I tried doing a search, but I couldn't find any results, so I figured I'd have to ask instead:

Let's say you stick in a Zahndrekh in a Nightscythe with, I dunno, some Immortals.
Also, you have Obyron and a unit of 20 Warriors already on the table.
Zahndrekh's Nightscythe zooms onto the table and parks next to something you want shot to pieces.
Zahndrekh's unit does NOT disembark.
now,
Can Obyron and his unit Ghostwalk themselves next to Zahndrekh's Nightscythe and benefit from the Vargard's Duty and not scatter because Obyron is arriving with 6" of Zahndrekh?

If so... wow, that is a very handy way to systematically obliterate back field pains in the ass like Long Fangs and Basilisks.

This works identical to a teleport homer, and those are required to be on the table at the very least(present at the start of the turn, to be more specific). So precedenent would indicate that no it is not allowed. However, I would suggest that this strategy you are working on would still be viable by just disembarking a solid unit from the Night Scythe and not moving the Scythe more than 24" and you can still shoot at your Normal
BS.

I don't get it: if Zahndrekh were in a CCB which had zoomed off next to an enemy unit, Obyron and his attached unit would be able to Ghostwalk next to him no problem, but if Zahndrekh's in a Nightscythe, this doesn't work?
What's the difference?

As for the tactic you suggested, yes, that would work for a small unit of Immortals, but it's a little hard to fit 22 models in a NS (full Warrior squad with attached Royal Court members), hence the need to Ghostwalk them across the board... but with a footprint that size, scatter would potentially be devastating.

They follow the same rule. Either they both work or they don't.

However, note that if Zahndrekh is embarked on a CCB, and is charged, Vargard's Duty does not kick in as they are not charging Zahndrekh.

Happyjew wrote:
They follow the same rule.

Do they, though? As far as I was aware, no where in the codex or FAQ did it say Zahndrekh had to be on the board at the beginning of the turn for Obyron's Vargard's Duty to be used.

Just because it's similar to how teleport homers work, does that mean it must be used EXACTLY THE SAME WAY as one?

This works fine. Of course you need to rely on your Reserve rolls for Zandrekh to show up before you can use it.

The similar combo NecronLord is thinking of is a Locator Beacon on a Stormraven or Drop Pod, which can guide in Deep Striking units, but Locator Beacons and Teleport Homers have to be on the table at the start of the turn (before Reserves move on) to be used. The Nemesor has no such restriction.

 Mannahnin wrote:
This works fine.
[...]
The Nemesor has no such restriction.

EXCELLENT.
This is the confirmation I was after.
Much obliged, sir.
*tips hat*

The only problem is, Zahndrekh isn't actually onboard the nightscythe. He is elsewhere waiting to disembark from via the invasion beam.

Hmm, that may, indeed, need FAQ'ing...

It doesn't. Units embarked on a transport are considered (for rules purposes) to be where the transport is, and you measure effects like that from the hull of the vehicle. The Necron FAQ still makes clear that the unit is considered to be embarked in the Night Scythe. Read the Invasion Beams special rule.

http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m2570047a_Necrons_v1.1.pdf

Slightly off original topic, how does that come into play when a NS is shot down?
(I remember that one side of the argument had been that the embarked unit takes the crash damage, while the other side of the argument postulated that because the unit was not physically inside the aircraft when it crashed (Invasion Beams, and all), it did not take any damage... I don't recall the outcome of said argument).

Really? I was under the impression that models in vehicles were 'removed from the table' and therefor not considered 'on' the table for most other rules? (with exceptions for rules which specifically allow for interaction with models on the board; for example using fire ports).

See page 78 for the transport rules in full, but here is the pertinent text: "...When the unit embarks, remove it from the table and place it aside, making a note that the unit is being transported..."
And a relevent excerpt from 'The Varguards' Duty': "...uses his Ghostwalk Mantle, he does not scatter providing he aims to arrive within 6" of Zahndrekh..."

For posters who've indicated that you can deepstrike without error; please explain how you can 'aim to arrive within 6 inches' of a model that is not currently on the table?

Well, if you include the following and key sentence in that first quote, you'll see it.

Page 78 wrote:When the unit embarks, remove it from the table and place it aside, making a note that the unit is being transported. 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

Units which are embarked on transports are still in play. The MODELS representing them are removed from the table, but the unit is still in play, with some restrictions on how it interacts with other units.

The part that makes this a bit counterintuitive with Night Scythes is that the fluff for their portal is that they're not actually in the thing, but game mechanics-wise, they are, as the Invasion Beams rule tells us by referring to the unit as being embarked on the transport.

Actually no, the rule you quoted indicates that 'when the unit embarks, remove it (the unit) from the table' just as i'd previously suggested.

What i'd like you to clarify if you could is where you are seeing rules-justification for your statement that the unit remains in play? as your quoted text states quite the opposite. Also, 'Varguards' Duty' allows one to deepstrike without error only within 6" of Zandrekh himself, not whatever unit he happens to be a part of (if any).

Your argument is contrary to how transports work. A unit embarks into a transport by climbing into it. They are still there, for fluff and rules purposes, inside the transport. This is manifestly clear throughout the transport rules, made obvious by, for six examples:

A) You can measure the range of effects to and from them by measuring to the hull.
B) They can shoot out of fire points.
C) The unit can climb back out again.
D) If the transport is assaulted, and there's a fire point, the unit can Overwatch from inside.
E) If the transport suffers various damage results, the unit embarked suffers specified effects.
F) The rules for objectives have a specific exception stating that a squad in a transport isn't allowed to hold or contest an objective, even if they're in range.

They are clearly in play.

If a Farseer is in a Falcon, he can still cast Doom, Fortune or Guide, measuring from the hull. If a squad of IG Veterans is in a Chimera, they are still in play and can shoot their weapons out the top hatch. If a Sanguinary Priest is in a Rhino, his Chalice still gives its effect, in a 6" radius from the hull. These units are all still in the area of play, in the transport, still interacting and taking actions within certain specified limits.

When handling the physical models, because transport models are generally not built to allow you actually putting the models inside, you instead remove the models from the table surface to represent that the unit is now inside the vehicle model.

Alright, so we've established Obryon Ghostwalking next to a NS in which Zahndrekh in embarked will benefit from his Vargard's Duty rule and not scatter.
... but what happens if the NS is shot down while they're still embarked?
Obviously Zahndrekh's unit will go back into reserves... but do they sustain damage from the crash? (if they do, I can see the argument for the Vargard's Duty being flawless. If not, that suggests that Zahndrek was not physically onboard, thus giving credence to the argument that he SHOULDN'T be able to abuse the Vargard's Duty rule that way).

You have to check with your TO or league organizer, or agree with your opponent. There have been multiple enormous threads which have gone round and round in circles.

Also email GW and hopefully it'll make it into a FAQ update at some point.

I do agree with you, though, that most opponents will expect that if you get the benefits of being embarked for using the Varguard's Duty, that you also get the detriment of eating crash wounds if it gets shot down.

Of course, even if your TO or pickup game opponent insists that they don't count as being in play, you can still Zoom 36" onto the table, disembark the Nemesor's unit with Invasion Beams, and then teleport Obryron's unit near them with no scatter.

Mannahnin wrote:
A) You can measure the range of effects to and from them by measuring to the hull.
B) They can shoot out of fire points.
C) The unit can climb back out again.
D) If the transport is assaulted, and there's a fire point, the unit can Overwatch from inside.
E) If the transport suffers various damage results, the unit embarked suffers specified effects.
F) The rules for objectives have a specific exception stating that a squad in a transport isn't allowed to hold or contest an objective, even if they're in range.

They are clearly in play.

1) If a Farseer is in a Falcon, he can still cast Doom, Fortune or Guide, measuring from the hull.
2) If a squad of IG Veterans is in a Chimera, they are still in play and can shoot their weapons out the top hatch.
3) If a Sanguinary Priest is in a Rhino, his Chalice still gives its effect, in a 6" radius from the hull.

From a fluff perspective? certainly, they must be in the transport as that is it's intended function! i agree there completely.
By RAW However?
I)The transport rules literally state that the unit itself is removed from the table and set aside.
II) The transport rules do 'not' state anywhere within them that the removed unit still counts as being 'in play' for any purpose.

A) You can measure range 'involving the embarked unit' to and from the hull of the vehicle. That is not synonymous with 'treat the embarked unit as if it was in play' however.
B) Covered by the 'Fire Point' rules, which offers a specific exception to the general prohibition against doing anything (including shooting) with a unit that isn't in play.
C) Covered by the 'Transport' rules, which offers a specific exception to the general prohibition against doing anything (including movement) with a unit that isn't in play.
D) Covered by the 'Fire Point' rules, which offers a specific exception to the general prohibition against doing anything (including shooting) with a unit that isn't in play.
E) Covered by the 'Transport' rules, which offers a specific exception to the general prohibition against doing anything (including assigning wounds/damage results) with a unit that isn't in play.
F) The rules for objectives state that scoring and/or denial units do not count as such (as scoring/denial units) when they are embarked on a vehicle, and vehicles themselves do not count as scoring or denial units in general. (with a couple mission-specific exceptions) There is no specific indication there that the models embarked on a transport are considered to be in play.

1) If these are PSAs? There is a specific exception for them too. If those require LOS? then no you cannot cast them from inside the vehicle unless there is an FAQ or rule which states you can.
2) Covered by the 'Fire Point' rules, which offers a specific exception to the general prohibition against doing anything (including shooting) with a unit that isn't in play.
3) Covered by the Blood Angel FAQ and the 'Transport' rules which offers a specific exception to the general prohibition against doing anything (including determining the effect of a special ability) with a unit that isn't in play.

Long story short: You've provided a lengthly list of exceptions to the general rule about units effecting the battlefield when not in play, but have not proven that there is a rule anywhere that 'explicitly' states that a unit removed from play via the 'Transport' embarkation rules still counts as being 'in' play for other rules.

No, I've provided a list of examples of how the rules make exhaustively clear and obvious that the unit is still in play. All these rules consistently demonstrate and represent this simple and intuitive concept. That a unit on a battlefield, which climbs into a vehicle on that same battlefield, is still on that battlefield.

It's not in Reserve, and it's not dead. The only remaining option is in play, embarked.

 Mannahnin wrote:
No, I've provided a list of examples of how the rules make exhaustively clear and obvious that the unit is still in play. All these rules consistently demonstrate and represent this simple and intuitive concept.

Hardly; not a single one of those examples you've quoted explicitly indicates that the embarked unit is treated as in play. Given not a single one of them ever actuallys states that 'simple and intuitive concept', I'm surprised you believe they are definitive examples of such.

Quite apart from all of that however:
You can determine range to and from a unit embarked on a transport by measuring to the vehicles' hull. That said; how are you seeing permission to measure the range to Zandrekhs' model (note, not 'unit') doing so? The 'Varguards Duty' only allows you deepstrike within 6" of Zandrekh, you are not given permission within Obryons' rules to deepstrike within 6" of his unit. (which is the only thing the rules support measuring range to while they are embarked on a transport)

I apologize if my tone was unfriendly.

