Just a thought that popped into my head. Open topped means that the units inside a vehicle suffer the same penalties & modifiers as the vehicle (specifically calling out for moving & shooting).
If a SAG mek moves to a battlewagon and gets in, and the battlewagon doesn't move, is the SAG mek at -1 to hit when he shoots for having a heavy weapon?
some bloke wrote: Just a thought that popped into my head. Open topped means that the units inside a vehicle suffer the same penalties & modifiers as the vehicle (specifically calling out for moving & shooting).
If a SAG mek moves to a battlewagon and gets in, and the battlewagon doesn't move, is the SAG mek at -1 to hit when he shoots for having a heavy weapon?
Open Topped does not say they no longer suffer their own penalties, so the model still counts as moving even if it's open-topped transport did not. When they do so all restrictions and modifiers that apply to this model (the open-topped) also apply to the shooting model... But not ONLY the restrictions and modifiers that apply to this model (the open-topped transport)...
Transports
Embarked units cannot normally do anything or be affected in any way whilst they are embarked.
The minus to hit would affect it in any way. So no, you dont suffer the penalty. If, however, the open topped vehicle would get any hit modifications the embarked passengers would get those as well.
Transports
Embarked units cannot normally do anything or be affected in any way whilst they are embarked.
The minus to hit would affect it in any way. So no, you dont suffer the penalty. If, however, the open topped vehicle would get any hit modifications the embarked passengers would get those as well.
It is not a "normal" situation, as they have been given permission to shoot. Therefore usual effects of shooting apply.
Open Topped does not say Replace the unit's status with the vehicle's status, it says the unit has the same status as the vehicle. So IN ADDITION to being inside the stationary Open Topped vehicle, the unit moved to embark and counts as moving.
If you really want to fry your noodle, start wondering if a model that DIDN'T need to move to embark counts as moving for entering an open topped transport and then shooting. If the unit is already within 3" before the open topped transport moves, they can embark. Debarking specifically says the model counts as moving, even if they don't move another inch. Embarking has no such callout.
Dadavester wrote: The unit moved, so it suffers the penalty for moving and firing heavy weapons.
Citation please where it says the unit that wants to embark has to to make a move if it wants to embark on a vehicle.
This is a good point. Removing a unit from the table does not necessarily mean they've moved.
It's somewhat similar to the deepstriking Executioner debate from the other day, except in this instance we are not explicitly told to count the unit as having moved.
So the question here with a unit going from a location on the battlefield to 'null' location, does that constitute moving in itself?
I don't know if a citation is necessarily required, because the unit is clearly not where it was, so it has certainly in a sense moved. The question is what the counts as in game.
I'm leaning to this being a grey area that has no RAW solution.
Dadavester wrote: The unit moved, so it suffers the penalty for moving and firing heavy weapons.
Citation please where it says the unit that wants to embark has to to make a move if it wants to embark on a vehicle.
The Op's question was if a unit moved to, and embarked upon, a battlewagon So the unit did move before embarking and as such suffers the -1.
Now if the question was regarding a stationary unit embarking on an open-topped transport and then shooting? That is different and tbhRAW probably doesn't count as moving. HIWPI is it suffers the -1, as would all of my group, but I accept that is maybe not strict RAW.
I run Orkz and, honestly, this seems a bit too cheesy to use in friendlies. But, I agree. Technically, once you Embark, you'd no longer take the penalty to hit. You could even Advance the unit and still shoot a Heavy weapon inside it. Again, this is VERY cheesy and likely to upset your opponent immensely, but it IS RAW.
Here's the Open-Topped Rule, for reference.
Open-topped: Models embarked on this model can attack in their Shooting phase. Measure the range and draw line of sight from any point on this model. When they do so, any restrictions or modifiers that apply to this model also apply to its passengers; for example, the passengers cannot shoot if this model Fell Back in the same turn, cannot shoot (except with Pistols) if this model is within 1" of an enemy unit, and so on.
As you can see, because of the Transport rule saying that a unit is unaffected by, and cannot do, anything while embarked, the Open-Topped rule only applies the following caveats to that: the unit inside can shoot and any modifiers or restrictions the Transport has applies to the occupants as well. The only RAW way to reconcile both rules so they both work is that any modifiers or restrictions that apply only to the embarked unit would no longer apply once Embarked.
"Embarked units cannot normally do anything or be affected in any way whilst they are embarked. Unless specifically stated, abilities that affect other units within a certain range have no effect whilst the unit that has the ability is embarked."
Where does it say the -1 to hit doesn't apply? It doesn't. It states abilities that affect other units within a certain range have no effect. The -1 to hit from moving is not an ability.
So a unit that has moved and embarked suffers the -1 to hit. If you disagree can you provide a citation showing it?
Well, right in your quote: "...cannot be affected in any way..." Emphasis mine. Unless you can come up with a coherent argument that applying a penalty to hit is somehow not being affected in any way, then the rules technically allow moving, embarking, and then firing without penalty. You may not like it (I sure as hell don't, and it ain't something I would allow in any game I'd play), but if you wanna argue RAW, you gotta have your RAW straight. If you wanna argue HIWPI, that's fine, but be sure to make that distinction.
flandarz wrote: I run Orkz and, honestly, this seems a bit too cheesy to use in friendlies. But, I agree. Technically, once you Embark, you'd no longer take the penalty to hit. You could even Advance the unit and still shoot a Heavy weapon inside it. Again, this is VERY cheesy and likely to upset your opponent immensely, but it IS RAW.
Here's the Open-Topped Rule, for reference.
Open-topped: Models embarked on this model can attack in their Shooting phase. Measure the range and draw line of sight from any point on this model. When they do so, any restrictions or modifiers that apply to this model also apply to its passengers; for example, the passengers cannot shoot if this model Fell Back in the same turn, cannot shoot (except with Pistols) if this model is within 1" of an enemy unit, and so on.
As you can see, because of the Transport rule saying that a unit is unaffected by, and cannot do, anything while embarked, the Open-Topped rule only applies the following caveats to that: the unit inside can shoot and any modifiers or restrictions the Transport has applies to the occupants as well. The only RAW way to reconcile both rules so they both work is that any modifiers or restrictions that apply only to the embarked unit would no longer apply once Embarked.
As you can see the Open Topped Rule does not say any restrictions or modifiers that apply to the passenger no longer apply to the passenger. And the restrictions/modifiers of "movement" on shooting are not abilities that affect other units within a certain range. A unit of sniper scouts that jumped on a Land Speeder Storm still get to pick not closest characters. And having typed that out, I'm now thoroughly entertained. I'm just wondering if I'm entertained enough to do this.
But the Transport rule DOES say that, in that it states "...cannot be affected in any way..." The second sentence of the rule is a separate clause, specifying that, to paraphrase, auras don't work when Embarked. As I stated, the only way to reconcile both the Transport rule and the Open-Topped rule is that the latter provides specific exceptions to the former, and that anything not specified under Open-Topped still falls under the Transport rule.
Dadavester wrote: The unit moved, so it suffers the penalty for moving and firing heavy weapons.
