you measure to and from the vehicle's hull.
SNIP
2) Models in an embarked unit are not on the table and therefore no models are found to be within the specified range.

These two statements are mutually exclusive. I don't see how you can state from a RAW perspective that both apply in different cases.

Homer

P.S. Does this permit template weapons to affect the embarked unit?

Timmah wrote:So, if I can't measure to 'models' in a transport, does that mean I can't use a psychic hood to nullify powers if my librarian is inside a transport?

It's questionable, there's no rule for measuring to a single aspect of a unit in a vehicle, so a case could be made that it doesn't work.

However, the way I see it is, you can measure to a single aspect of a unit, as long as it doesn't call for a model.

So, "within 24 inches of the librarian" is fine, but if it were "within 24 inches of the librarian model" it would not be, as the model is not on the table.

Admittedly though, it's a gray area.

The Libarian is within 24" if the hull is, as distance to/from is measured to the hull and it never specifies the model - which wouldn't be on the board.

But as Spleen said, if you were trying to find the libarian (as it says to the libarian not 'his unit' or some other thing) it wouldn't work, I'd feel much more comfortable ruling on this if I owned the codex.

Homer S wrote:

yakface wrote:SNIP
2) The rules for embarked units specifies that for ranges involving the embarked unit you measure to and from the vehicle's hull.
SNIP
2) Models in an embarked unit are not on the table and therefore no models are found to be within the specified range.

These two statements are mutually exclusive. I don't see how you can state from a RAW perspective that both apply in different cases.

Homer

P.S. Does this permit template weapons to affect the embarked unit?

Simply read the rules...

Blast Rules:

Once the final position of the blast marker has been determined, take a good look at the blast marker from above - all models whose bases are completely or partially covered by the blast marker are hit.

Doom of Malan'Tai SL Rules:

...every non-vehicle enemy unit within6' of the Doom of Malan'tai...

Destroyed - Explodes Rules:

...Flaming debris is scattered D6" from the vehicle, and models in range suffer a Strength 3, AP - hit.

Ironscowl said:

He clearly has a wound to give when he gets out. If SL hits passengers, then Chronus can die too (but that's absurd).

Why is this absurd? Is Chronus a member of a unit? Is that unit being affected by SL?


Ironscowl said:

Besides that, my argument is that it does not matter if you can measure to the unit. They are in a vehicle. SL cannot affect vehicles. Whether the crew and passengers are separate does not matter, the vehicle protects them both.

SL cannot affect vehicles for two reasons, one, because the SL rules state so; two, because vehicles do not have wounds. Chronus has a wound, the troops inside a transport have wounds... the vehicle is a member of the unit, you measure the distance from Doom to the unit, if the unit is within that range, then the unit makes a 3d6 test, if failed, that number of wounds are inflicted on that unit... Quite simple.

Embarking Rules:

If the players need to measure a range involving the embarked unit... this range is measured to or from the vehicles hull.

The driver of a tank does not have a wound... You're trying too hard to walk the line between abstraction and "What would happen if this were real". Just read the RAW and all will be well.

It is all about measuring to the unit, not to the models who are affected by Doom. Think of the green tide, if you have 30 orcs and only 1 model is in range of the Doom's SL, then the entire unit is affected... Same simple concept.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Drunkspleen wrote:

Timmah wrote:So, if I can't measure to 'models' in a transport, does that mean I can't use a psychic hood to nullify powers if my librarian is inside a transport?

It's questionable, there's no rule for measuring to a single aspect of a unit in a vehicle, so a case could be made that it doesn't work.

However, the way I see it is, you can measure to a single aspect of a unit, as long as it doesn't call for a model.

So, "within 24 inches of the librarian" is fine, but if it were "within 24 inches of the librarian model" it would not be, as the model is not on the table.

Admittedly though, it's a gray area.

Its not a gray area at all, its quite clear, read the Embarking rule under "Transport Vehicles".

Ironscowl wrote:SM Codex pp89

"Use the tank commander model of Chronus to represent this."

Therefore, Chronus is a model on the tank before the tank is destroyed.

Besides that, my argument is that it does not matter if you can measure to the unit. They are in a vehicle. SL cannot affect vehicles. Whether the crew and passengers are separate does not matter, the vehicle protects them both.

Much of your argument Yakface is a choice between two evils, and you chose one over the other because of the absurity defense. I find it absurd that SL affects passengers but not crew.

So, you say souls can be sucked through solid objects, and then you wonder if it somehow gets a cover save from solid objects? Either SL hits the crew and passengers and gives no cover, or they are all protected. I can't see any other argument being anything but absurd.

It seems as though you have slightly misinterpreted the rantings of my uber-post, which isn't so surprising considering how long-winded it is.


There are two distinct things that I'm essentially discussing...one is the rules as written, and the other is how people in general tend to play the game.

When it comes to making a ruling for a tournament FAQ, we try to take into consideration how it seems players naturally play the game. The reason for this is if you create a ruling that goes against how most people play then you tend to create more arguing and game-stoppage then you solve with the ruling as all the people who haven't studied every nuance of the FAQ will naturally try to play a different way than what was ruled and those players who have read the FAQ will then have to pull the FAQ out (or call over a judge) to explain to the other player what the ruling is.

Instead, if you rule how most people already play, then those who have read the FAQ ahead of time will know what is going on already and those who haven't read the FAQ will simply play as they usually play and less arguments will ensue.

So in my long post, I was simply illustrating that in the case of many instances, the rules are written in a way that clearly seems to allow absurd situations to occur but players tend to naturally assume that if something is really, really, REALLY absurd in the rules that it *must* be wrong and they simply play the opposite way.

My point was that with Spirit Leech, unlike in the case of say, a nearby vehicle explosion, the situation does not carry the same level of absurdity, which is evidenced by the split of opinion you have on the Spirit Leech issue when compared to a vehicle exploding.

Even if an exploding vehicle affected all UNITS within a certain range, I am positive that if we took a poll on how people play the game regarding the issue, an overwhelming number of players would say that they play that an exploding vehicle couldn't affect embarked models on a nearby transport. Whereas in the case of Spirit Leech, players are quite split on the matter.

So my only point was that when it comes to making a ruling in the INAT FAQ, the situation with Spirit Leech is not the same as with other similar issues that players naturally choose to ignore holes in the rules due to the absurdity of the situation.

Now, when it comes to cover saves being taken against wounds caused by Spirit Leech, again, this is a complex issue with no clear right answer, but in general we believe that cover saves are granted in most cases unless specified otherwise.

And if you're asking me personally if I think it is absurd for a cover save to be taken against a Spirit Leech wound...not one bit. It makes perfect sense that it would be slightly harder to suck someone's life essence out through a wall than it would be if they were standing in the open.

So hopefully that helps to explain the disconnect you're feeling between the two areas I was discussing.

@visavismeyou

the vehicle is a member of the unit

As you say, the vehicle is a member of the unit. Therefore, it is a vehicle unit. SL cannot harm vehicle units. Which means SL cannot harm anything in that unit,including the embarked squad. Well, it's not quite that simple, but I won't get into that since it has little bearing on my argument (e.g., measuring to the hull is only necessary if transports provide no protection).

@yakface
Basically, your argument is that there are no rules for transports protecting embarked squads at all. But no one plays that way because it is absurd. Your exception for SL is because it is conceivable that souls can be sucked through solid objects. I understand why you might rule that way, but it's not strictly RAW; all of that is by convention. Which means the whole RAW-thing about measuring to the hull and therefore getting to the guys inside is not standing on stable footing... it is a house of cards. Which in itself is a good reason not to make this exception unless the special ability specifically says you can get at embarked units, which SL does not.

On the other hand, you think the material object does provide some kind of protection, and therefore a cover save might be warranted. It sounds like you are conflicted and trying to have it both ways. If the armor only provides partial protection then the crew would end up as shaken or stunned (like with the Neural Shredder). But the crew are completely immune.

My argument is that the transport does provide protection. Here is my another quote from the rulebook that says a transport provides protection (which makes my position the default and the ignore-armor-position the rules change).
BRB pp65

"Vehicle Types. Transport Vehicles. Transport vehicles are designed to carry infantry squads around the battlefield. They offer to the warriors either the protection of an armoured hull to shield them from anti-personnel fire..."

So, the armoured hull protects embarked units from enemy ranged attacks that would cause damage to infantry. SL may be an exotic form of anti-personnel fire, but it still fits. That is, you must deal with the AV before you can hurt the guys inside.

Unfortunately, what you just quoted is NOT a rule, but fluff.

In the fluff Space Marines kill everything, with one capable of killing a whole regiment of guard. In the rules? Not so much.

The point is the rules state you can measure to a *unit* that is embarked, even if you cannot measure to the models. Here "Unit" is the fully abstracted form (instead of the semi abstract you normally see) of the word.

Edit: oh, and the unit is never part of the vehicle - they remain 2 seperate units. If they were the same unit they would have to fire at the same target, always remain in coherency, etc.

Ironscowl wrote:
@yakface
Basically, your argument is that there are no rules for transports protecting embarked squads at all. But no one plays that way because it is absurd. Your exception for SL is because it is conceivable that souls can be sucked through solid objects. I understand why you might rule that way, but it's not strictly RAW; all of that is by convention. Which means the whole RAW-thing about measuring to the hull and therefore getting to the guys inside is not standing on stable footing... it is a house of cards. Which in itself is a good reason not to make this exception unless the special ability specifically says you can get at embarked units, which SL does not.

Incorrect. The exception for Spirit Leech is not because it is conceivable that souls could be sucked through solid objects. What I am saying is that most people choose to ignore the rules for stuff that clearly is absurd. When it comes to Spirit Leech, that same level of absurdity isn't necessarily present in every gamer's opinion, which is why we have a split in opinions on this very subject.

So because of that, we don't have the 'everybody plays it that way because any other way would be absurd' factor when it comes to Spirit Leech and because of that we felt we had to stick with what we thought the RULES actually say, which appears to us that Spirit Leech can be used to affect embarked units.


And you keep posting quotes from the rulebook, but none of those quotes tell you how the embarked unit would actually be protected in a vehicle.

@Nosferatu1001

Unfortunately, what you just quoted is NOT a rule, but fluff.

Believe it or not, I did consider whether this was fluff beore I posted. This quote is in the rules section (of the small rulebook, I don't have the BRB). iirc, there are no fluff stories in the rules section. It does not have the legalese sound of declaring measure x to do y. But neither does it have the fluffy tone of something like SM kill everything. The Vehicle section I quoted is the summary of what the vehicles do. When in doubt, use that.

Now, this is not quite true. To be more exact, they do have fluffy quotes in the rules section, but those are ALWAYS bracketed by a line above and below the quote; this is done to explicitly show when rules stop and fluff starts. Entries that are boxed are by-the-ways that you should know to help interpret the rules (such as the Vehicle section that I quoted). Typically, these are diagrams with examples of how the rule works. Note, this is separate from how section headings are treated (bracketed and all caps). They have strict formatting in the rules section and things like the size and caps of title fonts help distinguish which rule is a subset of another. If you don't believe me, go study how they setup the formatting in the rule book.

The point is the rules state you can measure to a *unit* that is embarked, even if you cannot measure to the models. Here "Unit" is the fully abstracted form (instead of the semi abstract you normally see) of the word.

Actually, I had considered this too. The transport is a Vehicle Unit, whereas the embarked troops are an Infantry unit. Their unit type does not change just by being embarked. So I happily yield this point since it is not integral to my point (which is the armored hull provides protection, which means measuring has no bearing). It was merely a subset of my argument that was pointing out how messy things can get with the spirit-ignores-armor ruling. Since, upon re-reading Yakface's post, he does acknowledge those difficulties, I feel it is not necessary to belabor that subset of my reasoning any further.

@Yakface:

Incorrect. The exception for Spirit Leech is not because it is conceivable that souls could be sucked through solid objects. What I am saying is that most people choose to ignore the rules for stuff that clearly is absurd. When it comes to Spirit Leech, that same level of absurdity isn't necessarily present in every gamer's opinion, which is why we have a split in opinions on this very subject.