You can choose to read all the ways in which a unit embarked in a transport interacts with the game as a laundry list of exceptions, for a unit which is not in play, or you can read them as a consistent series of rulings for how units which are still in play, but whose models are not presently on the board, interact with the game,

Your interpretation would result in a lot of rules simply not functioning- like Doom, Fortune and Guide from inside a transport, Teleport Homers from inside transports, Sanguinary Priests in transports, etc. etc. ad infinitum ad nauseum. It also invites the question- where IS the unit then? There are only three states for a model in this game- in play, in Reserve, or dead. There is no additional "holding" state for units in transports.

Seriously, try running this idea by your local TO. The way you're arguing is simply not how the game works or is played.

 Mannahnin wrote:
This works fine. Of course you need to rely on your Reserve rolls for Zandrekh to show up before you can use it.

The similar combo NecronLord is thinking of is a Locator Beacon on a Stormraven or Drop Pod, which can guide in Deep Striking units, but Locator Beacons and Teleport Homers have to be on the table at the start of the turn (before Reserves move on) to be used. The Nemesor has no such restriction.

No. I said exactly to that which I was referring to. Nemesor works exactly like a Teleport Homer, and unless GW directly FAQ's it differently, we have only that type of equipment to refer to for precedent in how the rules function. Not to mention that the unit is not actually on the table and fluffwise isn't even in the vehicle.

When the unit embarks, remove it from the table and place it aside, making a note that the unit is being transported. 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

There. Measure Obyron from the Hull of Zandrekh's transport. Problem solved.

 NecronLord3 wrote:

 Mannahnin wrote:
This works fine. Of course you need to rely on your Reserve rolls for Zandrekh to show up before you can use it.

The similar combo NecronLord is thinking of is a Locator Beacon on a Stormraven or Drop Pod, which can guide in Deep Striking units, but Locator Beacons and Teleport Homers have to be on the table at the start of the turn (before Reserves move on) to be used. The Nemesor has no such restriction.

No. I said exactly to that which I was referring to. Nemesor works exactly like a Teleport Homer...

...except that a Teleport Homer says in its rules that it has to start the turn on the table to be used. And Varguard's Duty does not have that limitation. Which makes the exact opposite case that you're arguing- that a Homer or Locator Beacon would work fine flying onto the table if they didn't have that additional rule.

azazel the cat wrote:

There. Measure Obyron from the Hull of Zandrekh's transport. Problem solved.

Not really, as that is measuring range to zandrekhs' unit, not the model himself.

Jebus Cryst, Games Workshop, get your Please don't work around the swear filter. Thanks Reds8n together, already.
(somebody have the email address for their FAQ request department?)

 Mannahnin wrote:

 NecronLord3 wrote:

 Mannahnin wrote:
This works fine. Of course you need to rely on your Reserve rolls for Zandrekh to show up before you can use it.

The similar combo NecronLord is thinking of is a Locator Beacon on a Stormraven or Drop Pod, which can guide in Deep Striking units, but Locator Beacons and Teleport Homers have to be on the table at the start of the turn (before Reserves move on) to be used. The Nemesor has no such restriction.

No. I said exactly to that which I was referring to. Nemesor works exactly like a Teleport Homer...

...except that a Teleport Homer says in its rules that it has to start the turn on the table to be used. And Varguard's Duty does not have that limitation. Which makes the exact opposite case that you're arguing- that a Homer or Locator Beacon would work fine flying onto the table if they didn't have that additional rule.

Good luck with that holding up at a tournament, or an FAQ entry.

 Neorealist wrote:

azazel the cat wrote:

There. Measure Obyron from the Hull of Zandrekh's transport. Problem solved.

Not really, as that is measuring range to zandrekhs' unit, not the model himself.

There is no difference, as the model itself can be anywhere on the hull.

Fragile wrote:There is no difference, as the model itself can be anywhere on the hull.

wat?

Are people these days gluing their zandrekh models to the hulls of their nightscythes now? has that somehow became a thing?



The rules for transports say you can measure range to the embarked unit using the hull of the vehicle. Obyrons' special rule on the other hand requires you to check if his model is within 6" of zandrekh. Note, it doesn't say 'zandrekh's unit', or the 'nightscythe he rode in on' for that matter.

 Neorealist wrote:

Fragile wrote:There is no difference, as the model itself can be anywhere on the hull.

wat?

Are people these days gluing their zandrekh models to the hulls of their nightscythes now? has that somehow became a thing?



The rules for transports say you can measure range to the embarked unit using the hull of the vehicle. Obyrons' special rule on the other hand requires you to check if his model is within 6" of zandrekh. Note, it doesn't say 'zandrekh's unit', or the 'nightscythe he rode in on' for that matter.

Well, neither do many rules that require you to measure from a model. *Shrug*

Fragile wrote:Well, neither do many rules that require you to measure from a model. *Shrug*

perhaps, but therein lies the issue: You have permission within the rules to figure out the range to zandrekhs' unit when it is embarked on a nightscythe, but how do you know if your obyron model is within 6" of zandrekh's model itself? You don't. Or more accurately, you 'can't', as the model has been set aside and is no longer on the table once its' unit is embarked on the nightscythe.

I understand that some people would prefer an explicit RAW citation here. Those are fairly rare in 40k. Thankfully, this rule has many, many related rules and faq entries that can be used to present a strong, compelling argument. (As has been done above and when this issue was discussed when the idea was first proposed using Zandrekh in a CCB)






Automatically Appended Next Post:

Neorealist wrote: You have permission within the rules to figure out the range to zandrekhs' unit when it is embarked on a nightscythe, but how do you know if your obyron model is within 6" of zandrekh's model itself? You don't. Or more accurately, you 'can't', as the model has been set aside and is no longer on the table once its' unit is embarked on the nightscythe.

You can.

First consider how you would do it if Zahndrekh was the only thing in the NightScythe. Per the Embarking rules on p78 of the BRB, you would measure from the hull.

Second, consider the disembarking rules for ICs on p79. They can split off of the joined squad and stay inside or exit separately.

Thirdly, consider the Firing Point rules on p78 and p82 for open topped vehicles. Models embarked on a transport can freely move around inside a transport to fire from different fire points. For open topped vehichles, shooting range is measured from any point on the hull, just as in the the embarking rule for measuring distances for special rules on p78

Forth and finally, consider a stationary open-topped transport with an embarked model with a Heavy weapon (like a ML). On turn 1, the ML fires shooting out the right side at full BS. On turn 2, the ML fires out the left at full BS.

You raise some good points, but i have another for you:

Which statement is clearer in intent; either as an indication that the unit is removed from the table or that it remains in play:

1) "...When the unit embarks, remove it from the table and place it aside, making a note that the unit is being transported..."
2) "...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..."
3) ...a single passenger can fire out of each Fire Point and the other transported models cannot fire. Ranges and line of sight are measured from the Fire Point itself...

I realise there is a plethora of rules which allow the embarked unit to interact with models on the board. All of these rules have one thing in common however; they (at best) 'imply' that the unit is counted as being on the board, not a single one ever 'states' such. Unfortunately for such arguments, the reverse is not the case: the rules are quite clear about the unit being removed from the table and thus no longer in play.

 Neorealist wrote:
You raise some good points, but i have another for you:

Which statement is clearer in intent; either as an indication that the unit is removed from the table or that it remains in play:

1) "...When the unit embarks, remove it from the table and place it aside, making a note that the unit is being transported..."
2) "...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..."
3) ...a single passenger can fire out of each Fire Point and the other transported models cannot fire. Ranges and line of sight are measured from the Fire Point itself...

I realise there is a plethora of rules which allow the embarked unit to interact with models on the board. All of these rules have one thing in common however; they (at best) 'imply' that the unit is counted as being on the board, not a single one ever 'states' such. Unfortunately for such arguments, the reverse is not the case: the rules are quite clear about the unit being removed from the table and thus no longer in play.

But most abilities that have you use proximity to a model (or equipment) state they have to be on the table. Black Templar Marshall/Castellan leadership - Has to be on the table. Teleport Homers - Has to be on the table. Even psychic hoods have a specific entry for when the unit is embarked. Now obviously you couldn't draw distance from zahndrekh if he was in reserves, but nothing states (such as other rules that do) that he has to be on the table, so you're arguing a point of that sentence that doesn't really matter.

Really? If it doesn't matter where Zahndrekh is located or even if he is on the board at all; can you explain how you would put another model (Obyron in this case) within 6" of his location if there is no specific location to be within 6" of?

 Neorealist wrote:
Really? If it doesn't matter where Zahndrekh is located or even if he is on the board at all; can you explain how you would put another model (Obyron in this case) within 6" of his location if there is no specific location to be within 6" of?

It's....the vehicle. As the rule says, you measure from the hull to determine ranges that aren't for shooting for a unit that is embarked.

Here, let's look at the other rules that zahndrekh has -
Adaptive/counter tactics: "in which zahndrekh is on the battlefield".
Phased Reinforcements: "If zahndrekh is on the battlefield"

So, they remembered to put that wording in for those abilities on Zahndrekh but left it out for Obryon's ability?

Ah, but i remind you once again: 'The Vargards Duty' does not measure range to Zandrekhs' unit, it measures it to Zandrekh himself. 'Measuring to Zandrekhs' model' is not one of the things being embarked on a transport allows you to do for embarked units.

There is a distinct difference there (which i've mentioned a few times now) that people seem to be willing to conflate for some reason.

 Mannahnin wrote:
It doesn't. Units embarked on a transport are considered (for rules purposes) to be where the transport is, and you measure effects like that from the hull of the vehicle. The Necron FAQ still makes clear that the unit is considered to be embarked in the Night Scythe. Read the Invasion Beams special rule.

http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m2570047a_Necrons_v1.1.pdf

For a moment forget the rules clarifications on this thread. GW had first better explain the opening line.

NECRONS Official Update for 6th Edition, Version 1.1 wrote:
Although we strive to ensure that our codexes are perfect, sometimes mistakes do creep in.

Who the feth are they kidding, "strive to ensure that our codexes are perfect", is it comedy hour in Nottingham?

 Neorealist wrote:
Ah, but i remind you once again: 'The Vargards Duty' does not measure range to Zandrekhs' unit, it measures it to Zandrekh himself. 'Measuring to Zandrekhs' model' is not one of the things being embarked on a transport allows you to do for embarked units; only measuring to his unit.

There is a distinct difference there (which i've mentioned a few times now) that people seem to be willing to conflate for some reason.

Yes, you have, and when did zahndrekh stop being a unit just because he's joined a squad? Your point is either that he can't do it while zahndrekh is embarked or he can't do it while zahndrekh is in a squad. Either way you're going to run into a problem.

Zahndrekh is a unit. So you can therefore measure to be hull of any vehicle he is embarked in to determine any special effects regarding him or his wargear.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ninja'ed!

Zandrekh never stops being part of a unit (composed of just himself and the models you've attached him to, if any) and I'm not saying he does.

What I 'am' saying, is that him being (in) a unit isn't the characteristic that Obyrons' ability is checking for, to allow him (Obyron) to deepstrike without error.

There isn't any explicit rules justification to treat the nightscythe 'as' Zahndrekh; which would be necessary for 'The Vargards Duty' to work the way some have suggested in this thread.

Neorealist wrote:There isn't any explicit rules justification to treat the nightscythe 'as' Zahndrekh; which would be necessary for 'The Vargards Duty' to work the way some have suggested in this thread.