Citation please where it says the unit that wants to embark has to to make a move if it wants to embark on a vehicle.
This is a good point. Removing a unit from the table does not necessarily mean they've moved.
It's somewhat similar to the deepstriking Executioner debate from the other day, except in this instance we are not explicitly told to count the unit as having moved.
So the question here with a unit going from a location on the battlefield to 'null' location, does that constitute moving in itself?
I don't know if a citation is necessarily required, because the unit is clearly not where it was, so it has certainly in a sense moved. The question is what the counts as in game.
I'm leaning to this being a grey area that has no RAW solution.
This. No RAW to cover it so a thread trying to pull the syntax apart isn’t going to bear fruit. If you’re trying to pretend the unit teleported into their vehicle because RAWblahblah then it’s gamey guff that’s really not in the spirit of the game. In-universe they moved so HIWPI is treat them as moving. A unit that moved and fires Heavy suffers the -1.
flandarz wrote: But the Transport rule DOES say that, in that it states "...cannot be affected in any way..." The second sentence of the rule is a separate clause, specifying that, to paraphrase, auras don't work when Embarked. As I stated, the only way to reconcile both the Transport rule and the Open-Topped rule is that the latter provides specific exceptions to the former, and that anything not specified under Open-Topped still falls under the Transport rule.
It says they cannot NORMALLY do anything or be affected in any way. We're already outside of normal into Special Case by the fact that they can shoot.
Can Shotgun scouts in a Storm that advances still shoot their assault shotguns? I mean not counting the RAW Assault Weapons can't shoot after advancing meme...
Do Orks get their bonus shots on 6's?
On the turn it moves and embarks, the unit has their own status, and their transport's status. After that they just have their transport's status until they disembark (because they're not on the table to generate their own)
Despite the lack of concise wording, it would be disingenuous to say you count as moving when disembarking but you do not when you're embarking. FWIW, being removrd via embark mechanics is still nonetheless a form of displacement that occurs during movement phase. YMMV, as always however.
Just to clarify, I would never play it that I didn't move to get in the vehicle. I was just curious as to whether there was any such RAW to explain such a scenario.
I don't have the rulebook to hand, but I'm pretty sure that:
1: a unit can move 0" and, providing it declares it, count as moving.
2: Embarking will state "A unit which ends its move within 3" of a transport...", meaning you have to start a move to finish a move, ergo you moved.
As for the whole "cannot normally be affected" scenario, I've said my piece enough times on that one. I'll just say that you are affected because shooting isn't normal, and leave it at that.
Guys just go with RAW and stop interpreting so much. Saying it’s not a normal case because it can shoot doesn’t matter. The unit does not count as being in existence on the battlefield EXCEPT for whatever is mentioned explicitly. They do not count as having moved and the rule specifically says it takes on the vehicles status. You cannot have your own status if you don’t exist for any other purposes.
skchsan wrote: Despite the lack of concise wording, it would be disingenuous to say you count as moving when disembarking but you do not when you're embarking. FWIW, being removrd via embark mechanics is still nonetheless a form of displacement that occurs during movement phase. YMMV, as always however.
Can you give me a citation for that ? If you cant then there is no move necessary to embark. And embarked unit dont count as having moved.
skchsan wrote: Despite the lack of concise wording, it would be disingenuous to say you count as moving when disembarking but you do not when you're embarking. FWIW, being removrd via embark mechanics is still nonetheless a form of displacement that occurs during movement phase. YMMV, as always however.
Can you give me a citation for that ? If you cant then there is no move necessary to embark. And embarked unit dont count as having moved.
Page 183 of the BRB, "Embark:
Embark: If all models in a unit end their move within 3" of a friendly transport, they can embark within it.
to end your move, you have to have moved - it's the end of a move, not the end of a movement phase, thus the model must move to end it's move within 3".
skchsan wrote: Despite the lack of concise wording, it would be disingenuous to say you count as moving when disembarking but you do not when you're embarking. FWIW, being removrd via embark mechanics is still nonetheless a form of displacement that occurs during movement phase. YMMV, as always however.
Can you give me a citation for that ? If you cant then there is no move necessary to embark. And embarked unit dont count as having moved.
Page 183 of the BRB, "Embark:
Embark: If all models in a unit end their move within 3" of a friendly transport, they can embark within it.
to end your move, you have to have moved - it's the end of a move, not the end of a movement phase, thus the model must move to end it's move within 3".
Citation provided!
To add, movement of 0", as is the case where the transport has moved within 3" rather than the unit trying to embark having moved, is still nonetheless a movement. As per RAW, if you declared the unit embarking has not moved for that turn, it cannot embark on a transport as it has not moved, because the unit trying to embark must end its move within 3" of a friendly transport.
GameDadZ wrote: Guys just go with RAW and stop interpreting so much. Saying it’s not a normal case because it can shoot doesn’t matter. The unit does not count as being in existence on the battlefield EXCEPT for whatever is mentioned explicitly. They do not count as having moved and the rule specifically says it takes on the vehicles status. You cannot have your own status if you don’t exist for any other purposes.
Embarked units cannot normally do anything or be affected in any way whilst they are embarked. Unless specifically stated, abilities that affect other units within a certain range have no effect whilst the unit that has the ability is embarked.
Open-topped: Models embarked on this model can attack in their Shooting phase. Measure the range and draw line of sight from any point on this model. When they do so, any restrictions or modifiers that apply to this model also apply to its passengers; for example, the passengers cannot shoot if this model Fell Back in the same turn, cannot shoot (except with Pistols) if this model is within 1" of an enemy unit, and so on.
The two rules in question. The former is the "normal" rules for units that are embarked. The latter provides specific exceptions to those rules. Anything it does not provide an exception for still remains "off the table". That includes penalties, bonuses, special abilities, etc.
Again, this is RAW but NOT HIWPI. And, seemingly, not how anyone else would play it either. It's stupid, cheesy, lame, and counterintuitive. But, it wouldn't be the first time that some real dumb RAW was ignored by the entire community (including GW themselves). *looks at Assault Weapons*
to end your move, you have to have moved - it's the end of a move, not the end of a movement phase, thus the model must move to end it's move within 3".
Citation provided!
No, sorry. I can select a unit to move, dont move it, and it has ended its movement within 3" of the transport, if the transport moved within 3" of the unit who wants to embark.
to end your move, you have to have moved - it's the end of a move, not the end of a movement phase, thus the model must move to end it's move within 3".
Citation provided!
No, sorry. I can select a unit to move, dont move it, and it has ended its movement within 3" of the transport, if the transport moved within 3" of the unit who wants to embark.
By selecting a unit to move, and move it 0", and ending its movement within 3" of a transport still fulfills the condition of having ended the move within 3".
A unit which all of its models are within 3" of a transport that is not selected to move in the movement phase cannot embark on a transport because it did not end a move.
A unit which all of its models are within 3" of a transport that is not selected to move in the movement phase cannot embark on a transport because it did not end a move.
I select a unit to move which is within 3" of the transport, dont move it, and it has ended its movement within 3" of the transport.
to end your move, you have to have moved - it's the end of a move, not the end of a movement phase, thus the model must move to end it's move within 3".