It does not matter whether it is because it is conceivable or because the bulk of gamers ignore absurdities, the point there is that it is not a RAW reasoning. So, if the RAW (measure to hull) is based on not-RAW (bulk of gamer's opinion), then attacking the not-RAW foundation can topple whatever you pile on top. That is not to say that the RAW itself is invalidated, but the application of it to this situation is. This is why it does not matter whether you measure to the hull since it cannot penetrate the armored hull in the first place.

And you keep posting quotes from the rulebook, but none of those quotes tell you how the embarked unit would actually be protected in a vehicle.

It is a blanket statement in the rules section (as stated above in my comments about formatting) that the armored hull gives protection. That is, the designers did not envision anything that would merely ignore AV and get at passengers. The transport provides protection [and speed], which is the whole reason to get transports in the first place. To bypass this protection, a specific rule must give specific permission to ignore the armored hull. It clears up those other questions, like does a Vehicle Destroyed affect embarked troops in a nearby transport (no); or, can I stick my flamer into a firing point and fry the passengers (no, only on buildings as per specific exception); or, does a neural shredder hurt passengers (no wounds, only shaken/stunned as per specific exception).

BTW, Yakface I appreciate the civilised and in-depth debate we are having.

Ironscowl wrote:
@Yakface:

Incorrect. The exception for Spirit Leech is not because it is conceivable that souls could be sucked through solid objects. What I am saying is that most people choose to ignore the rules for stuff that clearly is absurd. When it comes to Spirit Leech, that same level of absurdity isn't necessarily present in every gamer's opinion, which is why we have a split in opinions on this very subject.

It does not matter whether it is because it is conceivable or because the bulk of gamers ignore absurdities, the point there is that it is not a RAW reasoning. So, if the RAW (measure to hull) is based on not-RAW (bulk of gamer's opinion), then attacking the not-RAW foundation can topple whatever you pile on top. That is not to say that the RAW itself is invalidated, but the application of it to this situation is. This is why it does not matter whether you measure to the hull since it cannot penetrate the armored hull in the first place.

And you keep posting quotes from the rulebook, but none of those quotes tell you how the embarked unit would actually be protected in a vehicle.

It is a blanket statement in the rules section (as stated above in my comments about formatting) that the armored hull gives protection. That is, the designers did not envision anything that would merely ignore AV and get at passengers. The transport provides protection [and speed], which is the whole reason to get transports in the first place. To bypass this protection, a specific rule must give specific permission to ignore the armored hull. It clears up those other questions, like does a Vehicle Destroyed affect embarked troops in a nearby transport (no); or, can I stick my flamer into a firing point and fry the passengers (no, only on buildings as per specific exception); or, does a neural shredder hurt passengers (no wounds, only shaken/stunned as per specific exception).

BTW, Yakface I appreciate the civilised and in-depth debate we are having.

But the rules as written do NOT disallow Spirit Leech from affecting the passengers...in fact the opposite is true.


P1) Spirit Leech affects all units within its (rolled) range.
P2) Embarked units are a unit.
P3) Range to the embarked unit is measured to the vehicle's hull (pg 66).

C1) Therefore, Spirit Leech affects embarked units if the hull of their transport vehicle is found to be within range.


Right there is a logically sound argument of why Spirit Leech affects embarked units. In order to topple that argument you have to be able to logically disprove one the premises or show a logically sound argument in the rules as to why embarked units would not be affected.

You keep quoting the fact a quote from the rules saying that vehicle offer protection. Okay great, but what does that *mean* in game terms? Absolutely nothing. I'm sure I could find quotes in codices saying that Space Marines derive protection from their armor...but in game terms that is expressed by giving the marines a 3+ armor save.

So yes, vehicles may offer "protection" but unless we have some sort of expressed game application in the rules of what that protection means, the statement itself is meaningless.

There is absolutely no way you can construct a logically sound argument that embarked models actually derive any protection from being embarked on a transport. The rules may mention that they are protected, but there is absolutely no reference to what that protection IS.

In short, claiming that embarked units are somehow immune to damage and/or Spirit Leech because the rules mention that they derive protection from their transport is not an argument that can be logically supported.

Ironscowl is a new user with 5 posts that are all in this thread. I think it's sketchy..

Ironscowl wrote:@visavismeyou

the vehicle is a member of the unit

As you say, the vehicle is a member of the unit. Therefore, it is a vehicle unit. SL cannot harm vehicle units. Which means SL cannot harm anything in that unit,including the embarked squad. Well, it's not quite that simple, but I won't get into that since it has little bearing on my argument (e.g., measuring to the hull is only necessary if transports provide no protection).

Wrong.

Ironscowl wrote:My argument is that the transport does provide protection. Here is my another quote from the rulebook that says a transport provides protection (which makes my position the default and the ignore-armor-position the rules change).
BRB pp65

"Vehicle Types. Transport Vehicles. Transport vehicles are designed to carry infantry squads around the battlefield. They offer to the warriors either the protection of an armoured hull to shield them from anti-personnel fire..."

So, the armoured hull protects embarked units from enemy ranged attacks that would cause damage to infantry. SL may be an exotic form of anti-personnel fire, but it still fits. That is, you must deal with the AV before you can hurt the guys inside.

This is a complete nonsequiter from the rules.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

P1) Spirit Leech affects all units within its (rolled) range.
P2) Embarked units are a unit.
P3) Range to the embarked unit is measured to the vehicle's hull (pg 66).

C1) Therefore, Spirit Leech affects embarked units if the hull of their transport vehicle is found to be within range.

This would go into a sufficiently complicated Fitch-style program checker and come out valid. If anyone attempts to argue against this, he or she would be in error.

The only real discussion left is whether or not the community wants to consider this ability too powerful and thus give a cover save to the embarked units. While I find absolutely no precedence to give a cover save to embarked units within range of the Doom, I would consider acceding to the convention of granting them a 4+cover save; if it was so formed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ironscowl wrote:So, if the RAW (measure to hull) is based on not-RAW (bulk of gamer's opinion),

This antecedent makes absolutely no sense... The RAW is not based on non-RAW... thats the point of the acronym "Raw". The clarification to your confusion is in the RAW... I've already quoted it...

Ironscowl wrote:To bypass this protection, a specific rule must give specific permission to ignore the armored hull.

Wrong.

Ironscowl wrote:It clears up those other questions, like does a Vehicle Destroyed affect embarked troops in a nearby transport

No, actually, 'it' does not, RAW clears that confusion up, but I quoted that too and I doubt you read it.

visavismeyou wrote:

Drunkspleen wrote:

Timmah wrote:So, if I can't measure to 'models' in a transport, does that mean I can't use a psychic hood to nullify powers if my librarian is inside a transport?

It's questionable, there's no rule for measuring to a single aspect of a unit in a vehicle, so a case could be made that it doesn't work.

However, the way I see it is, you can measure to a single aspect of a unit, as long as it doesn't call for a model.

So, "within 24 inches of the librarian" is fine, but if it were "within 24 inches of the librarian model" it would not be, as the model is not on the table.

Admittedly though, it's a gray area.

Its not a gray area at all, its quite clear, read the Embarking rule under "Transport Vehicles".

It is a gray area, you have rules for measuring to the librarian's unit, which you might get away with using if he is an IC, but if he is attached to another squad, there's no rules that specifically allow for measuring to a single person in a unit.

Drunkspleen wrote:

visavismeyou wrote:

Drunkspleen wrote:

Timmah wrote:So, if I can't measure to 'models' in a transport, does that mean I can't use a psychic hood to nullify powers if my librarian is inside a transport?

It's questionable, there's no rule for measuring to a single aspect of a unit in a vehicle, so a case could be made that it doesn't work.

However, the way I see it is, you can measure to a single aspect of a unit, as long as it doesn't call for a model.

So, "within 24 inches of the librarian" is fine, but if it were "within 24 inches of the librarian model" it would not be, as the model is not on the table.

Admittedly though, it's a gray area.

Its not a gray area at all, its quite clear, read the Embarking rule under "Transport Vehicles".

It is a gray area, you have rules for measuring to the librarian's unit, which you might get away with using if he is an IC, but if he is attached to another squad, there's no rules that specifically allow for measuring to a single person in a unit.

Actually, it is not a gray area, as I have already quoted, the rules quite clearly state that if any query in the game is trying to find where an embarked unit is at, you measure to the hull. Since the Doom clearly states that you measure to a unit and then take a 3d6 leadership test if any part of that unit is inside the 6 inches and they fail the leadership tests, that unit takes wounds, there is no gray area...

Gray area would require that there be some fuzzy part in this string of sound logic I demonstrated. Each rule clearly follows from the previous and clearly relates to the next.


P -> Q
Q -> R
R -> S
---------
P -> S

irrefutable.

According to Yak's rational, which I certainly am not agreeing to, then both Boon of Mutation, 'pick any model'-no line of sight required, and Aura of Decay would both work on embarked troops (just two examples- there are many, some of which have been mentioned in this thread already and therefore do not warrant being repeated again here). Yak, and others, are exploiting a combination of muddy rulings to maximize a potential not clearly defined. It's a house rule, and frankly rules lawyer-ing pure and simple. The proposed combination of the rules used to make this argument, arguably could be interpreted and thusly intended to define such things as only passive effects used by same player. (Leadership checks come to mind - and I’ll add before some troll rolls his eyes, not those for morale purposes. As embarked troops are not required to make them).

Yak further pushes his view, Yak goes on to state in a very lengthy, and by the way very well written, post stating that embarked troops are somehow overpowered until this ruling was made to address Doom. Not only is this a false assumption but holds no basis to which to lay this argument in the first place.

I cannot believe, and nor should others, that until Doom came out everything was fine and then suddenly there was this gigantic hole in the rules regarding transports and embarked troops. This one is right up there with Ku'gaths shooting attack doesn’t' count for the herald's tally cuz he fired it in the same FAQ- I mean really? really? Mark of Nurgle-check, wait what? Nor is that the only House rule that should questioned, there are several. (I digress, the FAQ overall has value and is well written, but with an obvious slant)

It's inception ignores other rules dealing with how those models are treated for a favorable result when using Doom, rules that all the other powers seem to abide by...
Don is right in that model or unit, the designation does not matter as per the rules put forth in the book. They are the same.

deevil wrote:According to Yak's rational, which I certainly am not agreeing to, then both Boon of Mutation, 'pick any model'-no line of sight required, and Aura of Decay would both work on embarked troops (just two examples- there are many, some of which have been mentioned in this thread already and therefore do not warrant being repeated again here).

Don is right in that model or unit, the designation does not matter as per the rules put forth in the book. They are the same.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WrjwaqZfjIY
It's been very very clearly explained repeatedly, and is entirely RAW supported.
Simply saying 'it's wrong' or 'this other thing that I think works means its crazy' with no rule-based arguments is worthless. Highfiving yourself over how great your points are after they're had huge holes poked in them isn't helping anyone.

deevil wrote:Yak, and others, are exploiting a combination of muddy rulings to maximize a potential not clearly defined. It's a house rule, and frankly rules lawyer-ing pure and simple.
Yak further pushes his view
troll
the FAQ overall [is written] with an obvious slant

HiveFleetGoliath wrote:Ironscowl is a new user with 5 posts that are all in this thread. I think it's sketchy..

Indeed. It seems like lots of people are using low-post alts to call people out today.

visavismeyou wrote:Actually, it is not a gray area, as I have already quoted, the rules quite clearly state that if any query in the game is trying to find where an embarked unit is at, you measure to the hull. Since the Doom clearly states that you measure to a unit and then take a 3d6 leadership test if any part of that unit is inside the 6 inches and they fail the leadership tests, that unit takes wounds, there is no gray area...

Gray area would require that there be some fuzzy part in this string of sound logic I demonstrated. Each rule clearly follows from the previous and clearly relates to the next.


P -> Q
Q -> R
R -> S
---------
P -> S

irrefutable.

Do you even know what you are talking about, or more importantly, what other people are talking about.

I am discussing the lack of any clear rules letting you measure to an individual member of an embarked unit, such as a Librarian with a psychic hood, attached to another unit.

While you can measure to the Librarian's unit, you don't have a rule specifically allowing to determine distance to the librarian.

And you don't appear to be addressing this at all, but rather babbling on about things entirely unrelated to the discussion at hand.