I think most of the Posters in the PRO position are not calling for treating the nightscythe 'as' Zahndrekh. Rather, they are asking to apply the rule from p78 "...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..."

Zahndrekh is a unit of 1 model that can join other Units via the IC rules.

Before we go any farther, let me ask, do you have any problems with the PRO position on this question if ]Zahndrekh is alone in the Nightscythe? That may help us understand where you are drawing the line/having a problem.

my stance at it's simplest:

1) Obyron's ability does not check if Zandrekhs' unit is within 6", it checks if Zandrekh (aka, the model itself) is within 6". (it's an important distinction)
2) The rules for transports indicate that the embarked unit is removed from the table.
3) Therefore, there is no 'Zandrekh' model on the table for 'The Vargards Duty' to check for proximity to.
4) The Transport rules allowing you to check range to the embarked unit from the vehicles hull, but do not allow you to check the range to a given model; only the unit as a whole. (regardless of wether that unit is currently just Zandrekh or the HQ + assorted minions)
5) Being able to determine range (ie: be within 6") of Zandrekh's unit does not 'necessarily' mean Obyron is within 6" of Zandrekh himself, which is why point 1 is an important distinction.

 Neorealist wrote:

Fragile wrote:There is no difference, as the model itself can be anywhere on the hull.

wat?

Are people these days gluing their zandrekh models to the hulls of their nightscythes now? has that somehow became a thing?



The rules for transports say you can measure range to the embarked unit using the hull of the vehicle. Obyrons' special rule on the other hand requires you to check if his model is within 6" of zandrekh. Note, it doesn't say 'zandrekh's unit', or the 'nightscythe he rode in on' for that matter.

So, If Zandrekh wanted to shoot Oberyn, how would you determine if he was in range ??

Fragile wrote:So, If Zandrekh wanted to shoot Oberyn, how would you determine if he was in range ??

(presuming we are sticking with the scenario that Zandrekh is in a nightscythe)
Zandrekh in your scenario would be out of luck, for a few reasons:
1) It's not legal to target your own units
2) There are no special rules associated with the nightsycthe allowing units to shoot out of it.
3) Zandrekhs' model isn't currently on the table and therefore there is no model to determine LOS from.

So in short? i'd say 'no, you cannot do that' to your question.

 Neorealist wrote:

Fragile wrote:So, If Zandrekh wanted to shoot Oberyn, how would you determine if he was in range ??

(presuming we are sticking with the scenario that Zandrekh is in a nightscythe)
Zandrekh in your scenario would be out of luck, for a few reasons:
1) It's not legal to target your own units
2) There are no special rules associated with the nightsycthe allowing units to shoot out of it.
3) Zandrekhs' model isn't currently on the table and therefore there is no model to determine LOS from.

So in short? i'd say 'no, you cannot do that' to your question.

Ok, an opposing obyron and zahndrekh is in a ghost ark.

Main rulebook FAQ page 5 wrote:Q: Do embarked passengers with ‘area of effect’ wargear, such as the Big Mek’s Kustom Force Field, measure the range of such items from the hull of the transport they are embarked upon? (p78)
A: Yes.

Neorealiast, you're simply wrong on this. Your interpretation clashes with the rulebook, the FAQ, and every player I've seen field Eldar in the last 10+ years and Blood Angels in their current codex.

 Neorealist wrote:
Zandrekh never stops being part of a unit (composed of just himself and the models you've attached him to, if any) and I'm not saying he does.

What I 'am' saying, is that him being (in) a unit isn't the characteristic that Obyrons' ability is checking for, to allow him (Obyron) to deepstrike without error.

There isn't any explicit rules justification to treat the nightscythe 'as' Zahndrekh; which would be necessary for 'The Vargards Duty' to work the way some have suggested in this thread.

But it's not obyron's ability that references the word "unit", it's the rules for embarking. Zahndrekh being in a unit embarked on a vehicle has zero bearing on how obyron's ability interacts with him, as it will be identical in use whether it was just Nemesor or Nemesor+Unit on the vehicle.

No one said you're treating it "as" anything, we're just following the rules for embarked units.

Mannahnin wrote: Neorealiast, you're simply wrong on this. Your interpretation clashes with the rulebook, the FAQ, and every player I've seen field Eldar in the last 10+ years and Blood Angels in their current codex.

Well, it's entirely possible i may (or may not) be wrong, sure. That said, my interpretation is consistent with what it actually says within the 'Transport' rules and is therefore as 'book-legal' as these discussions get. As for how other players would play their armies, isn't that more of a HYWPI opinion than a RAW one?

It's simple really: the transport rules say your unit is not on the table when they are in a transport, but that there are a bunch of specially granted actions the unit can take from that situation. Being able to take specific actions like firing through a fire-point or use wargear with a specific radius does not auto-magically mean that the models are considered to be in play despite the very clear rule saying that they are not.

 Neorealist wrote:

Mannahnin wrote: Neorealiast, you're simply wrong on this. Your interpretation clashes with the rulebook, the FAQ, and every player I've seen field Eldar in the last 10+ years and Blood Angels in their current codex.

Well, it's entirely possible i may (or may not) be wrong, sure. That said, my interpretation is consistent with what it actually says within the 'Transport' rules and is therefore as 'book-legal' as these discussions get. As for how other players would play their armies, isn't that more of a HYWPI opinion than a RAW one?

It's simple really: the transport rules say your unit is not on the table when they are in a transport, but that there are a bunch of specially granted actions the unit can take from that situation. Being able to take specific actions like firing through a fire-point or use wargear with a specific radius does not auto-magically mean that the models are considered to be in play despite the very clear rule saying that they are not.

Its not a HYWPI at all, you're just trying to argue that the color blue is in fact black. However we all know it's blue.

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote: Its not a HYWPI at all, you're just trying to argue that the color blue is in fact black. However we all know it's blue.

I'm sorry; can you clarify that within the context of something i've actually said please? I most certainly did not reference colours let alone claim they are anything but what they actually are.

 Neorealist wrote:

Mannahnin wrote: Neorealiast, you're simply wrong on this. Your interpretation clashes with the rulebook, the FAQ, and every player I've seen field Eldar in the last 10+ years and Blood Angels in their current codex.

Well, it's entirely possible i may (or may not) be wrong, sure. That said, my interpretation is consistent with what it actually says within the 'Transport' rules and is therefore as 'book-legal' as these discussions get. As for how other players would play their armies, isn't that more of a HYWPI opinion than a RAW one?

It's simple really: the transport rules say your unit is not on the table when they are in a transport, but that there are a bunch of specially granted actions the unit can take from that situation. Being able to take specific actions like firing through a fire-point or use wargear with a specific radius does not auto-magically mean that the models are considered to be in play despite the very clear rule saying that they are not.

If they aren't in play and they aren't in reserves then how are they shooting? Why would they need "fearless" in a transport if they're not in play? Why can you move a guy up to 2" in between fire points but still fire a heavy weapon without snap shot? Why are they affected by crew shaken/stunned results?

I know that these things have "rules" for them in place, but they MUST be in play still for these things to exist. Especially the Fearless rule.

 Neorealist wrote:

Fragile wrote:So, If Zandrekh wanted to shoot Oberyn, how would you determine if he was in range ??

(presuming we are sticking with the scenario that Zandrekh is in a nightscythe)
Zandrekh in your scenario would be out of luck, for a few reasons:
1) It's not legal to target your own units
2) There are no special rules associated with the nightsycthe allowing units to shoot out of it.
3) Zandrekhs' model isn't currently on the table and therefore there is no model to determine LOS from.

So in short? i'd say 'no, you cannot do that' to your question.

LOL, a good evasive answer. Simply put, if there is a unit in a transport vehicle, range can be measured to any target from a fire point (of hull on open topped). If the range from the shooter at a Fire point or hull to a target is 6", then the reverse is true.

Kevin949 wrote:If they aren't in play and they aren't in reserves then how are they shooting?

There is a rule (those for fire-points and/or open-topped vehicles) that allows them to?

Kevin949 wrote:Why would they need "fearless" in a transport if they're not in play?

Because they can take wounds while in the transport and it'd be horrifically unfair if they are instantly destroyed or some other bizarre interaction between the 'Transports' rule-set and those which determine what happens when a unit breaks morale?

Kevin949 wrote:Why can you move a guy up to 2" in between fire points but still fire a heavy weapon without snap shot?

You can't. You are not allowed to 'move' models while they are in a Transport. (well, apart from embarking/disembarking them)

Kevin949 wrote:Why are they affected by crew shaken/stunned results?

There is a rule (those for transports) that forces them to?

Your rationale fails Occam's Razor.

We can either look at the rules of the game, and the situation they are representing, and say:

A) This unit is in play, on the battlefield, interacting with other units, in specified ways restricted based on its position now being indicated by the transport which contains it.
B) The unit is not in play, it is in some completely unspecified and undescribed place, which is not in play, not in Reserves, but not destroyed. And all the rules describing how its in the vehicle, and how to interact with that unit while it's in that vehicle, are individual special cases, not indicative of a single consistent concept (it's in the vehicle), but all standing on their own with no interrelation.

It's absurd.

Where are you claiming the unit actually is, while it's embarked?

I will ask again, do you have any problem with the PRO position if Zandrekh is in the NightScythe by himself?

A yes or no here will simplify the NO responces

Neorealist wrote:1)Obyron's ability does not check if Zandrekhs' unit is within 6", it checks if Zandrekh (aka, the model itself) is within 6". (it's an important distinction)

This seems to be an important distinction that you have made yourself. The rule says "... does not scatter provided he aims to arrive within 6" of Zandrekh." p61 Necron Codex No mention of Unit or Model, just the name.

Skip that for now, but note that p3 shows that Units are formed by grouping one or more Models together.

Neorealist wrote:2) The rules for transports indicate that the embarked unit is removed from the table.
3) Therefore, there is no 'Zandrekh' model on the table for 'The Vargards Duty' to check for proximity to

Good thing there is the below rule on p78

Neorealist wrote:4) The Transport rules allowing you to check range to the embarked unit from the vehicles hull, but do not allow you to check the range to a given model; only the unit as a whole. (regardless of wether that unit is currently just Zandrekh or the HQ + assorted minions)

Because it doesn't need to. You can pick any point on the hull because an embarked unit is set aside per you #2 and GW kindly provided us with #4 to resolve these problems.

Neorealist wrote:5) Being able to determine range (ie: be within 6") of Zandrekh's unit does not 'necessarily' mean Obyron is within 6" of Zandrekh himself, which is why point 1 is an important distinction.

And now we are back to my original question.

Do you have any problem with the PRO position if Zandrekh is in the NightScythe by himself?

Mannahnin wrote: Where are you claiming the unit actually is, while it's embarked?

Set aside at a convenient table edge (or a storage case perhaps?) along with a note of some sort indicating the unit is being transported.

 Neorealist wrote:

Kevin949 wrote:If they aren't in play and they aren't in reserves then how are they shooting?

There is a rule (those for fire-points and/or open-topped vehicles) that allows them to?

Kevin949 wrote:Why would they need "fearless" in a transport if they're not in play?