Citation provided!
No, sorry. I can select a unit to move, dont move it, and it has ended its movement within 3" of the transport, if the transport moved within 3" of the unit who wants to embark.
By selecting a unit to move, and move it 0", and ending its movement within 3" of a transport still fulfills the condition of having ended the move within 3".
A unit which all of its models are within 3" of a transport that is not selected to move in the movement phase cannot embark on a transport because it did not end a move.
I select a unit to move which is within 3" of the transport, dont move it, and it has ended its movement within 3" of the transport.
Which, in fact is a direct contradiction to your prior statement:
skchsan wrote: Despite the lack of concise wording, it would be disingenuous to say you count as moving when disembarking but you do not when you're embarking. FWIW, being removrd via embark mechanics is still nonetheless a form of displacement that occurs during movement phase. YMMV, as always however.
Can you give me a citation for that ? If you cant then there is no move necessary to embark. And embarked unit dont count as having moved.
So, which is it that you're claiming? That a movement of 0" does not constitute as a movement?
to end your move, you have to have moved - it's the end of a move, not the end of a movement phase, thus the model must move to end it's move within 3".
Citation provided!
No, sorry. I can select a unit to move, dont move it, and it has ended its movement within 3" of the transport, if the transport moved within 3" of the unit who wants to embark.
If you select a unit to move, then the unit counts as having moved by your declaration that it is moving. If it's not moving, you don't select it to move.
A unit that is selected to move, and moves 0", didnt move. If a transport moves within 3" of a unit who wants to embark the unit can be selected to move, and then move 0", ending its movement within 3" of a transport. Requirements for embarking fulfilled, without moving.
p5freak wrote: A unit that is selected to move, and moves 0", didnt move.
Incorrect, it moved 0".
We know that a model in a unit that is selected to move that doesn't itself move does not count as moving. Eg if you have a tactical squad and move most of it but leave the guy with the missile launcher stationary.
So I'm not sure that doesn't apply to the whole unit.
p5freak wrote: A unit that is selected to move, and moves 0", didnt move.
Incorrect, it moved 0".
Citation please. As Stux said, if a model with a RL didnt move, but all others models did move, the RL model didnt move. Thus, if all models remain stationary, nobody moved.
p5freak wrote: A unit that is selected to move, and moves 0", didnt move. If a transport moves within 3" of a unit who wants to embark the unit can be selected to move, and then move 0", ending its movement within 3" of a transport. Requirements for embarking fulfilled, without moving.
Then, following what you say, if the unit is selected and moves 0" didn't move, then the unit didn't move for purposes of moving and embarking. If it didn't move it didn't end a move it didn't make.
All you need to embark it to end your move within 3" of a transport. The unit doesn't have to move. Pick unit to move, move 0", end tour move, transport is already within 3", it moved before the unit was selected to move. Embark, done.
p5freak wrote: All you need to embark it to end your move within 3" of a transport. The unit doesn't have to move. Pick unit to move, move 0", end tour move, transport is already within 3", it moved before the unit was selected to move. Embark, done.
p5freak wrote: A unit that is selected to move, and moves 0", didnt move.
Incorrect, it moved 0".
We know that a model in a unit that is selected to move that doesn't itself move does not count as moving. Eg if you have a tactical squad and move most of it but leave the guy with the missile launcher stationary.
So I'm not sure that doesn't apply to the whole unit.
Yes, and as per RAW, the said tac squad cannot embark on a transport because one of it's models did not "end the move" within 3". The unit has been selected to move, but not all models ended a move to be eligible for Embark rule
Embark: If all models in a unit end their move within 3" of a
friendly transport, they can embark within it. Remove the unit
from the battlefield and place it to one side – it is now embarked
inside the transport
p5freak wrote: A unit that is selected to move, and moves 0", didnt move.
Incorrect, it moved 0".
We know that a model in a unit that is selected to move that doesn't itself move does not count as moving. Eg if you have a tactical squad and move most of it but leave the guy with the missile launcher stationary.
So I'm not sure that doesn't apply to the whole unit.
Yes, and as per RAW, the said tac squad cannot embark on a transport because one of it's models did not "end the move" within 3". The unit has been selected to move, but not all models ended a move to be eligible for Embark rule
Embark: If all models in a unit end their move within 3" of a
friendly transport, they can embark within it. Remove the unit
from the battlefield and place it to one side – it is now embarked
inside the transport
RAW or not, that is patently absurd. Won't be following that reading for sure.
p5freak wrote: A unit that is selected to move, and moves 0", didnt move.
Incorrect, it moved 0".
We know that a model in a unit that is selected to move that doesn't itself move does not count as moving. Eg if you have a tactical squad and move most of it but leave the guy with the missile launcher stationary.
So I'm not sure that doesn't apply to the whole unit.
Yes, and as per RAW, the said tac squad cannot embark on a transport because one of it's models did not "end the move" within 3". The unit has been selected to move, but not all models ended a move to be eligible for Embark rule
Embark: If all models in a unit end their move within 3" of a
friendly transport, they can embark within it. Remove the unit
from the battlefield and place it to one side – it is now embarked
inside the transport
RAW or not, that is patently absurd. Won't be following that reading for sure.
Absurd, yes. Abso-'ffing-lutely. But at least it's consistent.
To some of us, claiming "I haven't [MOVED] my infantry with heavy weapon when I was embarking into this open topped vehicle, so I don't suffer -1 to hit penalty for moving and firing a heavy weapon" sound way more absurd. But each to their own.
If it embarked I can see an argument for it counting as moving. It isn't where it started its turn, so it has moved.
If the model has literally has not moved - that it is in the exact position it started the turn - then it has not moved. Regardless of whether it was selected for movement.
It's important to distinguish between "this is what the RAW says" and "this is HIWPI". I doubt many of a folks saying "when a unit embarks, it doesn't take any penalties from Moving or Advancing anymore" actually play that way. I gave the RAW answer above, but I certainly wouldn't play it that way. As I mentioned, it's lame and cheesy.
The RAW provides a common ground for all players to work with, but it shouldn't be the "end all, be all" solution to every problem you come across. Use your common sense, and come to an agreeable solution with your opponents. 40k is, after all, a game and if you or your opponent ain't having fun, you've failed to meet the goal of a "game".
Stux wrote: RAW or not, that is patently absurd. Won't be following that reading for sure.
It's also absurd that my Space Marines ever miss their shots. Can I also choose to not follow the reading that causes them to miss a third of all shots they take?
Oh this ripe old fallacy again. Can you stop pretending this is in any way analagous to [insert situation]? It’s always bunk when you post it.
It's arguably better than "it doesn't say I need to roll a 6-sided dice numbered 1 thru 6".
You can then pick another unit to move, until you have moved as many of your units as you wish.No model can be moved more than oncein each Movement phase.
You do not have to select a unit to move.
If you do select a unit to move, even if it moves 0" it has moved... this isn't that complicated,,, what is this moved 0" means it didn't move and did move at the same time non-sense. Seriously read what you writing, does it really make sense to you XD ?