I really feel I must warn you, if you continue to demonstrate an absolute inability to read and comprehend other people's perfect acceptable posts, you will probably find people will have little interest in your ability to read and comprehend the rules, or potential lack thereof.

Ironscowl wrote:Believe it or not, I did consider whether this was fluff beore I posted. This quote is in the rules section (of the small rulebook, I don't have the BRB). iirc, there are no fluff stories in the rules section. It does not have the legalese sound of declaring measure x to do y. But neither does it have the fluffy tone of something like SM kill everything. The Vehicle section I quoted is the summary of what the vehicles do. When in doubt, use that.

So a sentence describing something whihch has no IN GAME effect does not meet your definition of fluff? Please show the *in game* effect of this "rule" you are proposing? HOW does it offer protection?

Sorry, the entire BRB is full of fluff.

Ironscowl wrote:Actually, I had considered this too. The transport is a Vehicle Unit, whereas the embarked troops are an Infantry unit. Their unit type does not change just by being embarked. So I happily yield this point since it is not integral to my point (which is the armored hull provides protection, which means measuring has no bearing). It was merely a subset of my argument that was pointing out how messy things can get with the spirit-ignores-armor ruling. Since, upon re-reading Yakface's post, he does acknowledge those difficulties, I feel it is not necessary to belabor that subset of my reasoning any further.

Except that it *does* matter. You have yet to show how the vehicle actually offers protection using something defined *in game* - the *fluff* you quoted before is just that, fluff. It has absolutely no rules basis, has no in game effect, and does not use any of the in game terms to define what it is doing. In short, it is not a rule.

Please provide a *rule* showing HOW vehicles protect their passengers, or you are done here.

deevil wrote:According to Yak's rational, which I certainly am not agreeing to, then both Boon of Mutation, 'pick any model'-no line of sight required, and Aura of Decay would both work on embarked troops (just two examples- there are many, some of which have been mentioned in this thread already and therefore do not warrant being repeated again here). Yak, and others, are exploiting a combination of muddy rulings to maximize a potential not clearly defined. It's a house rule, and frankly rules lawyer-ing pure and simple. The proposed combination of the rules used to make this argument, arguably could be interpreted and thusly intended to define such things as only passive effects used by same player. (Leadership checks come to mind - and I’ll add before some troll rolls his eyes, not those for morale purposes. As embarked troops are not required to make them).

The ruling we have gone with those two situations are that Boon of Mutation requires the player to choose a model, as embarked models aren't on the table there is no model to choose. Aura of Decay, just like a vehicle explosion affects models within a certain range. While an embarked unit may be within the specified range, no models from the embarked unit actually are and therefore they are not affected.

While you obviously don't agree with the ruling I believe there is certainly consistency behind it.

Yak further pushes his view, Yak goes on to state in a very lengthy, and by the way very well written, post stating that embarked troops are somehow overpowered until this ruling was made to address Doom. Not only is this a false assumption but holds no basis to which to lay this argument in the first place.

I made no attempt to discuss the power level of embarked units in the game and nor does this have any bearing on whether or not Spirit Leech should work against an embarked unit, so I'm a bit confused as to what you're referring to.

I cannot believe, and nor should others, that until Doom came out everything was fine and then suddenly there was this gigantic hole in the rules regarding transports and embarked troops. This one is right up there with Ku'gaths shooting attack doesn’t' count for the herald's tally cuz he fired it in the same FAQ- I mean really? really? Mark of Nurgle-check, wait what? Nor is that the only House rule that should questioned, there are several. (I digress, the FAQ overall has value and is well written, but with an obvious slant)

It's inception ignores other rules dealing with how those models are treated for a favorable result when using Doom, rules that all the other powers seem to abide by...
Don is right in that model or unit, the designation does not matter as per the rules put forth in the book. They are the same.

Ku'gath? In the INAT? Now I'm really confused. The only reference we have to Ku'gath is that he does count towards the tally...or are you saying that his shooting attack shouldn't count?

And in my lengthy post I cover exactly what you're bringing up...there has always been a hole in the rules but players have always had an obvious 'absurdity' clause enabling them to simply ignore what the rules were saying.

Our ruling regarding Spirit Leech affecting an embarked unit is the RAW as far as I can tell...yes some 'house rules' are then required to cover what happens when some of the more bizarre things occur when Spirit Leech causes wounds on the embarked unit but again, at its core, the rules *DO* allow Spirit Leech to affect an embarked unit.

So are you advocating that we should have ruled that Spirit Leech doesn't affect embarked units? Because you do know that this would be making a 'house rule' (at least as far as I see it, correct?

Interesting, I just thanked Yakface for his civilized behavior, and all the personal attacks come out right after.

@HiveFleetGoliath

Ironscowl is a new user with 5 posts that are all in this thread. I think it's sketchy..

At 111 posts I suppose that makes you more than 22 times smarter than me, or more knowledgeable, or less sketchy. Then again, you are more than 114 times more sketchy than Yakface, who must therefore be some kind of infallible god. Now all you have to do is make fun of more new people (without adding anything to the debate even!) and your e-peen unsketchiness can swell even more.

I would guess from your sig that you are tyranid and have a personal reason for the ruling to come out in your favor. Congratulations then, enough of the voting members of one tournament board supports you. Thank you for contributing.

@Visevismeyou
I do not respond much to you since you seem to have selective reading. You are still attacking a point that I have already yielded. Your response of “Wrong” is very enlightening.

Your Fitch style program is a red herring and completely ignores my points. If you do not understand something, then go back and re-read the thread starting with Yakface’s treatise on page two. Then you would understand that the “not-RAW (bulk of gamer’s opinion)” refers to Yakface’s “absurdity defense.”

Your second wrong is also very informative. It was my understanding that a general rule takes precedence unless a specific rule overrides it.

@nosferatu
Please quote a separate boxed entry in the rules section that is fluff. You will find they are all explanations or rationalizations for why a rule exists or how to utilize a rule.

@Yakface
I know you can find fluff in the codices. But I am specifically speaking about the rules section of the rulebook.

Of those debating against me, it seems only Yakface understands my argument. The crux of the matter is whether vehicles protect embarked units or not.

pp60

“Vehicle Facing and Armour Values. Not all vehicles are equally armored. Some massive tanks are protected by countless layers of reinforced adamantium and ceramite plates, while other lighter vehicles rely more on their speed to avoid incoming fire. As such, each different type of vehicle will have different Armour Values, representing not just the thickness and slope of its armour, but also how difficult a target it is because of its size and speed, how tough and numerous its crew are, and so on… Armour Penetration. Hitting a vehicle is no guarantee that you will actually damage it…”

A vehicle’s armour value is derived from its armoured hull and speed. This is the same wording for what protection is afforded by a transport to its embarked unit, as previously quoted. So, in “Fitch’s” terms:

P1) The armour and speed of a transport protects embarked units.
P2) The armour and speed of a vehicle is represented by its Armour Value.

C1) The Armour Value protects the embarked unit.

Any ranged attack must deal with the Armour Value before damaging embarked units. To be explicit, you must hit the vehicle, penetrate the armour, and destroy/explode the vehicle before any damage can be inflicted upon transported units (in general).

In game terms, Spirit Leech has hit the vehicle (if within 6"), but cannot penetrate the armour since Strength 0 plus d6 cannot penetrate AV10+. Unless the passengers disembark, the protection provided by the armoured hull’s AV prevents SL from hurting them.

All of this gets back to Yakface's rationale for allowing SL to ignore the armour of a transport, which has to do with the absurdity defense. He says SL can somehow pass through solid objects unhindered and thus ignore armour (yet give cover). I say SL is like any other ranged attack and cannot merely pass through armour (since SL does not explicitly give permission to ignore AV; it has no affect on the vehicle crew, etc.).

Ironscowl wrote:At 111 posts I suppose that makes you more than 22 times smarter than me, or more knowledgeable, or less sketchy. Then again, you are more than 114 times more sketchy than Yakface, who must therefore be some kind of infallible god.

Glad to see you know what the deal is

Sorry, an "explanation on how to use a rule" is still "fluff", as are rationalisations of how to use a rule.

A rule is something that has an ingame specific effect. Your Propositions are not based on "in game" rules but explanations of what an armour value is.

You need to quote a *rule* that states how Embarked passengers are protected from harm. An actual, in game effect *rule* that states something similar to "passengers in a vehicle cannot be directly harmed by any enemy action or effect" . So far you have used *fluff* and explanations of rules (not actual rules themselves) and tha thas NO place in a rules argument.

OK, stupid question time here guys, so I can understand what people are saying here.

Is models = units or models =/= units?

I mean is models and units interchangable or not?

So if something says model and not unit, then the unit is not effected, but if something says unit, then all the models are effected?

I thought I read somewhere that model and unit is interchangeable, but now I can't find that rule. (funny when I want to find a specific rule I can never find it lol, just like the missing keys, when you want them you can never find them but as soon as you dont need it, you find it )

"Unit" is an abstract term for a group of model.

Sometimes you are required to interact with the unit, sometimes you are called upon to determine what each model is doing.

Specifically when measuring to a *unit* embarked on a trasnport you can do this, as you are given rules for doing so. You cannot, however measure to *models* within the unit as you have no rules for how to do so.

In the case of vehicles with embarked models, "unit" is an entirely abstract concept, as the physical models arent even on th table.

sigh.

P1) Spirit Leech affects all units within its (rolled) range.
P2) Embarked units are a unit.
P3) Range to the embarked unit is measured to the vehicle's hull (pg 66).

C1) Therefore, Spirit Leech affects embarked units if the hull of their transport vehicle is found to be within range.

Arguements like this although logically valid cannot be used as the sole means of determining it's validity.

e.g.

P1) Dogs eat all cats within its range.
P2) All jaguar(cars) are cats
P3) Range to the jaguar(car) is measured to the jaguars body

C1) Therefore, Dogs eat jaguar-cars if found to be within range.

Since we know that dogs don't eat cars, we know the argument is false, even if it is logically true statement.

This is the problem, these are assumptions made based on a argument that can easily be proven false.

In other words this is a fabricated house rule, based on a logical arguement. And frankly may not have anything to do with the original intent of the rule itself.

At the end of day your oppenent could argue the same, which again points to the failure of this arguement.

P1) Spirit Leech affects all units within its (rolled) range.
P2) All Embarked models are a unit.
P3) All models are off the table in an embarked unit

C1) Therefore, Spirit Leech does not affect embarked units regardless if the hull of their transport vehicle is found to be within range.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And for the record Gorkamorka, I am not some 'alt' I just prefer to read anonymously rather than post as my full time job. Nor am I 'highfiving' myself. I understand's Yaks arguement, I simply do not agree, as it IS flawed (so is mine btw). The HUGE holes of which you speak and used to detemine the validity is also flawed, as many posters have stated before me. If it wasn't there would be no arguement.

At the end of the day unless powers like Doom's specifically and not abstractly, or through inference, affects something it does not. You adherence to the term unit/model is irrelevant as they are interchangable, per the definition found in the book. For an example a single model unit can embark on a transport is both a unit and a model simultaneously.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

I made no attempt to discuss the power level of embarked units in the game and nor does this have any bearing on whether or not Spirit Leech should work against an embarked unit, so I'm a bit confused as to what you're referring to.

I agree I think I misread you uber post, my apologies.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
As for Ku'gath and the tallyman of Nurgle. it was part of this FAQ at one time (it may still be I have not checked it again since reading that),
But at one time the Large blast made by Ku'gath did not contribute to the tallymans count. That was the reference I was making.

deevil wrote:

P1) Spirit Leech affects all units within its (rolled) range.
P2) All Embarked models are a unit.
P3) All models are off the table in an embarked unit

C1) Therefore, Spirit Leech does not affect embarked units regardless if the hull of their transport vehicle is found to be within range.

Spirit Leech makes no mention of models, only units. P3 is irrelevant.

By P2 (all embarked models are a unit) and P1 (Spirit Leech affects all units within range) and p66 of the rulebook (which tells us how to measure to embarked units), embarked units are affected by Spirit Leech.

This has been an interesteing thread to read, but I really wasnt planning on posting until a discussion yesterday with a friend.