Because they can take wounds while in the transport and it'd be horrifically unfair if they are instantly destroyed or some other bizarre interaction between the 'Transports' rule-set and those which determine what happens when a unit breaks morale?

Kevin949 wrote:Why can you move a guy up to 2" in between fire points but still fire a heavy weapon without snap shot?

You can't. You are not allowed to 'move' models while they are in a Transport. (well, apart from embarking/disembarking them)

Kevin949 wrote:Why are they affected by crew shaken/stunned results?

There is a rule (those for transports) that forces them to?

Preface: Yes, I said there were rules governing these and that those rules included *must* assume the models are still in play. If a model isn't in play, it's unable to *do* anything or affect anything.

I'm unaware of anything can target/affect units in a transport that also causes wounds outside of gets hot! and those don't cause morale checks since it wasn't a shooting attack.

Yes, I know they aren't actually moving, but there is still a space differentiation between the fire points that is conveniently not addressed for units inside, especially those with heavy weapons. Just furthers the point that "the vehicles hull" takes place of "the unit" (not counts as) for measuring purposes. The main purpose for this comment is to note that at any point in time any member of any unit on a transport can be anywhere within that transport as deemed necessary by the controlling player.

Coming full circle, see first sentence of response. If they weren't *in play* still then these vehicle effects wouldn't matter on the passengers as they're not anywhere defined.

I mean seriously, what do you think you CAN measure from the hull if you can't measure for an ability that has no stipulation it has to be "on the battlefield"?

foolishmortal wrote:Do you have any problem with the PRO position if Zandrekh is in the NightScythe by himself?

I believe that the Transport rules only allow you to draw range to the embarked unit as a whole, not to any specific model found within the embarked unit, and this holds true even if there is only one model in it. As such, I do not think you are given permission within the Transport rules to draw range to 'Zandrekhs' model from the nightscythes' hull for the purposes of 'The Vargards Duty'.

It is the fundamental difference between being able to determine the range to Zandrehks' unit (which you have permission to do). And being able to determine range to Zandrehk himself (which you do not have permission to do, even if the result would be the exact same spot as you would have determined via the previous sentence).

Kevin949 wrote: I'm unaware of anything can target/affect units in a transport that also causes wounds outside of gets hot! and those don't cause morale checks since it wasn't a shooting attack.

PSAs, mainly, often it's due to Perils of the Warp. That said: any time a unit loses 25% or more of it's models in a given movement or shooting phase that unit needs to make a morale check at the end of the phase regardless of what caused those casualties. (so wounds from 'Gets hot' count, as do Perils and other sources of self-inflicted wounds).

Neorealist wrote:

Kevin949 wrote: I'm unaware of anything can target/affect units in a transport that also causes wounds outside of gets hot! and those don't cause morale checks since it wasn't a shooting attack.

PSAs, mainly, often it's due to Perils of the Warp. That said: any time a unit loses 25% or more of it's models in a given movement or shooting phase that unit needs to make a morale check at the end of the phase regardless of what caused those casualties. (so wounds from 'Gets hot' count, as do Perils and other sources of self-inflicted wounds).

The Unshakable Nerve rule on p78 is probably more helpful here. Embarked units are Fearless

 Neorealist wrote:

foolishmortal wrote:Do you have any problem with the PRO position if Zandrekh is in the NightScythe by himself?

I believe that the Transport rules only allow you to draw range to the embarked unit as a whole, not to any specific model found within the embarked unit, and this holds true even if there is only one model in it. As such, I do not think you are given permission within the Transport rules to draw range to 'Zandrekhs' model from the nightscythes' hull for the purposes of 'The Vargards Duty'.

The main rulebook FAQ explicitly disagrees, and uses the Big Mek's Kustom Force Field as the example.

 Neorealist wrote:

Mannahnin wrote: Where are you claiming the unit actually is, while it's embarked?

Set aside at a convenient table edge (or a storage case perhaps?) along with a note of some sort indicating the unit is being transported.

Not the models. The unit. Where is the unit, during the game once it embarks? There are three possible locations that I'm aware of- in play, in Reserve, or destroyed. Your argument seems to posit the existence of some fourth location/state. The unit of robotic Necron warriors does not move to occupy the edge of a gaming table in 21st centure Earth. The models representing that unit are moved to the edge of the table. The unit, in the game, moves into the transport.

This, above. It is the same rule as 5th, and GW have consistently stated you can determine the position of a model and a unit by measuring to the hull.

Where a unit is composed of 1 model, the locatrion of the unit precisely defines the location of hte model.

Mannahnin wrote:The main rulebook FAQ explicitly disagrees, and uses the Big Mek's Kustom Force Field as the example.

The only note in the FAQ that i could find referencing the kustom force field indicates you can measure the range of wargear with a radius of effect from the edge of the transports' hull. Are you presuming that means the model is treated as present in play for some reason? Or were you referring to a different note?

Mannahnin wrote: Not the models. The unit. Where is the unit, during the game once it embarks? There are three possible locations that I'm aware of- in play, in Reserve, or destroyed. Your argument seems to posit the existence of some fourth location/state. The unit of robotic Necron warriors does not move to occupy the edge of a gaming table in 21st centure Earth. The models representing that unit are moved to the edge of the table. The unit, in the game, moves into the transport.

i meant the unit; you are told to set aside 'the unit' somewhere off the table in the Transport rules, no reference is made explicitly to the models contained within it.

nosferatu1001 wrote:GW have consistently stated you can determine the position of a model and a unit by measuring to the hull.

The unit, yes. The (or a specific) model(s) within it? no.

 Neorealist wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:The main rulebook FAQ explicitly disagrees, and uses the Big Mek's Kustom Force Field as the example.

The only note in the FAQ that i could find referencing the kustom force field indicates you can measure the range of wargear with a radius of effect from the edge of the transports' hull. Are you presuming that means the model is treated as present in play for some reason? Or were you referring to a different note?

Are you presuming that the wargear is effectively in the transport but that the model with the wargear is not?

foolishmortal wrote: Are you presuming that the wargear is effectively in the transport but that the model with the wargear is not?

No, i am presuming you are allowed to measure the RoE for certain kind of wargear from the hull of the vehicle, more or less exactly what the rule states. What i am explicitly 'not' doing is reading additional permissions or rules into that phrase than it currently contains.

p78 doesn't refer to embarked wargear. It say embarked units

foolishmortal wrote:p78 doesn't refer to embarked wargear. It say embarked units

Out of curiosity are you actually reading the context for the posts you are quoting from, or just randomly tossing up opinions based solely on whatever post you happened to have read last? The reason i ask is because i was referring to the 6th Edition FAQ when i made that statement, not the rule on page 78.

Also...

Page 34 – Mekboyz, Kustom Force Field.
Change the second sentence to read “A kustom force field
gives all units within 6" of the Mek a cover save of 5+. Friendly
vehicles within 6" are counted as being obscured and have a 5+ cover save”.

Its measured from the Mek, not the wargear


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Neorealist wrote:

foolishmortal wrote:p78 doesn't refer to embarked wargear. It say embarked units

Out of curiosity are you actually reading the context for the posts you are quoting from, or just randomly tossing up opinions based solely on whatever post you happened to have read last? The reason i ask is because i was referring to the 6th Edition FAQ when i made that statement, not the rule on page 78.

Yes, which is why I pointed out that the only reason we measure for the wargear in these rules is that the wargear is not alone. It is on embarked units per p78 and per the faq you cited

Q: Do embarked passengers with ‘area of effect’ wargear, such as
the Big Mek’s Kustom Force Field, measure the range of such items
from the hull of the transport they are embarked upon? (p78)
A: Yes.

i apologise to those who have read this already (since this won't be the first time i'm stating it) but being able to determine range for/to a unit, (or for/to wargear for that matter) from the hull of a vehicle does not mean you treat that unit as being in play.

So far what we have here are a few rules which 'imply' the unit is in play (but work just fine based solely on their own rules-text if the unit is not in play since it is never explicitly referenced by them)

And one rule which very clearly, and very definitively indicates the unit is 'not' in play; because you are told to remove it from the table as part of executing said rule.


If anyone would care to explain to me how a unit can both be removed from play and still be 'in' play, i'd like to hear it.

That rule says to remove the unit from the table, not from play.

Removing a unit from play means to destroy it or to put it into reserve (there's no other place it can go).

Removing a unit from the table makes clear this this rule is describing what you do with the MODELS that represent the unit. Not the unit within the game. The unit within the game is in the transport. The models which represent the unit are on a table.

Neorealist wrote:i apologise to those who have read this already (since this won't be the first time i'm stating it) but being able to determine range for/to a unit, (or for/to wargear for that matter) from the hull of a vehicle does not mean you treat that unit as being in play.

So far what we have here are a few rules which 'imply' the unit is in play (but work just fine based solely on their own rules-text if the unit is not in play since it is never explicitly referenced by them)

And one rule which very clearly, and very definitively indicates the unit is 'not' in play; because you are told to remove it from the table as part of executing said rule.


If anyone would care to explain to me how a unit can both be removed from play and still be 'in' play, i'd like to hear it.

iirc the rule explicitly states that it [the unit] is removed from the table

Mannahnin wrote:Removing a unit from the table makes clear this this rule is describing what you do with the MODELS that represent the unit. Not the unit within the game. The unit within the game is in the transport. The models which represent the unit are on a table.

Wouldn't telling you to 'set the models aside' have been more clear then? Why reference the unit itself and explicitly 'not' the models of which it is comprised if that is actually what the rule intended?

A good example of a unit off the table but in play is Necron Cryptek with Veil walking on and opting to use veil

The ability to tank shock onto the table from reserves might be another.

iirc, there is a space wolf HQ which does something similar


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Neorealist wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:Removing a unit from the table makes clear this this rule is describing what you do with the MODELS that represent the unit. Not the unit within the game. The unit within the game is in the transport. The models which represent the unit are on a table.

Wouldn't telling you to 'set the models aside' have been more clear then? Why reference the unit itself and explicitly 'not' the models of which it is comprised if that is actually what the rule intended?

Mostly just responding to you saying some rules were implied, but others were implicit.

Neorealist wrote:So far what we have here are a few rules which 'imply' the unit is in play (but work just fine based solely on their own rules-text if the unit is not in play since it is never explicitly referenced by them)

And one rule which very clearly, and very definitively indicates the unit is 'not' in play; because you are told to remove it from the table as part of executing said rule.

The embarking rules on p78 very clearly, and very definitively indicate that it [the unit] is removed from the table.

The table 'is' the playing field. Anything not on it isn't 'in play'.

 Neorealist wrote:

Kevin949 wrote: I'm unaware of anything can target/affect units in a transport that also causes wounds outside of gets hot! and those don't cause morale checks since it wasn't a shooting attack.

PSAs, mainly, often it's due to Perils of the Warp. That said: any time a unit loses 25% or more of it's models in a given movement or shooting phase that unit needs to make a morale check at the end of the phase regardless of what caused those casualties. (so wounds from 'Gets hot' count, as do Perils and other sources of self-inflicted wounds).

Oh? But if they're not in play they can't take morale tests. If they're not in play there's no reason for them to be fearless.

Kevin949 wrote: Oh? But if they're not in play they can't take morale tests. If they're not in play there's no reason for them to be fearless.

if you would be so kind, please quote (or at least reference) a rule which specifically indicates units that aren't in play cannot take morale tests.