On that note, looking at the OP, RAW seems to suggest that models that are not on the battlefield can not be effected in anyway, unless otherwise stated... this means the model is not effected by movement penalties for heavy/assault weapons, unless the open-topped vehicle is effected itself from moving, as that is specifically "otherwise stated."
now, I dont know if that is RAI, but i could see an argument for it being easier to aim while you lean your weapons out a firing port on a stationary vehicle then it is to shoot while/ruining or standing... it is a weapons platform after all.
I'll discuss this one with my opponent if I ever think it will come up. But RAW seems pretty obvious, RAI I can go 50/50 .
That’s not entirely true. You can select a unit to move and not move a model in it to avoid hit penalties for Heavy, so selecting doesn’t count as moving. We know this from the core rules. This “moving 0” is moving” is a misnomer.
What people have issue with is the idea that walking into a tank somehow doesn’t count as moving in some people’s view. The unit obviously moves on board... “BuT rAw!” is taking abstraction to the absurd. I’d wager most folk count embarking as moving, because otherwise it’s silly.
JohnnyHell wrote: That’s not entirely true. You can select a unit to move and not move a model in it to avoid hit penalties for Heavy, so selecting doesn’t count as moving. We know this from the core rules. This “moving 0” is moving” is a misnomer.
Actually the rules dont say this. Its common sense that a model that stands still didnt move.
What people have issue with is the idea that walking into a tank somehow doesn’t count as moving in some people’s view. The unit obviously moves on board... “BuT rAw!” is taking abstraction to the absurd. I’d wager most folk count embarking as moving, because otherwise it’s silly.
The rules dont say that a unit has to move if they want to embark. All they have to do, is to end their move within 3" of a transport, and they are removed from the battlefield, which doesnt mean they moved. A disembarking unit didnt move either, it is set up.
You keep arguing RAW against HIPWI. I shan’t engage with that because it’s pointless.
And the rules do say a model that stands still doesn’t move, because otherwise Heavy weapons in a squad where all other models moved would suffer a -1, and it doesn’t. Movement is demonstrably not a unit status. It’s model by model. RAW. Read and comprehend my posts properly please, don’t jump straight to rebuttals for rebuttals’ sake.
SO we can all agree then that if you move a unit but leave a model stationary, then that model has not moved, ergo you can have units which have moved and models which have not moved.
I think that's safe to say.
The next bit then is the question:
Can a model end its move (not "Movement Phase", but "Move") when it has elected not to move?
I think no, in order to end a move, you have to start a move, and thus to start and end a move, you count as having moved, even if you didn't move. You can instead elect not to move, and thus not end a move (having not moved). you will have skipped the start-a-move, end-a-move part of the Movement Phase.
Stating that simply because the model made it through the movement phase, it ended a move, is the same as stating that a model which does not shoot this turn must still roll for an "after this unit shoots" ability (EG flashgits). It's wrong.
Thus, if you cannot end a move without moving (end a move not being synonymous with ending a movement phase) then you cannot embark on a vehicle without moving.
Whether or not you believe that this has an effect on models in an open-topped transport is up to you, but the crux of this is: Can you embark onto a vehicle without moving. I think that you can't.
Let's take this method of thinking to a fictional scenario:
We have a unit with a heavy weapon, and an ability which means that if it moves in the movement phase, it gets +1 to it's save. I don't know if such a unit exists, but let's pretend it does.
p5freak's way of approaching this means the unit can move 0" in the movement phase, gain +1 to saves and, having not moved, not suffer -1 to hit with the heavy weapon.
My way of approaching this is that the unit can move 0", gain +1 to saves, but also suffer -1 to hit with the heavy weapon, as moving 0" = moving.
In an actual example, under p5freak's stance, I choose to advance my darkshroud, move it 0". Jink is now active because I advanced. But since I moved 0", which is like saying it was stationary, I can shoot with my heavy bolter.
Let's rephrase/clarify the concept of 0" movement for discussion's sake.
By 'movement of 0"' we mean that as to mean 'net displacement of 0"'. This means the model has moved, but it's location is the same. Think of it as moving directly forward 3", then moving direct backwards by 3". In total, you've displaced the model 6" (|3"| + |-3"| = 6"), but your relative location is the same (3" + (- 3") = 0"). If a model with a heavy weapon moved up 3" then back 3", it did not 'not moved' - it most certainly moved 6", but it moved in a way that placed him right where he started. Because he moved, he suffers -1 to hit penalty.
By being 'stationary,' the model did not make any sort of movement, whatsoever.
Isn't there also an FAQ that says you have to be able to move to embark. I. E. If you are in melee, surrounded, unless you can fly you can't embark. Doesn't not movimg constitute a similar game state of being unable to move... Again in relation to the OP I don't think this matters because a model that is not on the battlefield is not affected in anyway unless otherwise stated... But you have to move in order to embark, definitely an FAQ on this.
Type40 wrote: Isn't there also an FAQ that says you have to be able to move to embark. I. E. If you are in melee, surrounded, unless you can fly you can't embark. Doesn't not movimg constitute a similar game state of being unable to move... Again in relation to the OP I don't think this matters because a model that is not on the battlefield is not affected in anyway unless otherwise stated... But you have to move in order to embark, definitely an FAQ on this.
Right. But put more accurately, you must be able to end a move in order to embark. If you are unable to end a move, in this particular case you rbing up, due to being unable to move, then you cannot embark into a transport.
Regarding the second part of your post, let's take another extreme example of this.
Let's say a troupe all equipped with fusion pistol advances, ending it's move within 3" of a Starweaver upfield within 6" of enemy model. The Troupe embarks onto the Starweaver. Because embarking "removes" the state of being "affected" by having advanced and thus not being able to fire any ranged weapon except for assault type, the Troup now shoots their fusion pistols while embarked on the Starweaver.
Does that sound like something you'd agree with? So not only have you gained an ability to advance and shoot a pistol, you've effectively gained d6" + 3" + 60mm on the range of your fusion pistol. Maybe this is what GW intended, maybe not.
Hmm... well, I think you have a point, but it bears noting that you select units to move and/or Advance, but you don't necessarily have to move every model in that unit, and the "penalties" for moving or Advancing apply on a per model basis. Also important to note that, in your example, you wouldn't be able to shoot your Heavy Bolters because the unit Advanced, even if you moved nowhere. And, the rules for shooting state that you "pick a unit" to shoot. Because the unit Advanced, it stopped being a valid choice to shoot it's Heavy Weapons. Mostly because GW kinda messed up.
Automatically Appended Next Post: As for the second example, I certainly wouldn't agree with it. But I also couldn't argue that it isn't RAW to do. I'd just stop playing with someone who wants to cheese the system.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Despite claims to the contrary, going by strict RAW doesn't exempt you from TFG status.
flandarz wrote: Despite claims to the contrary, going by strict RAW doesn't exempt you from TFG status.
Claiming the most absurd-est possible interpretation of the RAW in order to game the system would make you TFG though.
The key when RAW is not clear (as to have multiple possible meaning) is to go with the interpretation that yields the most consistent application of the rule as possible.