One of the fundamental points to accepting that Spirit leach affects units inside transports is that people would expect to play it that way. In other words, the idea is that people would accept that idea that the spirit leach power can reach through transport walls. Seemed reasonable enough of an idea, until ....

Couple of guys at the FLGS were playing a game and I was partially watching, then came over after a rules question and wathced the rest of the game. It was tyranids vs orcs, the ork player has been wanting to try out a possible BW army as much as possible lately. The tyranid player knew he was going to be playing vs orks, so he brought along the doom for fun.

Early on I mentioned how the spirit leach power would affect troops inside transports if they were within range, both players accepted the idea and seemd to get it. When I stopped by later it turns out they accepted it, but not the RAW. They were playing that spirit leach only affected the transported unit if the range reached the passenger compartment. When I explained how distance was actually measured to any point on the hull both players thought I was crazy.



So.... Just wanted to point out that the player base may not be thinking this is as natural of a ruling as is being assumed here.


Yes, once players fully understand the RAW and the rationale for why the ruling was made it may be fully accepted. But thinking that this version is going to reduce the number of rules questions at a tourney may be wishful thinking.



Sliggoth

Sliggoth wrote:
Early on I mentioned how the spirit leach power would affect troops inside transports if they were within range, both players accepted the idea and seemd to get it. When I stopped by later it turns out they accepted it, but not the RAW. They were playing that spirit leach only affected the transported unit if the range reached the passenger compartment. When I explained how distance was actually measured to any point on the hull both players thought I was crazy.

So.... Just wanted to point out that the player base may not be thinking this is as natural of a ruling as is being assumed here.

That's not the ruling or the rules fault, the players were just completely misinformed.

They're the same type who play that you can draw LOS to and shoot at units in open topped transports because 'it obviously makes sense I mean the ork is standing right there in the back of your trukk' and get all confused when shown the actual rules or asked to show support in the rulebook for their actions.

'well obviously the orks are all in the back part of the battlewagon' doesn't mean the players are intentionally playing it differently from the ruling and the ruling is at fault, it means they simply don't understand the basic rules involved.

I know...but the only reason I brought it up was that it struck against the idea that this is the way the bulk of the player base would automatically play the Doom's spirit leach ability.

Granted they dont understand the RAW in this case. Its just that if the Inat faq is being influenced in parts by how people will "naturally" play then it might be important if people have some natural thoughts on how its played that arent being considered.

Taking a quick straw poll of 40k players at the store last night the majority were of the opinion that the power was some variant of a psychic power, so it wouldnt affect units in vehicles. Pointing out that it wasnt listed as a psychic power brought this response from the tyranid player:

"Its not an active psychic power, its a passive one like the warlock powers the eldar have. All of the tyranid passive powers like warp field are that way"


So just expect this one to be messy instead of easy, no matter what the ruling is.



Sliggoth

So just expect this one to be messy instead of easy, no matter what the ruling is.

I think this was exactly Yakface's point, there is no obvious way people will rule it and it will be hotly debated until an FAQ comes out. So they followed as closely to the RAW as was reasonable (still not sure where they got the cover save from though).

deevil wrote:

P1) Dogs eat all cats within its range.
P2) All jaguar(cars) are cats
P3) Range to the jaguar(car) is measured to the jaguars body

C1) Therefore, Dogs eat jaguar-cars if found to be within range.

Wrong! Because Dogs don't eat all cats in range. Also, Your point doesn't make any sense. Do you want me to explain why?

deevil wrote:According to Yak's rational, which I certainly am not agreeing to, then both Boon of Mutation, 'pick any model'-no line of sight required, and Aura of Decay would both work on embarked troops (just two examples- there are many, some of which have been mentioned in this thread already and therefore do not warrant being repeated again here).

Boon of Mutation

Boon of Mutation is a ranged weapon, but the daemon may be in close combat at the time it uses, as may the target. Pick any one enemy model (no line of sight required) and roll to hit. If a hit is scored and the target is found to be within 6" of the Daemon, the target must immediately take a toughness test.

Embarking (Rules Section: Vehicles)

A unit can embark onto a vehicle by moving each model to within 2" of its access points in the Movement phase. ... If the players need to measure a range involving the embarked unit, this range is measured to or from the vehicle's hull

you cant stick your fingers in your ears and ignore the fact that there is a difference between a Model and a Unit. You cannot target a model inside a vehicle... One fun note is this:

Rules Section: The Shooting Phase

When you're checking range, simply measure from each firer to the nearest visible model in the target unit.

Even though you ignore LoS with Boon of Mutation, you still have to find a model to measure to. If it said unit instead of model, your point would be relevant, however, you have to ignore the rules in order to maintain your point.

deevil wrote:Yak, and others, are exploiting a combination of muddy rulings to maximize a potential not clearly defined. It's a house rule, and frankly rules lawyer-ing pure and simple. The proposed combination of the rules used to make this argument, arguably could be interpreted and thusly intended to define such things as only passive effects used by same player. (Leadership checks come to mind - and I’ll add before some troll rolls his eyes, not those for morale purposes. As embarked troops are not required to make them).

Wrong, there have been no muddy rulings quoted yet; in reality, we've quoted the rules as they are written. Please point out precisely where we have relied on muddy rulings. It is not house rules.

Oh and btw THUSLY IS NOT A WORD. Sorry, that is just a pet peeve of mine.

deevil wrote:It's inception ignores other rules dealing with how those models are treated for a favorable result when using Doom, rules that all the other powers seem to abide by...
Don is right in that model or unit, the designation does not matter as per the rules put forth in the book. They are the same.

Wrong, "unit" and "model" are not even remotely similar... If I cared more I'd hop over to MS Paint and make a Venn Diagram for you to demonstrate how wrong you are. Saying this demonstrates that you have a severe lack of understanding of the basics of this game... severe...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

deevil wrote:

P1) Dogs eat all cats within its range.
P2) All jaguar(cars) are cats
P3) Range to the jaguar(car) is measured to the jaguars body

C1) Therefore, Dogs eat jaguar-cars if found to be within range.

go look up the word equivocation... Please tell me this was a joke.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

deevil wrote:This is the problem, these are assumptions made based on a argument that can easily be proven false.

Wrong, the problem is that you do not know even the basics of logic. You have made the following fallacies in this one post:

deevil wrote:Arguements like this although logically valid cannot be used as the sole means of determining it's validity.

Argumentum ad Ignorantiam, you think that or believe you are right, therefore, you conclude, that you are right.

deevil wrote:Since we know that dogs don't eat cars, we know the argument is false, even if it is logically true statement.

Sophists really love doing this, and you're no exception. In your 3 premises, you made no less than 4 obvious errors. You equivocated, you blatantly misused the universal quantifier, and you assumed, without sufficient reason, that all jaguar cars are cats...

Ex nihilo nehil fit, in common parlance, garbage in, garbage out. Your argument proceeded from absolute trash, and, as we expect, you conclude complete garbage.

deevil wrote:This is the problem, these are assumptions made based on a argument that can easily be proven false.

Your sophistry fueled your errors, and your sophistry puts your head in the sand while we use logic properly, you simply fail at basic thinking.

deevil wrote:P1) Spirit Leech affects all units within its (rolled) range.
P2) All Embarked models are a unit.
P3) All models are off the table in an embarked unit

C1) Therefore, Spirit Leech does not affect embarked units regardless if the hull of their transport vehicle is found to be within range.

Not only does this completely ignore the rule book as written (Sections on embarked models, measuring, the wording of SL, the wording of measuring), it doesn't even make sense in the common method that people play the game... Typically there are two sides to this debate about SL, people who want to play the game as the average player actually plays it, and people who want to focus on the rules as being paramount. You are abandoning all reason and just jumping into a pit of fail.

This conclusion is a nonsequiter, it does not follow from p1,p2,p3. Why? Because you do not provide any justification in your premises that displays that SL does not affect embarked units. You pull that completely out of the air you ignore the Principle of Sufficient Reason. SL affects units in its range, the hull of the vehicle is within its range... Embarked rules dictate that when you are measuring to an embarked unit, you measure to the hull... therefore SL affects embarked units... You notice how each of my premises have relevance to the next and to the conclusion? Also, i'm using the correct definition and I am not equivocating like you do... rules as written... Try reading them.

deevil wrote:I understand's Yaks arguement, I simply do not agree, as it IS flawed

Wrong, you do not understand Yaks argument, you cannot even grasp the basis of the logic involved, you have presented pure sophistry to attempt to debase a sound argument. You have provided fallacious arguments as if they are valid.

deevil wrote:If it wasn't there would be no arguement.

Wrong, as you have so aptly demonstrate, people can provide sophistry and nonsense as argument ad nauseam. You stick your head in the sand and say you're right because you think your opposition is wrong. Too bad for you logic is infallible; those who think otherwise dont understand it.

deevil wrote:At the end of the day unless powers like Doom's specifically and not abstractly, or through inference, affects something it does not

Wrong, there is no abstraction, rules as written demonstrate that Doom works the way we're saying it does. There has been no inference posited, again, you are misusing a technical term of logic, thus proving (right now i'm posing an argument of inferential logic or proof by cases) that you do not understand even the basics of logic...


Oh and Q.E.D.

I'm STILL shocked there is an arguement here on dakka where some people dont understand the difference between a Unit and a Model.

visavismeyou wrote:

Oh and btw THUSLY IS NOT A WORD. Sorry, that is just a pet peeve of mine.

thusly
Pronunciation: \-lē\
Function: adverb
Date: 1865

: in this manner : thus

Source: Merriam Webster Dictionary

Melchiour wrote:

visavismeyou wrote:

Oh and btw THUSLY IS NOT A WORD. Sorry, that is just a pet peeve of mine.

thusly
Pronunciation: \-lē\
Function: adverb
Date: 1865

: in this manner : thus

Source: Merriam Webster Dictionary

Since when can we use non-English Dictionaries to define English Words?

I am confused. Merriam Webster is an English dictionary.

OK, the core problem locally seems to be that players understand spirit leach to be a psychic ability/ effect. For years GW has had psychers with two types of abilities:

1) Powers- Active abilities that function at the players discretion, require a leadership test to use.

2) Abilities (for lack of a better word)- Passive psychic powers. Ie, abilities that are always on and function without any discretion from the controlling player.

In some earlier rules, both types are called psychic powers (altho one has to dig a bit to find the reference to warlock powers being called psychic powers). In the tyranid codex things are both much more clear and much more sloppy. There is a page that references all of the active psychic powers. But....most of the passive psychic type powers are either not so labelled or are murky.

The questions about spirit leach tie directly into the whole question about what are now passive psychic powers.



Sliggoth

Melchiour wrote:I am confused. Merriam Webster is an English dictionary.

No, The Oxford English Dictionary is an English Dictionary. Merriam Webster is an American-English Dictionary.

Melchiour wrote:

visavismeyou wrote:

Oh and btw THUSLY IS NOT A WORD. Sorry, that is just a pet peeve of mine.

thusly
Pronunciation: \-lē\
Function: adverb
Date: 1865

: in this manner : thus

Source: Merriam Webster Dictionary

Sorry, 'thusly' is only in the dictionary to let ignorant people know that it actually means 'thus'. Look at the history of the word thus.

Since 'thus' is already an adverb, if you add 'ly' on the end it is redundant, sort of like saying 'Automated ATM Machine'... Its just pure ignorance.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gwar! wrote:

Melchiour wrote:I am confused. Merriam Webster is an English dictionary.

No, The Oxford English Dictionary is an English Dictionary. Merriam Webster is an American-English Dictionary.

Oh yea, I keep forgetting that many of you are Brits, well hey, as an American, I prefer your academics and formal writing styles over American counterparts.

The flags next to our names are a clue

Sliggoth wrote:OK, the core problem locally seems to be that players understand spirit leach to be a psychic ability/ effect. For years GW has had psychers with two types of abilities:



Sliggoth

A friend of mine makes a similar argument as yours. He argues that precedence dictates that SL does not affect units in transports because of precedence he can cite. I listened to his citations and over and over found one decisive difference after another.

When you compare the RAW applicable to the Doom and the RAW applicable to those precedence claims you will see what I'm talking about.