 Kevin949 wrote:
Oh? But if they're not in play they can't take morale tests. If they're not in play there's no reason for them to be fearless.

I pointed that out a while ago. He won't budge on the point that rules like that imply in play but that the p78 embarking rules explicitly state off the table.

I am now trying to un-conflate "off the table" vs "out of play"

 Neorealist wrote:
The table 'is' the playing field. Anything not on it isn't 'in play'.

And if you look at the very first line in the transports section, it says "Some vehicles can carry Infantry across the battlefield..."

You can't go "across" something without being in it, or on it.

 Neorealist wrote:

Kevin949 wrote: Oh? But if they're not in play they can't take morale tests. If they're not in play there's no reason for them to be fearless.

if you would be so kind, please quote (or at least reference) a rule which specifically indicates units that aren't in play cannot take morale tests.

try again. Permissive rules set.

There are rules in place that cause wounds to embarked units and rules that require morale checks under these conditions. There does not need to be rule which specifically indicates units that aren't in play cannot take morale tests, hence there is a reason to make them fearless.

Also, do you have a response about "off the table" = "out of play" ? That would simplify the topic

Kevin949 wrote: You can't go "across" something without being in it, or on it.

Wandering a bit far from a rules-specific discussion here, but don't airplanes do that all the time? they can hardly be said to be 'on' or 'in' the ocean, but they can certainly do 'go across' it.

 Neorealist wrote:
Actually no, the rule you quoted indicates that 'when the unit embarks, remove it (the unit) from the table' just as i'd previously suggested.

Yes but 'remove from the table' is not the same thing as 'remove from play'.

foolishmortal wrote:

 Kevin949 wrote:
Oh? But if they're not in play they can't take morale tests. If they're not in play there's no reason for them to be fearless.

I pointed that out a while ago. He won't budge on the point that rules like that imply in play but that the p78 embarking rules explicitly state off the table.

I am now trying to un-conflate "off the table" vs "out of play"

Not to nitpick but I actually brought it up before your post about it and have been arguing the point of how they must be in play to utilize a rule that ONLY works when models are in play. Indeed everything embarked models can do requires they be in play

foolishmortal wrote: Also, do you have a response about "off the table" = "out of play" ? That would simplify the topic

Certainly: the parameters of the playing surface (aka 'the battlefield') are detailed on the various 'deployment maps' on pages 118 and 119. Models which are not within the boundries indicated by the various maps are dealt with in various ways depending on how they ended up in that situation; but the most common result of not being within the 'table edges' is the removal of the models as casualties.

In this case however the unit is simply set aside with a note indicating it is being transported, so it can later be reintroduced to the playing surface when it's controller decides to disembark it.

 Neorealist wrote:

Kevin949 wrote: Oh? But if they're not in play they can't take morale tests. If they're not in play there's no reason for them to be fearless.

if you would be so kind, please quote (or at least reference) a rule which specifically indicates units that aren't in play cannot take morale tests.

Uh, what? It's a function OF the rules, not the rule itself. I mean, that's just a ridiculous statement to make. If we're starting to allow things to work from not-in-play models then I want my Imotekh lord of the storm from reserves back!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Neorealist wrote:

Kevin949 wrote: You can't go "across" something without being in it, or on it.

Wandering a bit far from a rules-specific discussion here, but don't airplanes do that all the time? they can hardly be said to be 'on' or 'in' the ocean, but they can certainly do 'go across' it.

So we're resorting to comparing to real life scenarios now?

Also, even though they go across the ocean they're still in the air space and would be "in-play" in those areas it crosses.


*edit*
Also, you still haven't answered my question as to what you think you *can* measure for from an embarked unit (that is not a shooting attack or the KFF).

 Neorealist wrote:

Kevin949 wrote: You can't go "across" something without being in it, or on it.

Wandering a bit far from a rules-specific discussion here, but don't airplanes do that all the time? they can hardly be said to be 'on' or 'in' the ocean, but they can certainly do 'go across' it.

This is argument for the sake of argument. Your point has been dis-proven by rules already.

Kevin949 wrote:Uh, what? It's a function OF the rules, not the rule itself. I mean, that's just a ridiculous statement to make. If we're starting to allow things to work from not-in-play models then I want my Imotekh lord of the storm from reserves back!

Not that it is particularly relevent to this discussion but you 'can' benefit from certain abilities even when the model itself is not in play (if those abilities explicitly state such), and 'Lord of the Storm' is one of them: how else would the Nightfighting automatically apply during the first turn regardless of wether or not Imotekh is on the board?

 Neorealist wrote:

foolishmortal wrote: Also, do you have a response about "off the table" = "out of play" ? That would simplify the topic

Certainly: the parameters of the playing surface (aka 'the battlefield') are detailed on the various 'deployment maps' on pages 118 and 119. Models which are not within the boundries indicated by the various maps are dealt with in various ways depending on how they ended up in that situation; but the most common result of not being within the 'table edges' is the removal of the models as casualties.

In this case however the unit is simply set aside with a note indicating it is being transported, so it can later be reintroduced to the playing surface when it's controller decides to disembark it.

Saying "playing surface" instead of table or battlefield is not a citation of a rule for "off the table" = "out of play"

I didn't notice the phrase "in play" on p118-119

p121 might be relevant, or maybe just a distraction. I am unsure.

Deploy Forces
units are deployed on the table, in deployment zones
units may be deployed in transport vehicles

They are the rules for what constitutes the playing surface. Are you looking for a specific rule that indicates a model on the battlefield is in play or controversely that a model not on the battlefield 'isn't' in play?

The table is the physical real-world thing that exists outside the game, used to represent the battlefield in the fictional battle/game. Just like the models in a unit represent the fictional unit.

By using the word table, GW indicates to us that they're talking about the physical representations, not the fictional unit and battlefield inside the game. Yes, they could have been more precise by saying "pick up the models and remove them from the table", but I don't expect that they thought that was necessary. If the game rules are representing a unit entering a vehicle, how on earth would they expect people to take that as the unit embarking and then somehow NOT being in the vehicle? That's the whole point. They're inside, and the rules describe how a unit which is inside a vehicle interacts with other units, which is necessitated by two things:

A) Representing the concept of them being inside a big solid thing and thus shielded from harm/targeting to some degee, and likewise restricted in how they can interact with other things outside the transport.
B) Establishing how you interact with a unit which is not physically represented by its own models, whose position is now instead indicated by the model for the transport.

 Neorealist wrote:
They are the rules for what constitutes the playing surface. Are you looking for a specific rule that indicates a model on the battlefield is in play or controversely that a model not on the battlefield 'isn't' in play?

Yes. I keep coming back to this post.

 Neorealist wrote:
Actually no, the rule you quoted indicates that 'when the unit embarks, remove it (the unit) from the table' just as i'd previously suggested.

What i'd like you to clarify if you could is where you are seeing rules-justification for your statement that the unit remains in play? as your quoted text states quite the opposite. Also, 'Varguards' Duty' allows one to deepstrike without error only within 6" of Zandrekh himself, not whatever unit he happens to be a part of (if any).

You are asking for a rule saying explicitly that off the table units can remain in play.

I am now seeking a rules based definition of in play.

If there isn't one, then I reject the premise of your initial question and would instead say that (RAW) 40k is a permissive ruleset with explicit interactions and some measure of clarification provided by GW.

They [GW] have provided the rules interaction for this situation and clarification from several faqs. You seem to be objecting based on the definition of the term "in play". Please cite your source.

foolishmortal wrote:I am now seeking a rules based definition of in play.

The 'Battlefield' rules (page 118) define the table halves as comprising the board 'and' the battlefield.

The 'Deployment' rules (page 119) define where one can legally place models on the battlefield, the battlefield edges, the battlefield size, and deployment zones.

The 'Reserves' (page 124) rules further clarify what constitutes 'on' and 'off' the board, and how a model is moved onto the table using them as a reference.

I've been using 'in play' as shorthand for 'on the table'.

This is entirely apart from the fact that many of the rules in the 6th edition handbook are predicated on the physical model being used a point of reference of some sort; either for shooting, abilities, location, proximity, etc. (all of which cannot be determined unless there is a specific rule giving an exception if the model is not present on the table.)

 Neorealist wrote:

foolishmortal wrote:I am now seeking a rules based definition of in play.

The 'Battlefield' rules (page 118) define the table halves as comprising the board 'and' the battlefield.

The 'Deployment' rules (page 119) define where one can legally place models on the battlefield, the battlefield edges, the battlefield size, and deployment zones.

The 'Reserves' (page 124) rules further clarify what constitutes 'on' and 'off' the board, and how a model is moved onto the table using them as a reference.

the above sections do not define "in play".

 Neorealist wrote:
I've been using 'in play' as shorthand for 'on the table'.

This is the likely source of your confusion. You have created an overly restrictive definition in a permissive ruleset that does not exist in the rules text.

 Neorealist wrote:
This is entirely apart from the fact that many of the rules in the 6th edition handbook are predicated on the physical model being used a point of reference of some sort; either for shooting, abilities, location, proximity, etc. (all of which cannot be determined unless there is a specific rule giving an exception if the model is not present on the table.)

And again, thankfully we have these rules as well as many clarifications and parallel situations from GW. In this thread, we have posted and discussed the rules that allow the OP's question to be resolved in the affirmative as well as other instructive situations.

foolishmortal wrote:This is the likely source of your confusion. You have created an overly restrictive definition in a permissive ruleset that does not exist in the rules text.

And again, thankfully we have these rules as well as many clarifications and parallel situations from GW. In this thread, we have posted and discussed the rules that allow the OP's question to be resolved in the affirmative as well as other instructive situations.

Thank you for your opinion, but you are incorrect on the particulars: Stating a model needs to be 'in play' (aka 'on the table') for it to to be interacted with is a concept inherent in 40k and a fundamental basis of how the game works. I'm not 'creating' anything new here, let alone an 'overly restrictive definition'.

In this case, you are 'still' trying to equate being able to determine range to Zandrekhs' unit with being able to determine range to Zandrekh.

Ok, here we go....

The original post

skoffs wrote:I tried doing a search, but I couldn't find any results, so I figured I'd have to ask instead:

Let's say you stick in a Zahndrekh in a Nightscythe with, I dunno, some Immortals.
Also, you have Obyron and a unit of 20 Warriors already on the table.
Zahndrekh's Nightscythe zooms onto the table and parks next to something you want shot to pieces.
Zahndrekh's unit does NOT disembark.
now,
Can Obyron and his unit Ghostwalk themselves next to Zahndrekh's Nightscythe and benefit from the Vargard's Duty and not scatter because Obyron is arriving with 6" of Zahndrekh?

If so... wow, that is a very handy way to systematically obliterate back field pains in the ass like Long Fangs and Basilisks.

Answered affermative by a several, including a MOD. I'm not making an argument from authority here, merely going through the thread. Up until now there have been some rules citations, but the tone of the thread has waffled between RAI/HIWPI and RAW.

Mannahnin wrote:This works fine. Of course you need to rely on your Reserve rolls for Zandrekh to show up before you can use it.