Not necessarily. There's a real consistent RAW that literally no one uses. That being not being able to fire Assault Weapons after Advancing. As mentioned above, units that have Advanced are unable to chosen to shoot, but the Assault rule only says "this model may shoot after Advancing". I doubt there's many folks who go by the strict RAW that because you don't choose models to shoot, you can't fire Assault weapons, but it IS consistent.
Same for this case. Removing modifiers from units that Embark IS consistent. It's still a TFG thing to do, though.
flandarz wrote: Not necessarily. There's a real consistent RAW that literally no one uses. That being not being able to fire Assault Weapons after Advancing. As mentioned above, units that have Advanced are unable to chosen to shoot, but the Assault rule only says "this model may shoot after Advancing". I doubt there's many folks who go by the strict RAW that because you don't choose models to shoot, you can't fire Assault weapons, but it IS consistent.
Same for this case. Removing modifiers from units that Embark IS consistent. It's still a TFG thing to do, though.
Not affected =! remove preexisting modifiers. There's not enough information for you to claim otherwise.
You cannot detach interpretation even if you claim "but its RAW!!". RAW is still nonetheless an interpretation (that which attempts to be as unbiased as humanly possible) of the written text.
It literally says "not affected by anything". Unless there's another definition for "anything" that I don't know, that would still include "preexisting modifiers". I don't know what else to tell ya, champ. You got the Transport rules, then the Open-Topped rules which only grant specific exceptions to those rules. Neither one says "not affected by anything except preexisting modifiers". If your argument is RAI, that's fine. But you can't really argue the RAW. It's right there, in black and white. I quoted it, and others have as well.
flandarz wrote: It literally says "not affected by anything". Unless there's another definition for "anything" that I don't know, that would still include "preexisting modifiers". I don't know what else to tell ya, champ. You got the Transport rules, then the Open-Topped rules which only grant specific exceptions to those rules. Neither one says "not affected by anything except preexisting modifiers". If your argument is RAI, that's fine. But you can't really argue the RAW. It's right there, in black and white. I quoted it, and others have as well.
That's just HYWPI - to understand "cannot be .. affected in any way" as to mean "remove all pre-existing modifiers".
The RAW is ambiguous, and there are not enough information to determine your interpretation is the "right" one.
flandarz wrote: It literally says "not affected by anything". Unless there's another definition for "anything" that I don't know, that would still include "preexisting modifiers". I don't know what else to tell ya, champ. You got the Transport rules, then the Open-Topped rules which only grant specific exceptions to those rules. Neither one says "not affected by anything except preexisting modifiers". If your argument is RAI, that's fine. But you can't really argue the RAW. It's right there, in black and white. I quoted it, and others have as well.
Actually we can really argue the RAW. Taking the full sentence and not just a short excerpt, it's "Embarked units cannot normally do anything or be affected in any way whilst they are embarked." This does not say that things that affected them previous to embarking are removed. So, if you picked up a "moving" condition that causes a -1, that condition comes from your actions before embarking and would still apply, the same way that if you advanced before embarking you would still have the condition prohibiting you from shooting. Advancing and embarking does not remove the condition that the unit had advanced.
flandarz wrote: It literally says "not affected by anything". Unless there's another definition for "anything" that I don't know, that would still include "preexisting modifiers". I don't know what else to tell ya, champ. You got the Transport rules, then the Open-Topped rules which only grant specific exceptions to those rules. Neither one says "not affected by anything except preexisting modifiers". If your argument is RAI, that's fine. But you can't really argue the RAW. It's right there, in black and white. I quoted it, and others have as well.
Actually we can really argue the RAW. Taking the full sentence and not just a short excerpt, it's "Embarked units cannot normally do anything or be affected in any way whilst they are embarked." This does not say that things that affected them previous to embarking are removed. So, if you picked up a "moving" condition that causes a -1, that condition comes from your actions before embarking and would still apply, the same way that if you advanced before embarking you would still have the condition prohibiting you from shooting. Advancing and embarking does not remove the condition that the unit had advanced.
He's saying even the core rule ceases to apply because it is "affecting" the unit.
Though I would agree that if an embarked unit was a target of lasting debuffs (i.e. psychic powers), those modifiers will cease to function.
You are technically correct. As per GW, embarked units are no longer on the field, and units not on the field cannot do anything or be affected by anything. I'm pretty sure that "do anything or be affected by anything" covers everything in the core rules. Let me know if you find something in there that isn't "anything".
Let's assume a hypothetical. Let's say there's a universal magical law that states "you cannot be affected by illness while in a hospital". If you were sick outside of the hospital, and walked in, you would might still "be sick", but you would be "unaffected" by the consequences of it.
Same deal here. "Embarked units cannot normally do anything or be affected in any way whilst they are embarked". They were affected by these penalties while they were disembarked, but while embarked, they cannot be affected by anything. They still have the Moving and/or Advanced condition, but because they're embarked, they aren't affected by them.
Now, I don't think this is intended. And, again, I think it's jank. But, as written, it DOES provide immunity to "anything", including penalties for Advancing and/or Moving.
flandarz wrote: You are technically correct. As per GW, embarked units are no longer on the field, and units not on the field cannot do anything or be affected by anything. I'm pretty sure that "do anything or be affected by anything" covers everything in the core rules. Let me know if you find something in there that isn't "anything".
Let's assume a hypothetical. Let's say there's a universal magical law that states "you cannot be affected by illness while in a hospital". If you were sick outside of the hospital, and walked in, you would might still "be sick", but you would be "unaffected" by the consequences of it.
Same deal here. "Embarked units cannot normally do anything or be affected in any way whilst they are embarked". They were affected by these penalties while they were disembarked, but while embarked, they cannot be affected by anything. They still have the Moving and/or Advanced condition, but because they're embarked, they aren't affected by them.
Now, I don't think this is intended. And, again, I think it's jank. But, as written, it DOES provide immunity to "anything", including penalties for Advancing and/or Moving.
With a more normal reading of not being affected, there's a difference between not being being affected while embarked and being affected by something before you embark. You're still affected by the stuff from before you embark. They still have the effects from before they embark, but nothing that happens while they are embarked (i.e. nothing new) will affect them. Which one seems the more likely interpretation, the one where they're still affected by what they did before, or the magical stasis cube that throws out all rules while embarked?
flandarz wrote: I'm pretty sure that "do anything or be affected by anything" covers everything in the core rules.
This is the assumption you're making in the interpretation of the text in question. The written text does not specifically state for that quote to say "this covers everything in the core rules as well".
For all we know, the text could mean to say:
"Embarked units cannot normally do anything or be affected in any way whilst they are embarked, [including penalties imposed as a result of it's prior movement phase]"
or
"Embarked units cannot normally do anything or be affected in any way whilst they are embarked. [All pre-existing penalties, including but not limited to psychic debuffs and moving and firing heavy weapons]"
or
"Embarked units cannot normally do anything or be affected in any way [by any other units, only] whilst they are embarked."
or
"Embarked units cannot normally do anything or be affected in any way [by any other units, including the abilities the unit has on its datasheet] whilst they are embarked."
or
"Embarked units cannot normally do anything or be affected [any further] in any way whilst they are embarked."
and so on.