The confusion over models and units isn't really so hard to understand. The rules define a unit as a collection of models. Therefore, when something says targets a unit, some people read targets a collection of models and get confused as to the difference. Its part of the inherent ambiguity in a representational system. It also doesn't help that GW doesn't use consistent defined terms. Essentially, the rules *don't* tell us explicitly that models and units are distinct entities (in fact, sometimes a model may be a unit!); it is gathered from context.

jmurph wrote:The confusion over models and units isn't really so hard to understand. The rules define a unit as a collection of models. Therefore, when something says targets a unit, some people read targets a collection of models and get confused as to the difference. Its part of the inherent ambiguity in a representational system. It also doesn't help that GW doesn't use consistent defined terms. Essentially, the rules *don't* tell us explicitly that models and units are distinct entities (in fact, sometimes a model may be a unit!); it is gathered from context.

I cannot believe you just wrote that. If one entity is called "a" and that entity is a member of set "z" at no time can there be any confusion. If I point at set "z" I am pointing at a set to which "a" belongs. If I point at entity "a" I am pointing at an individual inside set "z". There is NO AMBIGUITY POSIBLE.

At no time are "z" and "a" able to be used interchangibly. One is a constituent of the other. Your statement is like saying there is no difference between entity "google" and set "Internet". Set "Internet" is a grouping of networks of which one is the entity "google". No possible confusion.

Now ignorance is always a possibility. But then again we shouldn't be listening to the ignorant when attempting to understand the rules.

@visa

Ignorance can indeed be a problem...especially if one is ignoring that the rules set for 40k is indeed riddled with abiguities. The wording that GW uses shifts at times, words are sometimes used interchangeably and yet at other times they are used to mean different things.

Also, if one is going to use an arguement about sets, then one should use it correctly. It is perfectly possible for an entity "a" to be a member of set "z" and at the same time be the entirety of set "z', so that entity "a" and set "z" actually can be used interchangeably and there can be ambiguity. In game terms, a single IC is both a single model and is the complete unit of which it is part. So in that case, one can either refer to the model or the unit and be talking about exactly the same thing.

Beginning any statement with "at no time" is fraught with peril.


Sliggoth

Sliggoth wrote:@visa

Ignorance can indeed be a problem...especially if one is ignoring that the rules set for 40k is indeed riddled with abiguities. The wording that GW uses shifts at times, words are sometimes used interchangeably and yet at other times they are used to mean different things.

Also, if one is going to use an arguement about sets, then one should use it correctly. It is perfectly possible for an entity "a" to be a member of set "z" and at the same time be the entirety of set "z', so that entity "a" and set "z" actually can be used interchangeably and there can be ambiguity. In game terms, a single IC is both a single model and is the complete unit of which it is part. So in that case, one can either refer to the model or the unit and be talking about exactly the same thing.

Beginning any statement with "at no time" is fraught with peril.


Sliggoth

Wrong, you are completely missing the certitude that when you are attempting to find a member of a set, you cannot treat them as interchangeable. Please note that I am talking about ----some---- entity, i'm not talking about this entity or that entity, at this point I am talking about ----some---- entity. There is no ambiguity between ---entity--- and ---set--- when you are attempting to look for one metachoice or the other.

Entity = Model
Set = Unit

When a rule asks you to find a unit, it is completely and unambiguously different from when a rule asks you to find a model; there is no ambiguity, even with ICs... Even when you have a one member set there is still no ambiguity... none... Want to know why? Because the rule will still be asking you to look for --->either<---- a model or a unit, not both, and by no means the wrong one... No ambiguity. Just because you are confused and perceive ambiguity is not evidence that ambiguity exists.

Lets explore what it would look like if there was ambiguity...

Kor'sarro Khan and 3 Bikes are a unit. If the game is looking to this unit, I look to find the set and if the test is 'measuring to the unit', I would measure to the closest entity per the relevant rules... If it were ambiguous, I would look to find where Kor'sarro Khan is at (an entity) and find one of the other models in the unit or the set instead (the closet model in Khan's unit)... This makes no sense... Essentially, if you are right, we wouldn't be able to play this game... It wouldn't work... At all, not just confusing, it would be like dividing by zero...

I dare you to quote me where I said the rules were never ambiguous... Try reading what I said and dont add in nonsense while you read it. I rightfully stated "At no time" because if the rules are asking you for a unit, there is no confusion... if it is looking for a model... there is no confusion... the confusion lies only in the player's error, not in the rules and not in set theory.

Are you two having an argument that has no effect on the rules, as either outcome results into the same result?
HERESY!

Visa this might enlighten you a little http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metonymy

In brief a metonym is a container for the thing contained. Example , if someone asks you if you would like some water, it is perfectly fine to say "yes I would like a glass" Do you actually want the glass? No probably not, you want the water. But it is that same kind of sub-conscious association that blurs the line between unit and model. They are not only related on a set/entity level but they are also metonymic to each other and the rules are sometime written as such

LOL This thread is silly. Seems like someone is mad because he didn't get his way so he is trying to find a loophole to make himself feel better. He's practically all but said that.

A model is a physical miniature. A unit is a representation of a group of models. Models are always units, but units do not always consist of models. I.e. a square is always a rectangle but a rectangle is not always a square.

Once a group of models embarks in a transport, you remove said models, and the unit is still considered in the transport. The unit can still fire out of some vehicles and affect play in various ways even though the models are not present.

What this means: If something measures to the unit (ala Doom), it can be measured to the hull of the vehicle to affect such units.

If something is measured to the "model" (ala exploded), it can not find a model embarked. Therefore it does nothing to the unit, only the vehicle.

"Units" and "Models" are NOT interchangeable.

First of all I'd like to mention that I' not British so some of my words will be wrong. Apparently this is VERY important in this thread.

Oh, and if my post count is too low; PM me. I'll go and spam off-topic like crazy and come back.

deevil wrote:

P1) Spirit Leech affects all units within its (rolled) range.
P2) Embarked units are a unit.
P3) Range to the embarked unit is measured to the vehicle's hull (pg 66).

C1) Therefore, Spirit Leech affects embarked units if the hull of their transport vehicle is found to be within range.

Arguements like this although logically valid cannot be used as the sole means of determining it's validity.

e.g.

P1) Dogs eat all cats within its range.
P2) All jaguar(cars) are cats
P3) Range to the jaguar(car) is measured to the jaguars body

C1) Therefore, Dogs eat jaguar-cars if found to be within range.

Since we know that dogs don't eat cars, we know the argument is false, even if it is logically true statement.

This is the problem, these are assumptions made based on a argument that can easily be proven false.

The problem is, that this IS one of the best ways to determine if something is true, or like you said: valid.

Let's look at the Deevil's quote here and this "logical ladder" (lololol I know I'm stupid and don't know the British word. My family has been covered in shame. It is a bit heretical too, I bet!) and this one:
IF P -> Q AND IF Q -> R.
If both those sentences are correct (true) then P -> R. Period. This is logic and if someone is thinking otherwise, he's wrong.

Now we need to check is if those sentences are true (P->Q is here called a sentence). The only way to do this is to compare them to some given set of rules. In this case: the rulebook and the codex'es (plus some other official crap).

As far as I know P1 P2 and P3 quoted by Deevil are all true so C1 is true. Period.
If no one knows any rule that prove any of P is false OR can prove that rules that made those sentences true are actually incorrect, then there is no logical way to say that C1 is not true. [wow this sentence is long and boring]
Rules written in rulebook or in codex. Rules. Not how something is supposed to be, or why in real life this is stupid.

You said that "Since we know that dogs don't eat cars", but how do you know it? If somewhere in some strange world's rulebook there is a rule like that, then it is true.

There is a difference between logic (It is not logical to tear all your money for no reason) and logic (Hard, cold, and sexy mistress math logic). Here we have to use the sexy one, no matter that we secretly love her ugly sister.

LATE EDIT: This may be a bit off-topic but I think this a bit important. Too many people discard the rules just because they are silly, sound wrong, or by the logic (the ugly one) cannot be. The problem is that there are as many butterface logics as there are people in the world. The one true hot logic is the cold, hard but very stable one. We have to use that no matter how stupid she may sound sometimes.

See the problem is that he used a homonym to make an inductive leap. He is using a word's similarity to another word to jump from multiple steps.

P1) "All dogs eat domesticated cats"
P2) A Ragdoll is a type of domesticated cat?

C1) Dogs eat ragdolls.

I'm not saying that this one cannot be proven wrong.

I just wanted to say that this statement:

Arguements like this although logically valid cannot be used as the sole means of determining it's validity.

is false.
If all the assumptions are true [given the set of rules] then the result is true.
This gets a bit tricky if the rules doesn't cover some grounds, can be blurry (because of language issues: for example homonyms - you said it) or there are rules that are mutually exclusive.
This doesn't mean that the method is incorrect.

Macok wrote:I'm not saying that this one cannot be proven wrong.

I just wanted to say that this statement:

Arguements like this although logically valid cannot be used as the sole means of determining it's validity.

is false.
If all the assumptions are true [given the set of rules] then the result is true.
This gets a bit tricky if the rules doesn't cover some grounds, can be blurry (because of language issues: for example homonyms - you said it) or there are rules that are mutually exclusive.
This doesn't mean that the method is incorrect.

I agree.

So SL is not a shooting attack and it's not a psychic power but on the other hand we all know that according to the fluff DoM is a psyker, actually an extremely potent super psyker... So just what kind of attack is SL?

G

It is not any kind of attack, it is a special rule that inflicts (3d6-Ld) wounds on units within 6" of the Doom.

Macok wrote:

deevil wrote:
Arguements like this although logically valid cannot be used as the sole means of determining it's validity.

e.g.

P1) Dogs eat all cats within its range.
P2) All jaguar(cars) are cats
P3) Range to the jaguar(car) is measured to the jaguars body

C1) Therefore, Dogs eat jaguar-cars if found to be within range.

Since we know that dogs don't eat cars, we know the argument is false, even if it is logically true statement.

This is the problem, these are assumptions made based on a argument that can easily be proven false.

The problem is, that this IS one of the best ways to determine if something is true, or like you said: valid.

Let's look at the Deevil's quote here and this "logical ladder" (lololol I know I'm stupid and don't know the British word. My family has been covered in shame. It is a bit heretical too, I bet!) and this one:
IF P -> Q AND IF Q -> R.
If both those sentences are correct (true) then P -> R. Period. This is logic and if someone is thinking otherwise, he's wrong.

Now we need to check is if those sentences are true (P->Q is here called a sentence). The only way to do this is to compare them to some given set of rules. In this case: the rulebook and the codex'es (plus some other official crap).

As far as I know P1 P2 and P3 quoted by Deevil are all true so C1 is true. Period.

His P2 is absolutely false. All Jaguars are not cats, some are cars.

His argument is therefore invalid.

forkbanger wrote:It is not any kind of attack, it is a special rule that inflicts (3d6-Ld) wounds on units within 6" of the Doom.

What was I thinking?? Of course it's a special attack... Errr I mean rule... Just like hte other ones which we cannot mention.



Dom lands in mycetic spore and bust out of cyaetoc pulsing walls wif biomorphed megavoice grafted to mutated appendage.

"Now here yee all! now all here me! I gots hte special rule and it's very speshul indeed! Come out yer rhinos! Come out yer chimeras! Come out yer devilfishes too! Hey youse guys up thar in that BA harbinger HIT THE DIRTS!!! rip off yer armors and bash yer heads into the rocky ground! Bash yer franking brains out silly! Ya gotta doit coz I gots the very speshul rule from Cruddace! Har har har!!!"

Green Blow Fly wrote:What was I thinking?? Of course it's a special attack... Errr I mean rule... Just like hte other ones which we cannot mention.

What do you expect it to be? It isn't shooting or an assault or a psychic power. It isn't an attack, just like Dangerous Terrain isn't an attack, and Perils of the Warp isn't an attack.

Let me try this.

Dom lands in mycetic spore and bust out of cyaetoc pulsing walls wif biomorphed megavoice grafted to mutated spelling appendage.

"Hurp durp eatin' yur souls like nuthin' else in the game! Pretend like I'm shooting you without a gun and not firing it, yup! Boopadoop, make like I'ma punchin' you!"

Well that explains it.