The similar combo NecronLord is thinking of is a Locator Beacon on a Stormraven or Drop Pod, which can guide in Deep Striking units, but Locator Beacons and Teleport Homers have to be on the table at the start of the turn (before Reserves move

on) to be used. The Nemesor has no such restriction.

Your rules based objection...

Neorealist wrote:Really? I was under the impression that models in vehicles were 'removed from the table' and therefor not considered 'on' the table for most other rules? (with exceptions for rules which specifically allow for interaction

with models on the board; for example using fire ports).

See page 78 for the transport rules in full, but here is the pertinent text: "...When the unit embarks, remove it from the table and place it aside, making a note that the unit is being transported..."
And a relevent excerpt from 'The Varguards' Duty': "...uses his Ghostwalk Mantle, he does not scatter providing he aims to arrive within 6" of Zahndrekh..."

For posters who've indicated that you can deepstrike without error; please explain how you can 'aim to arrive within 6 inches' of a model that is not currently on the table?

Mannahnin provides a rules based response...

Mannahnin wrote:Well, if you include the following and key sentence in that first quote, you'll see it.

Page 78 wrote:When the unit embarks, remove it from the table and place it aside, making a note that the unit is being transported. 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

Units which are embarked on transports are still in play. The MODELS representing them are removed from the table, but the unit is still in play, with some restrictions on how it interacts with other units.

The part that makes this a bit counterintuitive with Night Scythes is that the fluff for their portal is that they're not actually in the thing, but game mechanics-wise, they are, as the Invasion Beams rule tells us by referring to the unit as being embarked

on the transport.

At this point, the thread's conversation is basically finished as far as RAI/HIWPI. There was still a RAW argument to be made. You proceed to make it...

Neorealist wrote:Actually no, the rule you quoted indicates that 'when the unit embarks, remove it (the unit) from the table' just as i'd previously suggested.

What i'd like you to clarify if you could is where you are seeing rules-justification for your statement that the unit remains in play? as your quoted text states quite the opposite. Also, 'Varguards' Duty' allows one to deepstrike without error only

within 6" of Zandrekh himself, not whatever unit he happens to be a part of (if any).

Mannahnin and several others did not find your argument persuasive. Neither did, but I was willing explore the topic.

Neorealist wrote:

 Mannahnin wrote:
No, I've provided a list of examples of how the rules make exhaustively clear and obvious that the unit is still in play. All these rules consistently

demonstrate and represent this simple and intuitive concept.

Hardly; not a single one of those examples you've quoted explicitly indicates that the embarked unit is treated as in play. Given not a single one of them ever actuallys states that 'simple and intuitive concept', I'm surprised you believe they are definitive examples of such.

Quite apart from all of that however:
You can determine range to and from a unit embarked on a transport by measuring to the vehicles' hull. That said; how are you seeing permission to measure the range to Zandrekhs' model (note, not 'unit') doing so? The 'Varguards Duty'

only allows you deepstrike within 6" of Zandrekh, you are not given permission within Obryons' rules to deepstrike within 6" of his unit. (which is the only thing the rules support measuring range to while they are embarked on

a transport)

I personally feel that the p78 embarkation rules provide a sufficient RAW basis for the PRO position to the OP's question.

 Neorealist wrote:
In this case, you are 'still' trying to equate being able to determine range to Zandrekhs' unit with being able to determine range to Zandrekh.

But, if you want more, the quickest, clearest FAQ based clarification would be the Ork Mek and the Kuston Force Field...

Page 34 – Mekboyz, Kustom Force Field.
Change the second sentence to read “A kustom force field
gives all units within 6" of the Mek a cover save of 5+. Friendly
vehicles within 6" are counted as being obscured and have a 5+
cover save”.

Q: Do embarked passengers with ‘area of effect’ wargear, such as
the Big Mek’s Kustom Force Field, measure the range of such items
from the hull of the transport they are embarked upon? (p78)
A: Yes.

foolishmortal wrote:But, if you want more, the quickest, clearest FAQ based clarification would be the Ork Mek and the Kuston Force Field...

Page 34 – Mekboyz, Kustom Force Field.
Change the second sentence to read “A kustom force field
gives all units within 6" of the Mek a cover save of 5+. Friendly
vehicles within 6" are counted as being obscured and have a 5+
cover save”.

Q: Do embarked passengers with ‘area of effect’ wargear, such as
the Big Mek’s Kustom Force Field, measure the range of such items
from the hull of the transport they are embarked upon? (p78)
A: Yes.

Interesting that you'd mention that, as i've been meaning to directly address those two FAQ updates specifically:
The First ruling you've quoted indicates that range needs to be measured from Mek itself for the Kustom Force Field wargear.
The Second ruling however indicates that measuring the range of such 'items' should be measured from the hull of the transport they are embarked on.

So, the first update ask you to determine range from the Mek (the model), the second update indicates you determine range from the item itself. There is a bit of a conflict there: do you measure range from the 'Mek' itself (ie: following the first FAQ update), or do you measure range from the 'Item' via the hull of the transport? (ie: following the second FAQ update)

Both? Neither? which has precidence?

You measure range to/from a piece of wargear like a KFF, IG Company Standard, or Blood Chalice by measuring to the model holding it. If that model is embarked in a transport, you measure to the edge of the transport's hull.

This has worked the same way for at least four editions of the rules, now.

Obviously measuring to one by definition measures to the other. Otherwise the answers to the FAQs could not be what they are.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Neorealist wrote:

In this case, you are 'still' trying to equate being able to determine range to Zandrekhs' unit with being able to determine range to Zandrekh.

By definition, if you can measure to Zahndrek's model, you have measured to his unit.

 Neorealist wrote:

So, the first update ask you to determine range from the Mek (the model), the second update indicates you determine range from the item itself. There is a bit of a conflict there: do you measure range from the 'Mek' itself (ie: following the first FAQ update), or do you measure range from the 'Item' via the hull of the transport? (ie: following the second FAQ update)

Both? Neither? which has precidence?

Precedence is not required since there is no conflict.

Look at it like a flowchart

Measure from the wargear. >>> How? >>> Measure from the model with the wargear. >>> Unit is embarked in transport. How now? >>> Measure from hull.

rigeld2 wrote:
Obviously measuring to one by definition measures to the other. Otherwise the answers to the FAQs could not be what they are.

Yup. The whole unit/each model in the unit can be measured to and from by measuring anywhere on the hull of the vehicle (except for shooting, which has to be measured from a fire point).

rigeld2 wrote:

 Neorealist wrote:

In this case, you are 'still' trying to equate being able to determine range to Zandrekhs' unit with being able to determine range to Zandrekh.

By definition, if you can measure to Zahndrek's model, you have measured to his unit.

True, although not vice-versa, except when they're in a transport (at which point they all are treated as occupying the same space on the table).

rigeld2 wrote: By definition, if you can measure to Zahndrek's model, you have measured to his unit.

Indeed. However the reverse is not the case: measuring 6" to his unit does not necessarily mean your model is within 6" of Zahndrekh himself. It is only the latter option (measuring range to his unit) that you've been given permission to do within the Transport rules.

But the FAQ makes clear and explicit that you also measure to and from the hull when measuring effect from a particular model in the unit, specifically referencing the KFF.

 Mannahnin wrote:
But the FAQ makes clear and explicit that you also measure to and from the hull when measuring effect from a particular model in the unit, specifically referencing the KFF.

Not really. The first of the two FAQ notes refers to how you measure range for the Kustom Force Field outside of a transport, the Second applies to how you'd do so inside of a transport. The first one doesn't work within the context of a Transport, and the second one doesn't allow you to measure to the specific model so much as measuring to a proxy for the item iself.

You appear to be looking for excuses for the rules not to work. Your interpretation here is in conflict with how they do work. You're making a circular argument, using your conclusion as a premise to prove your own conclusion.

A) To measure the units affected by a particular wargear item with a radius effect, you measure to and from the model equipped with that wargear. Easy.
B) If that unit is embarked in a transport, instead of measuring to the model (which is now impossible, as it's physically off the table), you measure to the transport, just as you do when measuring to the unit in the transport. Simple and clean.

Mannahnin wrote:You appear to be looking for excuses for the rules not to work. Your interpretation here is in conflict with how they do work. You're making a circular argument, using your conclusion as a premise to prove your own conclusion.

A) To measure the units affected by a particular wargear item with a radius effect, you measure to and from the model equipped with that wargear. Easy.
B) If that unit is embarked in a transport, instead of measuring to the model (which is now impossible, as it's physically off the table), you measure to the transport, just as you do when measuring to the unit in the transport. Simple and clean.

I'm not looking for excuses; on the contrary i'd prefer if it 'did' work they way you've indicated as i am a big Necron enthusiast.

I don't have any issue with your first point, just your second.
There are specific reasons that you are allowed within the rules to measure range to the embarked unit, (shooting, abilities, etc) most of which you've done an admirable job of pointing out previously. Unfortunately there is no specific rule which allows you to determine range to a specific model within the transport, which you would need to do in order to satisfy the conditions for 'The Vargards Duty'.

 Neorealist wrote:
Unfortunately there is no specific rule which allows you to determine range to a specific model within the transport, which you would need to do in order to satisfy the conditions for 'The Vargards Duty'.

So you're ignoring the KFF example, the Blood Chalice example, and others?

I'm not ignoring them, they just aren't applicable. Whatever it is that makes Zahndrekh oh so irresistable to Obyron, it is not a piece of wargear and would therefore not follow rules for such.

 Neorealist wrote:
I'm not ignoring them, they just aren't applicable. Whatever it is that makes Zahndrekh oh so irresistable to Obyron, it is not a piece of wargear and would therefore not follow rules for such.

Actually, it is a piece of wargear. Specifically, Obyron's Ghostwalk mantle.

Nope, that is inaccurate. The ghostwalk mantle is what Obyron uses to teleport with, sure. But the special rule which states all that good stuff about the proximity to Zahndrekh? it is one of his special abilities, specifically the one called 'The Vargard's Duty'.

That said, even if the Ghostwalk Mantle 'was' generating some sort of proximity-detecting aura, it's not Obyron that is in the Nightscythe in the example given, but Zandrekh. Surely no one is claiming that Zahndrekh can use another models' wargear for that purpose?

Neorealist wrote:Nope, that is inaccurate. The ghostwalk mantle is what Obryon uses to teleport with, sure. But the special rule which states all that good stuff about the proximity to Zahndrekh? it is one of his special abilities, specifically the one called 'The Vargard's Duty'.

That said, even if the Ghostwalk Mantle 'was' generating some sort of proximity-detecting aura, it's not Obyron that is in the Nightscythe in the example given, but Zandrekh. Surely no one is claiming that Zahndrekh can use another models' wargear for that purpose?

Nope, and I apologize for drinking the koolaid and responding on this distracting line of thought earlier. Mannahnin summed up the core claim pretty well earlier.

Mannahnin wrote:You appear to be looking for excuses for the rules not to work. Your interpretation here is in conflict with how they do work. You're making a circular argument, using your conclusion as a premise to prove your own conclusion.

A) To measure the units affected by a particular wargear item with a radius effect, you measure to and from the model equipped with that wargear. Easy.
B) If that unit is embarked in a transport, instead of measuring to the model (which is now impossible, as it's physically off the table), you measure to the transport, just as you do when measuring to the unit in the transport. Simple and clean.