You seem to be mistaking that we're saying you're reading the RAW wrong. We are telling you that your definition of the RAW is actually in fact HYWPI or your own interpretation of the written text (which you are claiming is THE RAW!!).
There's literally not enough information given to us via rulebook to determine which interpretation is the most correct one.
Sure are a lot of extra words you're adding to the rule to support your case. In both of your interpretation, you're required to add caveats to the rule. "Unaffected by anything [except things you were affected with before embarking]", for example.
As before, I agree that this isn't intended. And, normally, it wouldn't be an issue because "Embarked units cannot do anything". So not being affected by anything meant nothing, as you couldn't do anything that would be affected.
The Open-Topped rule, which I quoted earlier, provides specific exceptions to the Transport rule. 1) can shoot. 2) draw LOS and Range from the vehicle. 3) modifiers that affect the Transport affect the occupants. 4) movement penalties incurred by the transport affect the passengers. None of these exceptions say "any abilities, movement penalties, buffs, or debuffs incurred by the unit prior to Embarking stay until they would normally be resolved."
And, yes. I include anything other than just what Open-Topped exempts in "anything". This means no Dakkax3, no Kultur benefits, no Ammo Grot rerolls, no Flash Gitz "shoot again on a 6", etc.
For me, this is the RAW of how the Transport Rules and the Open-Topped Rules interact. It's how both can apply, without adding extra meaning to either one. I, however, don't play this way and I strongly believe that GW just didn't consider this interaction when they wrote the Open-Topped rule. Which, to be fair, is pretty par for the course considering all the FAQs they release.
Tldr; It's RAW to be "unaffected" by everything but that Open-Topped specifically allows, but it certainly isn't RAI and it isn't how I would play the rule.
I wanna be clear: there are a LOT of rules in 40k which make no sense and that I don't like. I don't like that of there are two enemy units on opposites sides of the board, and one is a character and the other isn't, that I can't shoot the character if the other unit is 0.1 inches closer to me. It doesn't make sense. I don't like that an enemy vehicle blocks LOS to the unit behind it, but my own do not. It also doesn't make any sense. I don't like that a flamethrower will never miss a plane flying over the treetops. Again, it doesn't make sense. But I also can't argue that, by RAW, each of these things are in the game. So, at least, I can come up with a rational explanation as to why Move and Advance penalties no longer apply when Embarked (as mentioned earlier, the Embarked unit using the frame of the vehicle as a brace). I may not like the rule, but at least it makes more sense than many of the other readily accepted rules.
But, just because I don't like a rule doesn't mean I don't accept that it's RAW. Even if I think it's not intended, or that it makes no sense, it's still RAW. And while I may not play by that RAW, I can't argue that it isn't what it is. I can make my claims to intent and "common sense", and "houserule" it, but then it'll be just that. A house rule.
In this case, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree, cuz I still think this rule is unambiguous and clear-cut.
A unit which is embarked on a transport is not on the battlefield, and can't do anything, or be affected by anything. That's confirmed by the transports rule. An embarked unit can only do something if it gets special permission from another rule, like open topped. The unit can do what open topped allows it to do, no more, no less.
p5freak wrote: A unit which is embarked on a transport is not on the battlefield, and can't do anything, or be affected by anything. That's confirmed by the transports rule. An embarked unit can only do something if it gets special permission from another rule, like open topped. The unit can do what open topped allows it to do, no more, no less.
Yes, and then implicitly any rule that comes into affect as a direct result of shooting also applies.
p5freak wrote: A unit which is embarked on a transport is not on the battlefield, and can't do anything, or be affected by anything. That's confirmed by the transports rule. An embarked unit can only do something if it gets special permission from another rule, like open topped. The unit can do what open topped allows it to do, no more, no less.
How do you resolve [Gets Hot!] for overcharged plasma in your interpretation?
Type40 wrote: Isn't there also an FAQ that says you have to be able to move to embark. I. E. If you are in melee, surrounded, unless you can fly you can't embark. Doesn't not movimg constitute a similar game state of being unable to move... Again in relation to the OP I don't think this matters because a model that is not on the battlefield is not affected in anyway unless otherwise stated... But you have to move in order to embark, definitely an FAQ on this.
Right. But put more accurately, you must be able to end a move in order to embark. If you are unable to end a move, in this particular case you rbing up, due to being unable to move, then you cannot embark into a transport.
Regarding the second part of your post, let's take another extreme example of this.
Let's say a troupe all equipped with fusion pistol advances, ending it's move within 3" of a Starweaver upfield within 6" of enemy model. The Troupe embarks onto the Starweaver. Because embarking "removes" the state of being "affected" by having advanced and thus not being able to fire any ranged weapon except for assault type, the Troup now shoots their fusion pistols while embarked on the Starweaver.
Does that sound like something you'd agree with? So not only have you gained an ability to advance and shoot a pistol, you've effectively gained d6" + 3" + 60mm on the range of your fusion pistol. Maybe this is what GW intended, maybe not.
I was in a harlies v harlies match up at a tournament. And someone did exactly this to me. The TO said it was legit and RAW. I have been doing it at tournies ever since.
None of this is even about what the transport rule says. Its about what happens to models that are not on the battlefield. We know models not on the battlefield can not be affected by anything.
I wouldn't do this in a friendly casual game, but the RAW does support this, without stitching different sentences or ignoring anything. When a rule says "models not on the battlefield can't be affected in anyway', at least when RAW is concerned, we can't just arbitrarily decide that this one particular rule gets an exception.
Otherwise i'll argue that my Dark Apostle or Chaplain can use their prayers while embarked, because they were on the battlefield at some point.
When it comes to RAW, we don't get to pick and choose, its is what it is.
Now, on that note, if I am playing casually, I wont do that to my opponent, but if I am playing for all the marbles at the tourny, I will, and I expect other harly players to do the same. If my opponent in a casual game wants to do this, I'll probably say its fine, i'll just play more cut throat with that guy next time.
Embarked units cannot normally do anything or be affected in any way whilst they are embarked. Unless specifically stated, abilities that affect other units within a certain range have no effect whilst the unit that has the ability is embarked.
Open-topped: Models embarked on this model can attack in their Shooting phase. Measure the range and draw line of sight from any point on this model. When they do so, any restrictions or modifiers that apply to this model also apply to its passengers; for example, the passengers cannot shoot if this model Fell Back in the same turn, cannot shoot (except with Pistols) if this model is within 1" of an enemy unit, and so on.
The two rules in question. The former is the "normal" rules for units that are embarked. The latter provides specific exceptions to those rules. Anything it does not provide an exception for still remains "off the table". That includes penalties, bonuses, special abilities, etc.