G

I know I'll get disagreed with by Yak and all the people who consider the INAT rulings final and therefore worthy of defending vigorously, but I'll just throw my 2 copper coins
on Bugman's counter about it anyway.

The Spirit Leach ruling is a rabbit hole. The ruling never should have been made as it was because it IS a rabbit hole. In my opinion the 'RAW' as it is referred to in this forum
are simply lacking in this department. I have seen all the arguments, I still consider them invalid.

If models A B C D and E are off the table, their unit is therefore ineligible for any direct attack. It would be easier for you people to stop trying to come up with a way to speak
of mounted (read: embarked) units as vehicle units, units co-existing (an explanation in the BRB, not really a 'rule') The DoM is able to use an indiscriminate area effect attack that
affects units in a range.

The rules allowing you to use psychic powers, shoot out of fire points, and generally do other things while 'embarked' are inclusive rules. This means the rules themselves
break convention to allow the use of certain things while embarked. That means rules that aren't as inclusive shouldn't be considered and I believe it's the spirit of GW's (admittedly shoddy)
FAQ program when asking if you could affect units in vehicles. No. Why? Sanity. So in a wonder of GW ruling, linguistic logic and legal spirit are combined to give your poor embarked
troops the ability to hurt or affect things outside of the vehicle (heretofore measured from the hull). Sweet, I can shoot out of a hole.

Logically speaking, this basically points to something like a webway portal to the real (read: fake) world. Your models, while embarked, are happily on the edge of a table, psyker meditating
near your coke bottle, heavy weapons marine cleaning his plasma coils by your foam tray. When the rules include an option for these people to move through the web way and partially
materialize into the game, they should be affected by things, and not before. THIS is why I completely agree with Runes of Warding affecting a psyker attempted to use an ability while
embarked WITHIN the range measured to the vehicle's hull. He has tried to affect the game and therefore opens himself up for those affects that modify his actions.

However, and this is really the crux of the matter, GW has left no room for me to really believe this 'webway conduit' is anything but initiated by the player whose models/unit are embarked
outside of abilities that force disembarkation or destruction of the comfy confines of the conduit. So, in this vein, I really don't think explosions affect other vehicles in any stretch of any rule.
Spirit Leach, while fluffily I'd happily agree should affect embarked troops, the rules don't include an opportunity for said ability to affect an embarked crew or unit. In my opinion the best
and probably only way that GW would have allowed this would be an inclusive language in the ability itself (read: in the codex).

If a rule doesn't overrule the BRB, then it isn't a rule and follows my above argument that your dudes haven't come out of the vehicular webway.

And I'm done.

yakface wrote:

Macok wrote:some crappy post here

His P2 is absolutely false. All Jaguars are not cats, some are cars.

His argument is therefore invalid.

No argument here.


My post was more about the logical method, and the internal quote (DoM one), rather than obviously wrong external one (cats and cars). I really have to start making my posts a bit clearer.

I loved the cars post.

Zain - you disagered, but didnt show any rules basis for your disagreement.

You stated that, if models A-E are off the table, they are therefore exempt from direct attack - except that is an assumption you have made that is not, anywhere, supported by the rules.

Attack the argument, which is that you can measure to OR from units embarked in a vehicle - there is a rule stating that. If you disagree, state why that argument does not work.

Oh, and the FAQ only stated that *psychic* attacks cannot affect embarked units. You cannot arbitrarily extend that statement, as you have not been allowed to.

The rules basis for my disagreement is simple - All rules inclusive of interacting with models in a vehicle involve the player initiating that interaction.
That IS in fact rules based. That is then supported by the specific statement against psychic powers even though they don't necessarily follow shooting
rules (like Doom on a farseer) can't affect an embarked unit.

My rules disagreement is beyond simple. If DoM was going to affect vehicle units after they (GW) have gone through the trouble of not letting anything else
in the game affect them is a sure bet rabbit hole. The codex would have said 'affects embarked units' in order for that to be so. Simply because linguistically
the BRB and codices use inclusive language to break convention. IE. Take a Warboss and an Ork Nobz squad or Meganobz squad CAN be counted as troops.
That breaks convention of the BRB and codices FOC rules and the BRB states codices overrule the BRB. There is NO ambiguous language in DoM's attack that
leads me to believe they meant to break convention but somehow forgot to say it clearly that the effect's description?

The rules for measuring to a unit are not in dispute. It's quite clearly to the hull of the vehicle. As I stated above, that argument is fairly logical if I use a psychic
power near a RoWarding Farseer while I'm mounted. I am breaking the rule convention in order to use that power while mounted and then open myself up for
psychic defenses. It isn't logical the other way around because the models are never on the table and therefore neither is the unit.

Volkov wrote:Visa this might enlighten you a little http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metonymy

In brief a metonym is a container for the thing contained. Example , if someone asks you if you would like some water, it is perfectly fine to say "yes I would like a glass" Do you actually want the glass? No probably not, you want the water. But it is that same kind of sub-conscious association that blurs the line between unit and model. They are not only related on a set/entity level but they are also metonymic to each other and the rules are sometime written as such

Wrong, the rules are never written as such, people make an error or patently misread them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Klawz wrote:See the problem is that he used a homonym to make an inductive leap. He is using a word's similarity to another word to jump from multiple steps.

P1) "All dogs eat domesticated cats"
P2) A Ragdoll is a type of domesticated cat?

C1) Dogs eat ragdolls.

wrong he is equivocating.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Green Blow Fly wrote:So SL is not a shooting attack and it's not a psychic power but on the other hand we all know that according to the fluff DoM is a psyker, actually an extremely potent super psyker... So just what kind of attack is SL?

G

Yes, he is, and he has 2 abilities, SL is not his shooting attack...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Zain60 wrote:The Spirit Leach ruling is a rabbit hole. The ruling never should have been made as it was because it IS a rabbit hole. In my opinion the 'RAW' as it is referred to in this forum
are simply lacking in this department. I have seen all the arguments, I still consider them invalid.

If models A B C D and E are off the table, their unit is therefore ineligible for any direct attack. It would be easier for you people to stop trying to come up with a way to speak
of mounted (read: embarked) units as vehicle units, units co-existing (an explanation in the BRB, not really a 'rule') The DoM is able to use an indiscriminate area effect attack that
affects units in a range.

So, you've never read the rule under embarking? In the rule book? Go pick yours up and go to the Vehicles section. Go find "Embarking". Your entire argument is invalid and mine is correct.

Embarking
A unit can embark onto a vehicle by moving each
model to within 2" of its access points in the
Movement phase. The whole unit must be able to
embark – if some models are out of range, the unit
must stay outside. 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!). 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.

You mentioned for a direct attack... SL is not a direct attack to the model or unit... Please try to pay attention.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Zain60 wrote: It isn't logical the other way around because the models are never on the table and therefore neither is the unit.

irrelevant.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Zain60 wrote:The rules basis for my disagreement is simple - All rules inclusive of interacting with models in a vehicle involve the player initiating that interaction.
That IS in fact rules based. That is then supported by the specific statement against psychic powers even though they don't necessarily follow shooting
rules (like Doom on a farseer) can't affect an embarked unit.

My rules disagreement is beyond simple. If DoM was going to affect vehicle units after they (GW) have gone through the trouble of not letting anything else
in the game affect them is a sure bet rabbit hole.

Your disagreement is not only 'beyond simple' its also completely wrong. You have nothing to back your argument, the rules as written support the argument that SL affects embarked units. Why exactly are you still arguing?

I've rarely seen someone so dismissive on a forum, congrats. I have, indeed, read the embarkation rules. I DO NOT believe that the rules (and thank you for RED BOLDING THEM) include some way for ACTIVE effects to interact with said unit unless the description for SL said so. If it had, then the RED BOLDED part would absolutely apply in my opinion. This is not about me not reading rules or having an invalid argument. You disagree on my interpretation of logic and the rule book. That doesn't make me wrong - and it doesn't warrant you talking down to me on an internet forum to try proving your point with little one-liners calling people wrong, irrelevent, and my favorite. 'Why exactly are you still arguing?'

Answer: I disagree and therefore have as much right to speak against this topic as you do for it. Or don't I?

Also to the point about SL not being a shooting attack. I agree. That's also why the ruling is a rabbit hole. If I would (and I don't) concede that measuring to the hull in order to interact with the embarked unit in game terms meant that any area effect attack affecting units hurt them, then it would follow the rules for that attack. However, in this case they had also ruled they get cover saves as IF it was shooting. Which means taking this ruling to its extreme just causes more issues for players to disagree about in my opinion, not solving them. If I can't shoot at embarked units, which I can't, then psuedo-shooting-psychic attacks would be invalidated by the same argument giving it validity. A paradox that is solved by just saying the same thing GW said about psychic attacks 'Um.. No. For sanity' and whatnot. Couldn't have said it better myself.

I don't need some hidden new rules to back my argument up, I am arguing based on the same rules you are arguing, I just see them completely differently than you do.

So an ability that did say 'remove all units in 6' range from the table' wouldn't effct a unit in a transport? What - pray tell - should happend to the unit in the transport then, as it was within 6' and "should" have been remover along with the transport?

That's a pretty easy one for me, in my argument GW would simply say:

Remove any unit, even if embarked in a vehicle, within 6"

or

Any vehicle or unit within 6" are removed from the table outright.

I just believe that all language I have read, including on the page describing what happens to embarked passengers during damage to the vehicle is inclusive.
The only official FAQ entry I have read (there may be others that I haven't obviously) is about psychic abilities against embarked passengers. That was a solid 'no'

I believe in a game environment built around making only a few ways to affect embarked passengers wouldn't be transcended by an ability on a special character
unless it overtly said so. If the language had in it, ANYTHING to do with a vehicle or units inside I would think differently in a heartbeat.

The trumpeted quote about measuring to the hull is not in debate. If something IS allowed by a rule convention to affect troops embarked, then that's how you measure to them.

I don't believe this is one of those cases.

Okay, so how is your qualification 'better' than the one I gave.

(yours: even if embarked in a vehicle, mine: all)

Zain60 wrote:
The trumpeted quote about measuring to the hull is not in debate. If something IS allowed by a rule convention to affect troops embarked, then that's how you measure to them.

I don't believe this is one of those cases.

Despite the rules supporting it working in this case?
The fact that there isn't a specific allowance for the rule to apply in a situation where it already applies by RAW isn't an argument against it, it's just your opinion.

The power says it does X to everything it can measure to, nothing stops it from doing so to embarked units. It doesn't require LOS, or any of the other requirements that normally stop such things, and the rules specifically provide a way to make the only required measurement. It's an extremely simple situation when you boil it down.

That's the allowance, YOU need to provide something that disallows the ability working normally before the ability needs an allowance to overcome it.
Your opinion on how specific the rules have to be for you to think the case is valid, or your opinion on how somewhat similar situations have been ruled on in the past should be applied, doesn't change how the rules in this case as written actually work.

I'm not trying to say I'm better than you or my interpretation is better. I just disagree and I won't get into a 'one up' game for the sake of making an argument.
If disagreeing on a ruling means people here think I'm pooping on their virtual head or somehow think I'm in any way better because I see something differently,
I can guarantee that is not the case.

My comment about GW saying overtly that vehicle borne units are affected in each case is why mine was different, not better.

In response to criticism of my opinion, I re-read the rulebook in the past hour or so in every reference to vehicles and to embarked troops.
My opinion has not changed.

I do, however, support vehicles being dubbed units. BRB (Pg 3) supports that units can be comprised of models of infantry just as easily as one large model/vehicle.
Vehicles = units. If spirit leach had the damage capacity to damage a vehicle it should in fact hurt the vehicle. I don't see there being a rule that targetless
attacks or stray attacks with wording affecting units like a Vibro-cannon or barrage affects vehicle borne units. It will hit the vehicle though and whatever effect
the rule book (p 67) states the vehicles condition has on its passengers is then passed on in that vein. No other way in the rule book or any codex I can think of
violates those guidelines without specifically saying so.



Zain~


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gorkamorka wrote:

Zain60 wrote:
The trumpeted quote about measuring to the hull is not in debate. If something IS allowed by a rule convention to affect troops embarked, then that's how you measure to them.

I don't believe this is one of those cases.