I have not yet seen a specific rule or a rules based argument that contradicts it.

I don't know, i think the fact that there isn't a single rule allowing it is a pretty good place to start.

This thread has proven informative; there 'are' lots of discrete rules-concepts that are given permission to determine range to/from a transports' hull in proxy of the embarked unit inside.

Regrettably, 'The Vargard's Duty' isn't one of them by virtue of requiring the model be within 6" of Zandrekh himself. (not his unit, his wargear, or anything else that i've been able to find or have had brought to my attention that actually does have permission to do that.)

 Neorealist wrote:

Regrettably, 'The Vargard's Duty' isn't one of them by virtue of requiring the model be within 6" of Zandrekh himself. (not his unit, his wargear, or anything else that i've been able to find or have had brought to my attention ]that actually does have permission to do that.)

Assuming Zandrekh is a unit of one (ie isn't attached), would you say you could measure to the model?

rigeld2 wrote: Assuming Zandrekh is a unit of one (ie isn't attached), would you say you could measure to the model?

I do not believe we are given permission within the rules to measure to a specific embarked 'model' itself for any reason, even if measuring to the embarked 'unit' (which we have permission to do) would result in the exact same measurement as would be the case if Zandrekh was by himself in the 'scythe.

 Neorealist wrote:

rigeld2 wrote: Assuming Zandrekh is a unit of one (ie isn't attached), would you say you could measure to the model?

I do not believe we are given permission within the rules to measure to a specific embarked 'model' itself for any reason, even if measuring to the embarked 'unit' (which we have permission to do) would result in the exact same measurement as would be the case if Zandrekh was by himself in the 'scythe.

The KFF gives all units within 6" of the Mek a save.
The FAQ allows that save to be measured to a vehicle.
That's a measurement to a model in a vehicle.

rigeld2 wrote:
The KFF gives all units within 6" of the Mek a save.
The FAQ allows that save to be measured to a vehicle.
That's a measurement to a model in a vehicle.

A careful reading of the FAQ indicates that it gives measurement of range to an 'item' or 'wargear' found in a vehicle, not the model itself. Just because they are (for the purposes of range anyway) the same thing does not mean because you can do one you automatically can do the other.

 Neorealist wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
The KFF gives all units within 6" of the Mek a save.
The FAQ allows that save to be measured to a vehicle.
That's a measurement to a model in a vehicle.

A careful reading of the FAQ indicates that it gives measurement of range to an 'item' or 'wargear' found in a vehicle, not the model itself. Just because they are (for the purposes of range anyway) the same thing does not mean because you can do one you automatically can do the other.

Except the actual KFF rule (as posted in this thread) requires measuring to the Mek, not to the wargear.
So the FAQ is actually making the equality between a model and its wargear, and saying that you can measure to a model inside a vehicle.

Sure, measuring to the KFF normally requires measuring to the model which you would not normally be able to do from within a vehicle. The second FAQ note rectifies that by allowing you to measure to the 'item' itself instead when the model carrying it is embarked on a vehicle.

Make no mistake though, the 'KFF from within a vehicle' ruling is specific to wargear, it's not a general admission of ability to determine range to models.

 Neorealist wrote:
Sure, measuring to the KFF normally requires measuring to the model which you would not normally be able to do from within a vehicle. The second FAQ note rectifies that by allowing you to measure to the 'item' itself instead when the model carrying it is embarked on a vehicle.

Make no mistake though, the 'KFF from within a vehicle' ruling is specific to wargear, it's not a general admission of ability to determine range to models.

That's not what the FAQ says.
The question equates measuring to wargear and measuring to a model.
The answer gives allowance to do so using the hull of a vehicle.

rigeld2 wrote: That's not what the FAQ says.
The question equates measuring to wargear and measuring to a model.
The answer gives allowance to do so using the hull of a vehicle.

i cannot think of anything more eloquent than "uhh, yes it does?", so i'll quote the relevent entry here and let you be the judge.

FAQ Entry:
"Q: Do embarked passengers with 'area of effect’ wargear, such as the Big Mek’s Kustom Force Field, measure the range of such items from the hull of the transport they are embarked upon? (p78)
A: Yes. "
The pertinent points being the references to 'area of effect wargear', and the 'range of such items'.

 Neorealist wrote:

rigeld2 wrote: That's not what the FAQ says.
The question equates measuring to wargear and measuring to a model.
The answer gives allowance to do so using the hull of a vehicle.

i cannot think of anything more eloquent than "uhh, yes it does?", so i'll quote the relevent entry here and let you be the judge.

FAQ Entry:
"Q: Do embarked passengers with 'area of effect’ wargear, such as the Big Mek’s Kustom Force Field, measure the range of such items from the hull of the transport they are embarked upon? (p78)
A: Yes. "
The pertinent points being the references to 'area of effect wargear', and the 'range of such items'.

A) I've asked in the past to please stop using yellow as its hard for me to read.
B) the actual KFF rule requires measuring to the Mek. The FAQ does not say to measure to the wargear. It says to measure the range of the wargear from the hull of the transport. Nothing in that FAQ changes the target of what you measure to.

 Neorealist wrote:

rigeld2 wrote: That's not what the FAQ says.
The question equates measuring to wargear and measuring to a model.
The answer gives allowance to do so using the hull of a vehicle.

i cannot think of anything more eloquent than "uhh, yes it does?", so i'll quote the relevent entry here and let you be the judge.

FAQ Entry:
"Q: Do embarked passengers with 'area of effect’ wargear, such as the Big Mek’s Kustom Force Field, measure the range of such items from the hull of the transport they are embarked upon? (p78)
A: Yes. "
The pertinent points being the references to 'area of effect wargear', and the 'range of such items'.

And your failing to realize those items of wargear are on a specific model.

rigeld2 wrote:
A) I've asked in the past to please stop using yellow as its hard for me to read.
B) the actual KFF rule requires measuring to the Mek. The FAQ does not say to measure to the wargear. It says to measure the range of the wargear from the hull of the transport. Nothing in that FAQ changes the target of what you measure to.

A) Changing the font colour from your browser of choice should fix that right up for you

B) Yes, the actual KFF rule 'does' require measuring to the Mek. Regretably it is impossible to measure to the Mek itself when it is in a transport as there is no specific rule which gives you permission to do so. Fortunately however, you are still able to 'measure the range of such items' from the transports' hull instead, which is functionally identical in most cases.

Fragile wrote:And your failing to realize those items of wargear are on a specific model.

on the contrary: I realise that they are on the Mek just fine, I've just taken issue with conflating the ability to determine range on it's wargear with the ability to determine range on it's model when it is embarked.

 Neorealist wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
A) I've asked in the past to please stop using yellow as its hard for me to read.
B) the actual KFF rule requires measuring to the Mek. The FAQ does not say to measure to the wargear. It says to measure the range of the wargear from the hull of the transport. Nothing in that FAQ changes the target of what you measure to.

A) Changing the font colour from your browser of choice should fix that right up for you

Mobile Safari doesn't have that option afaik, and its not yellow specifically I have a problem with, but yellow on white - since the high contrast theme is the easiest to read. No matter, I've asked politely multiple times, you've treated me rudely multiple times, ill not bother anymore.

B) Yes, the actual KFF rule 'does' require measuring to the Mek. Regretably it is impossible to measure to the Mek itself when it is in a transport as there is no specific rule which gives you permission to do so. Fortunately however, you are still able to 'measure the range of such items' from the transports' hull instead, which is functionally identical in most cases.

Right - you're able to measure to the Mek from hull of the transport. That's a model, in case you weren't aware.

At this point it is probably best to leave Neo to it.

The rules have been clearly explained, theyre unwilling to listen

rigeld2 wrote:Mobile Safari doesn't have that option afaik, and its not yellow specifically I have a problem with, but yellow on white - since the high contrast theme is the easiest to read. No matter, I've asked politely multiple times, you've treated me rudely multiple times, ill not bother anymore.

I resent being called rude as i've been nothing but polite in each of my responses. In any case, i respect your right to your opinions and am not going to comment further on it.

rigeld2 wrote:Right - you're able to measure to the Mek from hull of the transport. That's a model, in case you weren't aware.

No, that isn't what it actually says. You have permission to measure range to the item within the transport, not the model carrying it. It's a small, but important distinction.

nosferatu1001 wrote:The rules have been clearly explained, theyre unwilling to listen

I don't feel such comments really add anything and are therefore not all that helpful to this discussion. Do you?

 Neorealist wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:Right - you're able to measure to the Mek from hull of the transport. That's a model, in case you weren't aware.

No, that isn't what it actually says. You have permission to measure range to the item within the transport, not the model carrying it. It's a small, but important distinction.

 Neorealist wrote:

FAQ Entry:
"Q: Do embarked passengers with 'area of effect’ wargear, such as the Big Mek’s Kustom Force Field, measure the range of such items from the hull of the transport they are embarked upon? (p78)
A: Yes. "
The pertinent points being the references to 'area of effect wargear', and the 'range of such items'.

Show me in that FAQ where it says to measure to the wargear. All you've pointed out so far is that some wargear has an area of effect and that such items are measured from the hull of a transport. Since, in the case of the KFF, the Mek is an embarked passenger he must measure the range from the hull of the transport. That doesn't mean the rules suddenly change to measure to his wargear instead of him.

You've quoted it yourself above: that FAQ note indicates that you measure the range of the item from the hull of the transport, and says nothing about allowing one to measure the 'range to the model' from the transport.

 Neorealist wrote:
You've quoted it yourself above: that FAQ note indicates that you measure the range of the item from the hull of the transport, and says nothing about allowing one to measure the 'range to the model' from the transport.

It actually says that for embarked passengers with items that have an area of effect, you measure range from the hull.
You keep skipping the embarked passengers like its unimportant, but its vitally important.

rigeld2 wrote: It actually says that for embarked passengers with items that have an area of effect, you measure range from the hull.
You keep skipping the embarked passengers like its unimportant, but its vitally important.

I'm not ignoring it, i just believe you are incorrect regarding the context.

If there are embarked passengers with 'area of effect' wargear, you are instructed to measure the 'range of such items' from the hull. At what point does that note give you permission to measure range to a specific embarked passenger?

 Neorealist wrote:

rigeld2 wrote: It actually says that for embarked passengers with items that have an area of effect, you measure range from the hull.
You keep skipping the embarked passengers like its unimportant, but its vitally important.

I'm not ignoring it, i just believe you are incorrect regarding the context.

If there are embarked passengers with 'area of effect' wargear, you are instructed to measure the 'range of such items' from the hull. At what point does that note give you permission to measure range to a specific embarked passenger?

You are measuring the range of a KFF from the hull.
What is the range of a KFF? 6"
What must the KFF be measured to? The Mek. The FAQ allows you to measure to the hull instead.

To those in the PRO position here, it's worth noting that Neorealist's arguments have been (relatively) polite. I don't recall him making a specific statement that he was making a case for RAW only, throwing RAI/HIWPI out the window, but that's how I interpreted it. Where better than YMDC for such a debate, right?

But it's also worth noting that while the tone of Neorealist's arguments have been relatively consistent, the content of them has not. He began by asking for a specific rule (not a rules based argument) that allowed the OP's scenario to function.