Again, this is RAW but NOT HIWPI. And, seemingly, not how anyone else would play it either. It's stupid, cheesy, lame, and counterintuitive. But, it wouldn't be the first time that some real dumb RAW was ignored by the entire community (including GW themselves). *looks at Assault Weapons*
They're not being affected? They're shooting with all the bonuses and penalties that apply to them - both their own, and their transport's. They're not shooting because of a banner or a psychic power. They're shooting because of their own ability, and Open Topped, using the penalties and bonuses they incurred during the turn.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
flandarz wrote: It literally says "not affected by anything". Unless there's another definition for "anything" that I don't know, that would still include "preexisting modifiers". I don't know what else to tell ya, champ. You got the Transport rules, then the Open-Topped rules which only grant specific exceptions to those rules. Neither one says "not affected by anything except preexisting modifiers". If your argument is RAI, that's fine. But you can't really argue the RAW. It's right there, in black and white. I quoted it, and others have as well.
So they're not affected by... Open Topped? They Heavy/Assault/RapidFire/etc profile rules? If they're in the open topped transport and they're not affected by anything Open Topped is part of anything Weapon profile/type rules are anything
skchsan wrote:How do you resolve [Gets Hot!] for overcharged plasma in your interpretation?
RAW, you can overcharge, and you wouldnt die on a 1, because that would you affect in any way.
Breton wrote:
They're not being affected? They're shooting with all the bonuses and penalties that apply to them - both their own, and their transport's. They're not shooting because of a banner or a psychic power. They're shooting because of their own ability, and Open Topped, using the penalties and bonuses they incurred during the turn.
No, by RAW they are not affected by their own penalties and bonuses, they are not on the battlefield. They are not shooting because of their own ability, because they arent on the battlefield. They shoot following the open topped rule, no more, no less. It makes no sense, i dont like it either, but thats RAW.
flandarz wrote: Sure are a lot of extra words you're adding to the rule to support your case. In both of your interpretation, you're required to add caveats to the rule. "Unaffected by anything [except things you were affected with before embarking]", for example.
Those "caveats" are a summary of the various different interpretations of the same original rule not caveats. This should have been fairly obvious based on their mutual exclusivity.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
p5freak wrote: A unit which is embarked on a transport is not on the battlefield, and can't do anything, or be affected by anything. That's confirmed by the transports rule. An embarked unit can only do something if it gets special permission from another rule, like open topped. The unit can do what open topped allows it to do, no more, no less.
I'm sorry, Open Topped is part of "anything" As are all the weapon types. You can shoot, but you have no ability to choose a weapon, or for that weapon choice to mean anything, as you can't be affected by RapidFire, Assault, Pistol, Grenade and so on.
p5freak wrote: A unit which is embarked on a transport is not on the battlefield, and can't do anything, or be affected by anything. That's confirmed by the transports rule. An embarked unit can only do something if it gets special permission from another rule, like open topped. The unit can do what open topped allows it to do, no more, no less.
How do you resolve [Gets Hot!] for overcharged plasma in your interpretation?
You don't. Not being affected by anything means you can't be affected by RapidFire so you can't shoot a Rapid Fire weapon which tells you how many dice to roll for attacks.
p5freak wrote: Now you got it. The transports/open topped rules makes no sense.
They do to people who understand what normally means. Normally they can't, and don't. Open Topped provides an abnormal exception and the effects of that exception. People are taking models are affected by the transport's statuses to mean remove the original statuses when that's not what it says.
They're not being affected by something, they're applying the shooting rules to their shooting. The -1 to hit for moving and firing a heavy is part of the Heavy weapon type. If they're not affected by the Heavy weapon type rules they're shooting with, they're also not going to get to fire Heavy 1 can target a non-closest character sniper rifle rules either.
p5freak wrote: Now you got it. The transports/open topped rules makes no sense.
They do to people who understand what normally means. Normally they can't, and don't. Open Topped provides an abnormal exception and the effects of that exception. People are taking models are affected by the transport's statuses to mean remove the original statuses when that's not what it says.
They're not being affected by something, they're applying the shooting rules to their shooting. The -1 to hit for moving and firing a heavy is part of the Heavy weapon type. If they're not affected by the Heavy weapon type rules they're shooting with, they're also not going to get to fire Heavy 1 can target a non-closest character sniper rifle rules either.
Now you are talking house rules, and thats fine, because RAW is unplayable.
p5freak wrote: Now you got it. The transports/open topped rules makes no sense.
They do to people who understand what normally means. Normally they can't, and don't. Open Topped provides an abnormal exception and the effects of that exception. People are taking models are affected by the transport's statuses to mean remove the original statuses when that's not what it says.
They're not being affected by something, they're applying the shooting rules to their shooting. The -1 to hit for moving and firing a heavy is part of the Heavy weapon type. If they're not affected by the Heavy weapon type rules they're shooting with, they're also not going to get to fire Heavy 1 can target a non-closest character sniper rifle rules either.
Now you are talking house rules, and thats fine, because RAW is unplayable.
No, the -1 to hit with a heavy while moving is not a house rule, its a rule from the Heavy Weapon type in the Core Rules. Have you EVER even read the rules?
No, the -1 to hit with a heavy while moving is not a house rule, its a rule from the Heavy Weapon type in the Core Rules. Have you EVER even read the rules?
Which would affect a unit which is not on the battlefield in any way. Have your EVER even read the rules ?
Heavy: If a model with a heavy weapon moved in the preceding movement phase
In the OP scenario a unit moved to within 3" of the transport then embarked. They moved.
If a SAG mek moves to a battlewagon and gets in
The BRBFAQ suggests models in a transport, and the transport have their own statuses which may or may not be transferred back and forth.
Q: If a transport moves, do any models embarked inside it count
as also having moved?
A: Yes
So the Mek who moves to and then embarks on the Battlewagon moved in the preceding movement phase, and thus suffers a -1 to hit with Heavy Weapons because of the Heavy rule.
No, the -1 to hit with a heavy while moving is not a house rule, its a rule from the Heavy Weapon type in the Core Rules. Have you EVER even read the rules?
Which would affect a unit which is not on the battlefield in any way. Have your EVER even read the rules ?
I've read them enough to know a -1 to hit with heavy after moving isn't a house rule. I've read them enough to know "abilities" aren't limited to what's on the datasheet based on a half dozen or more pages of the rule book that refers to abilities NOT on the datasheet. I wonder who didn't read the rules enough to make THAT claim.
Breton wrote: From the Core Rules shooting weapon types:
Heavy: If a model with a heavy weapon moved in the preceding movement phase
In the OP scenario a unit moved to within 3" of the transport then embarked. They moved.
If a SAG mek moves to a battlewagon and gets in
The BRBFAQ suggests models in a transport, and the transport have their own statuses which may or may not be transferred back and forth.
Q: If a transport moves, do any models embarked inside it count
as also having moved?
A: Yes
So the Mek who moves to and then embarks on the Battlewagon moved in the preceding movement phase, and thus suffers a -1 to hit with Heavy Weapons because of the Heavy rule.
Irrelevant, a unit which isnt on the battlefield cant be affected in any way.
I've read them enough to know a -1 to hit with heavy after moving isn't a house rule. I've read them enough to know "abilities" aren't limited to what's on the datasheet based on a half dozen or more pages of the rule book that refers to abilities NOT on the datasheet. I wonder who didn't read the rules enough to make THAT claim.