Despite the rules supporting it working in this case?
The fact that there isn't a specific allowance for the rule to apply in a situation where it already applies by RAW isn't an argument against it, it's just your opinion.

The power says it does X, nothing stops it from doing so to embarked units. It doesn't require LOS, or any of the other requirements that normally stop such things, and the rules specifically provide a way to make the only required measurement.

That's the allowance, YOU need to provide something that disallows the ability working normally before the ability needs an allowance to overcome it.
Your opinion on how specific the rules have to be for you to think the case is valid, or your opinion on how somewhat similar situations have been ruled on in the past should be applied, doesn't change how the rules in this case as written actually work.

I disagree it's an allowance, and I cannot find something that disallows it or anything I think is plainly allowing it. I don't think that means the ruling is correct, I think it's ambiguous on the part of GW.
I obviously have struck some sort of nerve arguing my interpretation of the rule and have already been insulted and talked down to for it so I think I'm done on this thread.

If everyone is in agreement but me then It's a different situation then I thought. I believed that these threads were for discussion on contentious issue(s). I didn't realize that discussion was over and
I should have stopped posting.

I hope GW makes a ruling on this soon, even if it's to say my point of view is invalidated. I'm fine with that, this isn't personal to me in any way.

Zain60 wrote:
I disagree it's an allowance, and I cannot find something that disallows it or anything I think is plainly allowing it. I don't think that means the ruling is correct, I think it's ambiguous on the part of GW.
I obviously have struck some sort of nerve arguing my interpretation of the rule and have already been insulted and talked down to for it so I think I'm done on this thread.

It's extremely simple once boiled down.
DoM: Every unit I can measure to is affected, no LOS requirements or anything else to get in the way
Transport: You can measure to embarked units, here's how you do it

The DoM, quite simply, just works in this situation.
I'm really just curious where the support for your claims that it doesn't, or that vehicles provide some sort of protection against it that isn't spelled out in the rules, come from. The fact that you 'can't find an allowance' for it in the rules, to me, shows that you're not following the RAW arguments spelled out in the thread correctly. The fact that you can't find a disallowance for the action while arguing that an allowance is required particularly confuses me, what exactly is the allowance supposed to be overriding?

I have heard the GW FAQ & Errata for Tyranids might be released this week. Hopefully it will put an end to this debate once and for all. As it stands now I think we will be seeing the DoM in many Nidz army at chit0wn later this month.

Zain60 wrote:The rules basis for my disagreement is simple - All rules inclusive of interacting with models in a vehicle involve the player initiating that interaction.
That IS in fact rules based. That is then supported by the specific statement against psychic powers even though they don't necessarily follow shooting
rules (like Doom on a farseer) can't affect an embarked unit.

Except that isnt a rules basis, this is a "in my opinion" basis - you can tell it is not a rules basis as you have neither refuted the rules given to allow, or given citations and quotes (with page numbers) to show the contrary position has support.

Frankly, your position is baseless, you just dont *want* it to work.

The "it works" side has rules to state it works, you now MUST find a *rule*, not an opinion, to show it doesnt work. Stating it is "ambiguous" when it is not, as has been shown repeatedly not to be ambiguous at all, is not a rules argument.

Okay... big deep breath. You are wrong, this is not only because you can not provide credence to your claim beyond 'I don't like it' there are no rules against things effecting embarked units, there are sets of guidelines for see if they can. The guidelines by which DoM operate are compatible with units while their embarked.

Now from a (more) rational view-point.

You say you have re-read and your opinion has not change, could you please display why with referance to the rules? Maybe even some quotes and your reasoning? Again, you are tellin gus we are wrong while we provide reason and examples for our case. While you say no no no it doesn't do that for.... no reason...

Thirdly, I was not saying my interpretation was better than yours I was asking about 'qualifications’ which yours was ‘even embarked’ where mine was ‘all’ I wanted to know why you felt that all was not encompassing of embarked units?

Zain60 wrote:
I do, however, support vehicles being dubbed units. BRB (Pg 3) supports that units can be comprised of models of infantry just as easily as one large model/vehicle.
Vehicles = units.
Zain~

Dude, if you did not feel this way before then you should really have a look at your stance on many things, not because your necessarily incorrect but because this misconception could easily be repeated in many things, and one can’t argue from a position of strength when errors such as this persist in one’s understanding.

The core problem seems to be that many people at our LFGS are automatically treating spirit leach as a psychic ability. As such, the natural reaction is to not allow it to affect units inside transports.

It appears that GW is trying to not have any passive psychic powers anymore tho. In the tyranid codex they have a list of regular active psychic powers and then dont call most of the other powers/ abilities psychic ... altho they do sort of call a few of them psychic. One of them is even titled: Psychic strength. Hence the problem, GW is being wishy-washy again. Its probably because they dont want to call Shadow in the warp a psychic ability.


There is also some resistance to how the INAT faq appears to be going. Explaining this circle raises arguements: Spirit leach affects units inside a vehicle and the units hit can take a cover save. People raise the (not unnatural) question as to why there is a save, Since the only rule allowing a save would seem to be derived from the rule giving saves to units hit with a psychic shooting attack this implies spirit leach is being considered a psychic ability. And if spirit leach is psychic then it cant affect the embarked unit.


So by RAW the unit should either be affected and not get a cover save, or else the unit should not be affected.

Trying to explain this other combination boils down to having to stand on the "because they did it that way, there isnt a rule" concept.


Sliggoth

Being dismissive of erred arguments is not bad. 2 + 2 does not ever nor under any interpretation nor anyone's opinion ever = 17... if someone makes an argument with the conclusion that it does equal 17 I will dismiss it similar to how I am dismissing your opinion, interpretation and argument.

Zain60 wrote:This is not about me not reading rules or having an invalid argument. You disagree on my interpretation of logic and the rule book. That doesn't make me wrong -

Wrong, I disagree with each step of your argument, your premises are invalid, your assumptions are invalid, your conclusions are invalid. Your misinterpretation of the rule book and your lack of knowledge of logic does in fact make you wrong.

Please help me, I am quite confused, since when are we not allowed to tell someone when he or she is in error?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Zain60 wrote: Also to the point about SL not being a shooting attack. I agree. That's also why the ruling is a rabbit hole. If I would (and I don't) concede that measuring to the hull in order to interact with the embarked unit in game terms meant that any area effect attack affecting units hurt them, then it would follow the rules for that attack

Earlier I was being facetious, now I'm being serious; this is a place where I lack: I dont have a wide bulk of knowledge. I know very few armys well, are there any abilities (other than SL) that read: "All ---UNITS--- within X inches are affected"? Please point some out, I know someone pointed out Boon of Mutation but that is in fact not analogous (it says models). My understanding was that nothing else said units and everything else that was similar to SL all stated "Models" in range.

My understanding is that this is the first directly harmful abilty that specifies "unit" that isnt also a psychic power - as psychic powers are already stopped from working on embarked units. Hence the arguments, everything else was specifically stopped.

You are all correct. I have no problem with dismissal, just people who seem to take pleasure in treating people
poorly on moral high ground.

I have a philosophical disagreement on the nature of the ruling. I have PM'd a couple of you and talked about it. I didn't realize that after 6 pages that all of the
arguments were given and accepted as law. If that was the case I would not have bothered posting as I now realize was viewed as trolling. I was bored
at work, thought there was still a debate there so talked about it. There is not a new rule I can or will bring up because there isn't one which I know.

My 'argument' was based on what is called on dakka 'the way it's played' rather than 'rules as written' which I wasn't clearly distinguishing. I apologize to anyone
who thought I was trolling and that was very much not the intent. I concede that based on the 'rules as written' the debate on the issue is done. I disagree
with the ruling because of what Slig said above - which I was unable to say in the same way at the time.

It seems my attempt to resolve the issue in PM's was unsuccessful, I am sorry for that.

Take care,
Zain~

nosferatu1001 wrote:My understanding is that this is the first directly harmful abilty that specifies "unit" that isnt also a psychic power - as psychic powers are already stopped from working on embarked units. Hence the arguments, everything else was specifically stopped.

Oh, where is it stated that all psychic powers are stopped from working on embarked units?

visavismeyou wrote:Oh, where is it stated that all psychic powers are stopped from working on embarked units?

The Rulebook FAQ

Zain60 wrote: I concede that based on the 'rules as written' the debate on the issue is done.

I commend you on this, I do have a question and a point to make about "Rules as played" though. While I understand that this game comes with a community, and I also appreciate it and enjoy it, I do take objection to relying on something as arbitrary, capricious and subjective as "Rules as played". Second, my question is, shouldn't "rules as played" and "rules as written" coalesce over time? After people casually play a new edition for a while, shouldn't the vast majority of the community come to understand and play the rules as written?

Off topic i'm sure, anyway, toodles.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gwar! wrote:

visavismeyou wrote:Oh, where is it stated that all psychic powers are stopped from working on embarked units?

The Rulebook FAQ

\

can you please link this to me? also is there a central repository where all FAQ's are held? Please link.

visavismeyou wrote:

Zain60 wrote: I concede that based on the 'rules as written' the debate on the issue is done.

I commend you on this, I do have a question and a point to make about "Rules as played" though. While I understand that this game comes with a community, and I also appreciate it and enjoy it, I do take objection to relying on something as arbitrary, capricious and subjective as "Rules as played". Second, my question is, shouldn't "rules as played" and "rules as written" coalesce over time? After people casually play a new edition for a while, shouldn't the vast majority of the community come to understand and play the rules as written?

Off topic i'm sure, anyway, toodles.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gwar! wrote:

visavismeyou wrote:Oh, where is it stated that all psychic powers are stopped from working on embarked units?

The Rulebook FAQ

\

can you please link this to me? also is there a central repository where all FAQ's are held? Please link.

http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/content/article.jsp?aId=3000006

then click next at the bottom right. That's all the FAQ's on the official website.

Also, in answer to your question: Yes, they should coalesce. I don't think rules as played is capricious or arbitrary as long as there is .. let's say.. inconsistencies in the way GW handles certain rules. I think this is one of the only, if not THE only issue I have with rules as played vs rules as written. Despite this thread, I'm fairly 'official ruling + RaW' oriented as a player. I don't argue with anyone over RaP unless there is obvious ambiguity that hasn't been specifically addressed. If there is a disagreement we can't solve and no judge has an answer to we just roll a 4+ or concede a reasonable point so good sportsmanship is acheived. Arguing is what forums are for. So RaW is done here as we've discussed.

The psychic attack thing as was pointed out above my last post is the main crux of that inconsistency. If this came up in a game I would obviously accept the community's ruling and take my cover saves. I just think that whole cover save thing shows the inconsistency in handling vehicle passengers as talked about above. This doesn't fit the bill as a PSA until we treat it like one I guess.

Zain60 wrote:
http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/content/article.jsp?aId=3000006

then click next at the bottom right. That's all the FAQ's on the official website.

thank you very much!

This is addressed to an earlier post made by Yakface

You mentioned that normal shooting attacks cannot attack units embarked in transports due to no LOS.
What about Tau SMS that don't require LOS? Distance is simply measured to the hull of the vehicle, and voila! You've broken the system.

Che-Vito wrote:This is addressed to an earlier post made by Yakface

You mentioned that normal shooting attacks cannot attack units embarked in transports due to no LOS.
What about Tau SMS that don't require LOS? Distance is simply measured to the hull of the vehicle, and voila! You've broken the system.

I believe part of the shooting rules requires you to measure to the nearest model in the unit you are shooting. Since there is no model you can't measure distance to a unit for shooting purposes. This also prevents the Tyranid Hive Guard from shooting at embarked units.

Burger Rage wrote:

Che-Vito wrote:This is addressed to an earlier post made by Yakface

You mentioned that normal shooting attacks cannot attack units embarked in transports due to no LOS.
What about Tau SMS that don't require LOS? Distance is simply measured to the hull of the vehicle, and voila! You've broken the system.

I believe part of the shooting rules requires you to measure to the nearest model in the unit you are shooting. Since there is no model you can't measure distance to a unit for shooting purposes. This also prevents the Tyranid Hive Guard from shooting at embarked units.

This.

Shooting requires you to check LoS (which you can skip) and then measure range to a model in the target unit (which you can't).