This was (imo) reasonable since he had (what he thought at the time was) a specific rule saying it did not work.

specific rule saying it does not work >>> a rules based argument saying it might/should work

That is no longer the point of contention, and a rules based argument vs a rules based argument is more subjective.

Neorealist, please let me know if I have described your position incorrectly. If so, I apologize and am eager to hear it stated more clearly directly from you.

rigeld2 wrote:You are measuring the range of a KFF from the hull.
What is the range of a KFF? 6"
What must the KFF be measured to? The Mek. The FAQ allows you to measure to the hull instead.

I've already indicated why the above is incorrect, please refer to my prior posts on the topic regarding the KFF. Given it's not included in the original OP and is only tangically relevent to our discussion, this will be the last post i type regarding KFFs interaction with transports; since we've wandered away from discussing Obryon and Zahndrekh a bit here.

To Sum: there is no rule explicitly allowing one to measure range to Zahndrekh specifically if he is embarked on a Transport, and therefore you cannot do it. This is my stance.

 Neorealist wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:You are measuring the range of a KFF from the hull.
What is the range of a KFF? 6"
What must the KFF be measured to? The Mek. The FAQ allows you to measure to the hull instead.

I've already indicated why the above is incorrect, please refer to my prior posts on the topic regarding the KFF. Given it's not included in the original OP and is only tangically relevent to our discussion, this will be the last post i type regarding KFFs interaction with transports; since we've wandered away from discussing Obryon and Zahndrekh a bit here.

To Sum: there is no rule explicitly allowing one to measure range to Zahndrekh specifically if he is embarked on a Transport, and therefore you cannot do it. This is my stance.

It's not a tangent at all.
To measure range for the KFF you're measuring to the embarked model.
To measure range for Zahndrekh you measure range to the embarked model.

 Neorealist wrote:
To Sum: there is no rule explicitly allowing one to measure range to Zahndrekh specifically if he is embarked on a Transport, and therefore you cannot do it. This is my stance.

To this I would say that there is no Zahndrekh in RAW game terms other that the Zahndrekh model and the Zahndrekh unit, either himself alone, or joined unit(s).

Zahndrekh exists in fluff and I love the guy. He is actually my favorite Necron back story.

As far as game rules, they start on p2 with "Models and Units" From a rules point of view there are Models and Units, not guys with fun back stories.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
oh, and I agree, the KFF is incredibly relevant.

Whereas in my opinion page 78 states that you can, because we are measuring a range to or from an embarked unit.

The only sliver of ambiguity was regarding measuring to an embarked model vs an embarked unit was dispelled with the FAQ ruling on the KFF, which makes absolutely clear that the same rule applies when we're talking about a particular member of an embarked unit.

The same rules work the same way for Fortune, Guide, Doom, the Kustom Force Field, Obyron's Ghostwalk Mantle in conjunction with The Varguard's duty, a GK Dread's Reinforced Aegis while it's embarked in a Stormraven, a Lord Commissar's Aura of Discipline, IG Command Radius (which the IG codex again speicifies is measured from the Chimera's hull if the officer is embarked), A Dark Angels or Space Marines Chapter Banner or Teleport Homer in a Rhino, Null Zone, a BA Blood Chalice, a Crucible of Malediction in a Raider or Venom, Straken's Cold Steel & Courage rule, a Space Wolf Runic Weapon in a transport, Ragnar Blackmane's War Howl, etc., etc. ad infinitum ad nauseum.

Indeed, it is not in the slightest tangentially related, it is directly related

You are told that, in order to measure the range of wargear (which you HAVE to measure to the model, as you have no other means to measure; Neo if you disagree please provide some real rules) you measure to the hull

Measuring to wargear is equivalent to measuring to the model. Both must be done to the hull of the vehicle

The rules are pretty clear here.

*sigh* alrighty. I suppose I should be asking the following question then:

The Faq entry for the KFF indicates that it is for wargear with an AoE. Even if you are able to determine range to a specific embarked model carrying it (note: i'm not saying you can, i'm just tired of arguing about the KFF) how does that in turn indicate you are able to determine range to an embarked model that is 'not' carrying any wargear that would provide such an effect?

In the scenario presented by the OP the question was wether or not Obyron can teleport without error if within 6" of a nightscythe carrying Zahndrekh. Zandrekh does not have any relevent wargear that would provide the 'homing' effect, and neither does Obyron for that matter. The ability is provided by one of Obyrons' special rules.

It still comes back to page 78. "If the players need to measure a range involving the embarked unit" you measure to and from the hull.

The KFF ruling and the IG Chimera rules for command radius are two examples where GW makes explicit that the same applies to a single model within that transport.

Because the fact that its wargear isn't the point - the point is that you're given permission to measure to the hull of the transport instead of the model.

 Mannahnin wrote:
It still comes back to page 78. "If the players need to measure a range involving the embarked unit" you measure to and from the hull.

I think it bears emphasis that "involving the embarked unit" is a particularly broad statement. It covers this situation as well as many others.

The NO position seems to be arguing that this broad statement does not cover the OP's question. I would disagree


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Any eldar players here? is there an equivalent ruling for Wraithsight?

That would seem to be a good parallel


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Q. If you have Wraithguards embarked in a Wave Serpent, do they
still have to make the Wraithsight roll? If yes, can a friendly psyker
within 6” of the vehicle prevent them from making this roll? (p46)
A. Yes, and yes. However, if they fail their Wraithsight roll and
the Wave Serpent is destroyed during that same player turn, all
of the Wraithguards are destroyed as well.

Good call! There's actually a ruling in the Eldar FAQ which demonstrates the same principle in regards to Wraithsight.

Eldar FAQ wrote:Q. If you have Wraithguards embarked in a Wave Serpent, do they still have to make the Wraithsight roll? If yes, can a friendly psyker within 6” of the vehicle prevent them from making this roll? (p46)
A. Yes, and yes. However, if they fail their Wraithsight roll and the Wave Serpent is destroyed during that same player turn, all of the Wraithguards are destroyed as well.

Edit: Ninja'd.

I'll have to agree; the eldar faq indicating wraithguard can check if a friendly psyker is within 6" while inside a transport has strong parallels to the situation we've been discussing.

They are both special abilities with a range of 6" and involve a transport. That said one is measuring 'from' a unit within a transport to a specific model outside on the table (wraithsight) and the other is trying to measure specifically 'to' a model within a transport that therefore has been removed from the table. (the vargards duty)

In truth the ruling would be closer in theme if you could measure 6" to an 'embarked' psyker from a wraithguard squad outside a transport as well. I'm not as familiar with the eldar codex and FAQ as i'd need to be to speak authoratively on it, so can anyone point out if there is a ruling allowing that too?

There is no explicit second ruling covering the exact same situation, but for the psyker embarked and the wraiths not. It would seem absurd for it not to work the same way.

Remember that GW frequently chooses/phrases the questions in the FAQs to provide additional information. In this case, using the situation of the Wraiths being embarked allowed them to simultaneously address the question of how/whether they can disembark if they've failed Wraithsight.

I don't know about that:

Wraithsight (and the FAQ ruling) allow you to determine range to a model that is located on the table. There is a physical psyker model to draw that range 'to' and the lack of a unit to draw that range 'from' is handily addressed by the 'Transport' rules that allows you to determine range to the hull of the vehicle in proxy of the unit inside.

The other situation has you trying to determine range 'from' a model on the table (Obyron) 'to' a specific model that is both not on the table at that moment 'and' that doesn't have a specific FAQ ruling or rule allowing you to determine range to the hull of it's transport in proxy of itself.

If there was an FAQ update or something which explicitly presents the reverse scenario it'd be a much stronger precident for allowing the above.

 Neorealist wrote:
I don't know about that

I'm not sure you will have much luck pressing the argument that while the FAQ shows A is within 6" of B, B is not necessarily within 6" of A.

I agree that in a perfect world, we would have explicit faqs covering every possible contingency. 40k is not a perfect world. It and it's rules are not fully illuminated - they are Grim Dark

It's not hard as that argument in basic logic is also known as a 'Logical Fallacy'.
I have some apples and oranges.

A = Apples.
B = Oranges.
C = Fruit.


A = C, but does C (only and specifically) = A? (the answer is 'no' as i also have oranges.) (or to make this more 40k applicable: many other kinds of scenarios not covered under the rules currently like the one we are discussing)

So what happens then if you have an IC that was chosen as your bloodswarm nanoscarab target and that IC is in a transport with another unit and I decide to deep strike my flayed ones within 6 inches of the vehicle?

Would you (neorealist) say that you couldn't benefit from that rule in that situation either?

 Neorealist wrote:
It's not hard as that argument in basic logic is also known as a 'Logical Fallacy'.
I have some apples and oranges.

A = Apples.
B = Oranges.
C = Fruit.


A = C, but does C (only and specifically) = A? (the answer is 'no' as i also have oranges.) (or to make this more 40k applicable: many other kinds of scenarios not covered under the rules currently like the one we are discussing)

Except we don't have 3 things, we have two. You're inventing that logical fallacy.

 Neorealist wrote:
It's not hard as that argument in basic logic is also known as a 'Logical Fallacy'.
I have some apples and oranges.

A = Apples.
B = Oranges.
C = Fruit.


A = C, but does C (only and specifically) = A? (the answer is 'no' as i also have oranges.) (or to make this more 40k applicable: many other kinds of scenarios not covered under the rules currently like the one we are discussing)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

I did not say A = C, B = C, thus A = B, nor would I in your apples and oranges strawman misrepresentation of my statement. I would much more likely use a Ven Diagram or argue Set theory.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Neorealist wrote:
It's not hard as that argument in basic logic is also known as a 'Logical Fallacy'.
I have some apples and oranges.

A = Apples.
B = Oranges.
C = Fruit.


A = C, but does C (only and specifically) = A? (the answer is 'no' as i also have oranges.) (or to make this more 40k applicable: many other kinds of scenarios not covered under the rules currently like the one we are discussing)

Except we don't have 3 things, we have two. You're inventing that logical fallacy.

Indeed. The excluded middle fallacy doesnt apply hwen you only have 2 things....

This debate has had many 'things'. I shall list some of them for you:

A) Wether or not Obyron can be said to be near enough to Zahndrekh for his ability to work
B) Wether or not a Kustom Force Field is precident enough to say the above is true.
C) Wether or not the ruling on Wraithguard is precident enough to say the above is true.
D) The definition of 'in play'
E) The definition of a 'unit' and a 'model' and how they differ.
F) The effects of the 'Transport' rules.

I was saying that just because wraithguard can draw range to a psyker on a battlefield does not necessarily mean that Obyron can draw range to Zahndrekh and to imply otherwise is to engage in a logical fallacy. Anyone have a specific issue with that apart from some sort of opinion that it is a 'straw man' or something equally non-contributory to the discussion at hand?

I just think it comes down to a fundamentally simple rule, which is that when you have a unit (or model in a unit, as clarified by the BRB FAQ ruling) in a transport, that radius effects involving them are measured to and from the transport's hull. This works consistently throughout the game, in literally more than a dozen different instances and every codex which has transports.

Yep, the p78 Embarking rule about measuring from the hull for "a range involving the embarked unit" is the core rule, with many, many clarifying faq entries affirming the general principle.