The vehicle rules allow measurement to a unit, not models in that unit.

forkbanger wrote:

Burger Rage wrote:

Che-Vito wrote:This is addressed to an earlier post made by Yakface

You mentioned that normal shooting attacks cannot attack units embarked in transports due to no LOS.
What about Tau SMS that don't require LOS? Distance is simply measured to the hull of the vehicle, and voila! You've broken the system.

I believe part of the shooting rules requires you to measure to the nearest model in the unit you are shooting. Since there is no model you can't measure distance to a unit for shooting purposes. This also prevents the Tyranid Hive Guard from shooting at embarked units.

This.

Shooting requires you to check LoS (which you can skip) and then measure range to a model in the target unit (which you can't).

The vehicle rules allow measurement to a unit, not models in that unit.

If the entire transport filled with models is within range (which is 24"), then the entire unit is in range of the SMS.
This is in-line with what Yakface has presented, naturally a bit ridic.

But that is the misconception people keep falling into.

The transport is not filled with models, they are removed from play. A transport is a unit which can count as containing another unit - not models.

Che-Vito - NO, that is NOT what Yaface has said. You have entirely misunderstood.

If you are embarked on a transport you cannot measure to any model, as you have no way to do it, and no allowance to measure to the hull as you do when finding out if the *unit* is in range. Hence no shooting attack can work, as all require you to find out where a model in the unit is - not the unit itself but a model within it.

You can measure to the unit, as you are allowed to - by measuring to the hull.

when you are embarked measuring to the unit /= measuring to a model.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Che-Vito - NO, that is NOT what Yaface has said. You have entirely misunderstood.

If you are embarked on a transport you cannot measure to any model, as you have no way to do it, and no allowance to measure to the hull as you do when finding out if the *unit* is in range. Hence no shooting attack can work, as all require you to find out where a model in the unit is - not the unit itself but a model within it.

You can measure to the unit, as you are allowed to - by measuring to the hull.

when you are embarked measuring to the unit /= measuring to a model.

Yea. The ruling on DoM had nothing to do with measuring to models a la shooting. It was measuring to a unit as distinguished in the codex description of the Spirit Leech ability itself.

The only shooting rules being implemented here are cover saves for embarked troops affected by Spirit Leech in the INAT FAQ +TYR portion.

...and technically cover saves require a "firing" model (despite the fluff indicating debris etc should grant cover) which is where the ruling doesnt follow the rules, but Yakface has been consistent in this - if it is majorly played that people give cover saves (for example from an exploding vehicle) then they rule to grant them. It "feels" right that a big hunk of metal may interfere with DoM.

I'm curious, from a rules-as-played perspective on the +TYR ruling in INAT. Are people also giving saves to wounds taken in the following vein?
EDIT: cover saves is what I mean.


___X <--Doom
|___| <--Tank
xxx <--Squad completely out of view

I'm pretty sure we're just beating our heads into the proverbial wall until the Nid FAQ comes out, and explains it all to us...

Quixote wrote:I'm pretty sure we're just beating our heads into the proverbial wall until the Nid FAQ comes out, and explains it all to us...

At which point people like me will (quite correctly) point out the FAQ's are not worth the e-paper they are printed on and that it requires an Errata.

Granted, if it DOES get an Errata, I will be shocked and surprised.

Gwar! wrote:

Quixote wrote:I'm pretty sure we're just beating our heads into the proverbial wall until the Nid FAQ comes out, and explains it all to us...

At which point people like me will (quite correctly) point out the FAQ's are not worth the e-paper they are printed on and that it requires an Errata.

Granted, if it DOES get an Errata, I will be shocked and surprised.

And if the FAQ agrees with your FAQ you will use it as "official proof" that you were right all along. Kinda convenient Gwar that the GW FAQ are only valid when they agree with you.

I dont think he would leverage it at official proof, he would just verify with his opponent that they are using his faq for rules questions, and perhaps mention that GW plagerized his FAQ for their own.

Yea... so if anyone can answer on how they're playing the above scenario I would appreciate it.

Again so you don't have to scroll =p

___X <--Doom
|___| <--Tank
xxx <--Squad completely out of view

Squad get a cover sv against SL?

Zain~

RAW I would say no, SL is not a shooting attack, and IMO by RAW you can only claim cover saves vs shooting.

HWIPI Sure, take a cover save, its a game, and if im playing doom its probly not a competitve one in a tournament where it makes any difference.

Zain60 wrote:Yea... so if anyone can answer on how they're playing the above scenario I would appreciate it.

Again so you don't have to scroll =p

___X <--Doom
|___| <--Tank
xxx <--Squad completely out of view

Squad get a cover sv against SL?

Zain~

Per our PMs Zain, you already know my response, but I'll just respond for its own sake. As I understand it, if the squad is within 6 inches of the DoM then RAW dictates they take wounds with no cover saves.

HWIPI: If it was my DoM and my opponent flips out, I'd yield and give a 4+ cover save, but I would make sure to explain that the there is no precedence in the RAW to justify that save; since I dont own a single tyranid model, if my opponent egg drops a DoM next to my LRC I would play it with no cover save.

Thanks guys, appreciate it.

Demogerg wrote:RAW I would say no, SL is not a shooting attack, and IMO by RAW you can only claim cover saves vs shooting.

HWIPI Sure, take a cover save, its a game, and if im playing doom its probly not a competitve one in a tournament where it makes any difference.

visavismeyou wrote:
Per our PMs Zain, you already know my response, but I'll just respond for its own sake. As I understand it, if the squad is within 6 inches of the DoM then RAW dictates they take wounds with no cover saves.

HWIPI: If it was my DoM and my opponent flips out, I'd yield and give a 4+ cover save, but I would make sure to explain that the there is no precedence in the RAW to justify that save; since I dont own a single tyranid model, if my opponent egg drops a DoM next to my LRC I would play it with no cover save.

Well, by the RAW Spirit Leech causes wounds to a unit and the rules don't tell us what to do with wounds that are caused to a unit outside of the normal process of shooting or assault.


So if we can make the leap to use the shooting casualty wounds to resolve Spirit Leech wounds against a unit it doesn't seem like such a bizarre compromise in the case of Spirit Leech to replace "firer" with "freaky creature causing magic wounds on enemy units" when it comes to determining if a unit being affected gets a cover save or not in the rules for cover saves.


Or if someone wants to be a stickler about playing with the 'RAW' in this case then Spirit Leech causes wounds on enemy units and...

...nothing happens to the units, as there are no rules for what to do with these wounds.

Well, by the RAW Spirit Leech causes wounds to a unit and the rules don't tell us what to do with wounds that are caused to a unit outside of the normal process of shooting or assault.


So if we can make the leap to use the shooting casualty wounds to resolve Spirit Leech wounds against a unit it doesn't seem like such a bizarre compromise in the case of Spirit Leech to replace "firer" with "freaky creature causing magic wounds on enemy units" when it comes to determining if a unit being affected gets a cover save or not in the rules for cover saves.


Or if someone wants to be a stickler about playing with the 'RAW' in this case then Spirit Leech causes wounds on enemy units and...

...nothing happens to the units, as there are no rules for what to do with these wounds.

I know that SL is said to be the first ability to cause wounds indiscriminately to 'units' within a range. That caused the vehicle-borne unit controversy. That lead to the leap you are referring to in the INAT FAQ that vehicle borne troops get saves. If that leap is being made, it made me wonder why the folks involved in that decision hadn't made the same with 'out of LOS' targets with the PSA/shooting wound resolution that's being used.

Personally, I would have thought the embarked troops getting hit would use the same rules as non-embarked in a similar situation (armor in the way)

I understand the potential paradox or rules hole that you folks were attempting to address by using shooting wound resolution rules.

Thanks for the response Yakface.

Zain~

yakface wrote:Well, by the RAW Spirit Leech causes wounds to a unit and the rules don't tell us what to do with wounds that are caused to a unit outside of the normal process of shooting or assault.


So if we can make the leap to use the shooting casualty wounds to resolve Spirit Leech wounds against a unit it doesn't seem like such a bizarre compromise in the case of Spirit Leech to replace "firer" with "freaky creature causing magic wounds on enemy units" when it comes to determining if a unit being affected gets a cover save or not in the rules for cover saves.


Or if someone wants to be a stickler about playing with the 'RAW' in this case then Spirit Leech causes wounds on enemy units and...

...nothing happens to the units, as there are no rules for what to do with these wounds.

Up until this point Yak I've read everything you have said on this thread and been in complete agreement. I would like to identify two relevant points: 1) If the paradox that you describe actually exists then I think there would be a better way to resolve this apparent paradox, to be described below; 2) if there is in fact no paradox and it only appears to be a paradox, then we ought to play as if there is no paradox and follow the rules as written.

Preface: How I prefer to look at rules in order to understand them more clearly is to think of them as the lines of a program. I know this doesn't work for everyone, but this is how I see them. When there is a sufficiently devastating error in the code the program fails or does not compute properly and has an unexpected result.

1) If the paradox does exist then we need to deal with it properly. The first step in dealing with a paradox is to identify exactly what that paradox is. What I see as your proposed paradox is that Spirit Leech is an ability which mirrors every step of the rules the same as many other abilities but then instead of looking at a model in range to wound it looks for a unit in range to wound and every other ability which could act as a precedent to help us understand how to resolve these wounds requires the wound-recipient be in line of sight or otherwise receive a cover save. Since this ability commits wounds on every non-vehicle enemy unit in range it would appear that these units would not receive cover saves irrespective of traditional line of sight rules, however, every ability which is a close cousin of this ability all grant cover saves; since this ability cannot both grant cover saves and not grant cover saves, it is unresolvable and we must make a leap to the closest reasonable resolution.

You have identified that the 'closest reasonable resolution' is to grant them a cover save and call it a day; I think that it would be more reasonable to abide by the principle that adding conditions to the existing codex entry requires a large burden of proof and simply resolving the entry 'as is' to its closest logical resolution ought to be the default step. Thus, if you think that a paradox does exist, you ought to use the default reading of the relevant rules instead of creating and adding conditions.

2) I, however, would like to posit that there is no paradox. I see this as only a suspected paradox and that a closer analysis of the word, "every" clears the air. In the DoM codex entry it states: "every... unit within 6 inches". The universal quantifier used here quite clearly states that "all units that pass certain conditions take wounds". If the unit passes the following conditions, it receives x number of wounds:

a) Within 6 inches
b) Non-Vehicular (id est, actually have the 'wound' characteristic) unit
c) Failed 3d6 Leadership test
d) Enemy to the DoM's controller

Since the "all" quantifier was used, we would have to see that no cover save applies as there is no sufficient condition to require LoS in order to resolve this ability and this is not an exception or hole in the rules but instead is simply a rule unto itself and we must abide by this rule's 4 conditions when attempting to resolve the wounds. If the entry stated: "All units within line of sight" then I think it would be clear that they would receive a cover save, if it had some other verbiage that implied that line of sight was needed then I would concede, I, however, do not see such verbiage.

Vis,

I believe your post says all of why I was confused about the cover saves better than I was able to 2 pages ago in the thread.

I now believe that Yak and others weren't, by giving cover saves in the INAT, trying to make SL a PSA. However, the effect is the same if you resolve it in every other way like a PSA (except doing it during the shooting phase I suppose).

I think the potential paradox was less threatening to the fabric of the game then going down the cover save while embarked rabbit hole. EDIT: that is... if that paradox exists that is.

Zain60 wrote:Vis,

I believe your post says all of why I was confused about the cover saves better than I was able to 2 pages ago in the thread.

I now believe that Yak and others weren't, by giving cover saves in the INAT, trying to make SL a PSA. However, the effect is the same if you resolve it in every other way like a PSA (except doing it during the shooting phase I suppose).

I think the potential paradox was less threatening to the fabric of the game then going down the cover save while embarked rabbit hole. EDIT: that is... if that paradox exists that is.

Thanks, this whole time we've been arguing in this thread, I was under the impression that the majority of people who thought that SL committed wounds on embarked units also thought that the unit did not get a cover save.

I'm glad you got some sort of resolution! I'm still trying to wrap my head around the cover saves, but I think GW will address it sooner than we'll have all of Dakka on the same page.