You didnt read them thoroughly enough. A unit which isnt on the battlefield cant be affected in any way.
Okay, so now we've gone all the way to "A unit in an open topped transport cannot shoot because the rules only state that it can shoot".
Does it not become obvious at this point that, when faced with 2 interpretations, both of which conform to the English language and can be defined as RAW, and one suggestion completely contradicts half the rules, and the other only contradicts the aforementioned interpretation, then the second is probably the one to use?
To clarify:
Interpretation 1: "A model cannot normally be affected in any way whilst embarked. Whilst open topped overrules this rule to allow the model to shoot, the "Embarked" rule still stands and thus the model still cannot shoot, as this would cause it to be affected by the rules of shooting."
Interpretation 2: "A model normally cannot be affected in any way whilst embarked. Open-topped overrules this and allows the models to shoot. As this is not a "normal" scenario, the original rule is not used, and as such the shooting models can fire, and are affected by all the relevant rules for shooting whilst they do so, including overcharging, weapon profiles, and whether or not they moved before shooting. They also suffer penalties if the vehicle moves etc as per the open topped rules."
Both of these are RAW. because RAW was W terribly.
No doubt someone will ask me to prove how they are both RAW, and I will draw your attention to the word "normally", and the cycle will repeat again.
I personally think that, now that we have extended the term "affect" to completely invalidate the ability to shoot, then it's clearly the wrong way to do it.
Let's make another comparison.
A maths/physics question asks you to calculate the circumference of the earth, but has been written poorly and left one piece of information open to interpretation.
There are 2 answers because of this - one states the earth has a circumference of about 40,000Km The other states the circumference is about 400km. The method of calculation was correct in both, but the initial interpretation was wrong on one of them- and one of these answers is obviously more correct than the other.
Same goes here. One says you can't shoot despite being told you can, and contradicts all of the open-topped rules. The other states you can shoot, as per the open topped rules, and only contradict the previous interpretation.
Does Codex still trump rulebook? If so, then the answer is obvious - Open Topped is not in the rulebook, it's codex. Having established the "Embarked" rule contradicts "Open-Topped", then we can confidently say the Open Topped overrules Embarked. Thus you can shoot, and suffer penalties for doing so.
Dadavester wrote: "Units in a transport cannot be affect in any way"
This does not work with the FAQ that states,
"Q: If a transport moves, do any models embarked inside it count
as also having moved?
A: Yes"
So can units be affected whilst in transports or can they not?
If the Answer is "Yes, they can," which imo the FAQ implies, then they keep the -1 from moving.
This says if a transport moves. But it didnt say what happens if the transport moved before the unit embarks. When the unit gets inside the transport stands still.
But, i agree, it implies if the transport moves, an already embarked unit would suffer -1 to hit for moving.
This says if a transport moves. But it didnt say what happens if the transport moved before the unit embarks. When the unit gets inside the transport stands still.
But, i agree, it implies if the transport moves, an already embarked unit would suffer -1 to hit for moving.
"Q: If a transport moves, do any models embarked inside it count
as also having moved?
A: Yes"
If the Transport moves before the unit embarks, did the transport move? Yes, you say? Then it absolutely does tell you what happens when the transport moves before the unit embarks. The unit counts as moving.
If the unit moves before embarking, it suffers the -1. Its part of the Heavy rule. "If a model with a Heavy Weapon moved in the preceeding movement phase..." We're not talking about Rites of Battle, or a psychic power, etc. It's a basic rule of shooting with a Heavy Weapon.
There are 2 ways to interpret this imo, the transport rules below.
“Embarked units cannot normally do anything or be affected in any way whilst they are embarked. Unless specifically stated, abilities that affect other units within a certain range have no effect whilst the unit that has the ability is embarked.”
The way I read this is that units embarked on a transport cannot normally be affected in anyway, so abilities, auras and such cannot affect the unit.
“Open-topped: Models embarked on this model can attack in their shooting phase, measure the range and draw line of sight from any point on this model. When they do so, any restrictions or modifiers that apply to this model also apply to its passengers; for example, the passengers cannot shoot if this model Fell Back in the same turn, Cannot shoot except for pistols if this model is within 1” of an enemy unit, and so no.”
This allows a unit to shoot, and the rule specifies that passengers CAN be affected by modifiers. Nowhere does the open topped rule says it overrules normal shooting rules. Nowhere does it state a model moving and embarking on a transport is counted as not moving.
“Q:if a transport moves, do any models embarked inside it count as also having moved?
A: Yes
This FAQ shows that units CAN be affected, even if there is no Open-Topped rule.”
The open-topped rule allows you to attack in the shooting phase. A shooting attack takes into account the weapons Type EG Rapid fire, Heavy, Assault, Pistol. Because a unit CAN be affected, as shown above, a model that has moved and embarked onto a transport and then shoots a heavy weapon will shoot with -1.
By your interpretation an OC plasma rolling 1’s does not die, a unit that advanced into a transport can fire RF and fire Heavy weapons and Assault weapons with no penalty.
Dadavester wrote: "Units in a transport cannot be affect in any way"
This does not work with the FAQ that states,
"Q: If a transport moves, do any models embarked inside it count
as also having moved?
A: Yes"
So can units be affected whilst in transports or can they not?
If the Answer is "Yes, they can," which imo the FAQ implies, then they keep the -1 from moving.
This says if a transport moves. But it didnt say what happens if the transport moved before the unit embarks. When the unit gets inside the transport stands still.
But, i agree, it implies if the transport moves, an already embarked unit would suffer -1 to hit for moving.
Would you agree, by extension that a unit which can shoot must also use the rules involved in shooting?
In this example (which you have agreed with) the unit counts as moved - the FAQ ruling doesn't mention anything about open-topped. You've agreed that, if a unit counts as having moved, it wil lsuffer the -1 to hit with heavy weapons, even if it's in a vehicle - despite this not actually being referenced in the FAQ.
By your previous argument, the unit would count as moving, but not suffer the penalty as this counts as being "affected".
Having seen the FAQ saying that units in transports can be affected by the basic rules, would you agree that the correct interpretation is that which allows them to be?
Dadavester wrote: "Units in a transport cannot be affect in any way"
This does not work with the FAQ that states,
"Q: If a transport moves, do any models embarked inside it count
as also having moved?
A: Yes"
So can units be affected whilst in transports or can they not?
If the Answer is "Yes, they can," which imo the FAQ implies, then they keep the -1 from moving.
This says if a transport moves. But it didnt say what happens if the transport moved before the unit embarks. When the unit gets inside the transport stands still.
But, i agree, it implies if the transport moves, an already embarked unit would suffer -1 to hit for moving.
Would you agree, by extension that a unit which can shoot must also use the rules involved in shooting?
In this example (which you have agreed with) the unit counts as moved - the FAQ ruling doesn't mention anything about open-topped. You've agreed that, if a unit counts as having moved, it wil lsuffer the -1 to hit with heavy weapons, even if it's in a vehicle - despite this not actually being referenced in the FAQ.
By your previous argument, the unit would count as moving, but not suffer the penalty as this counts as being "affected".
Having seen the FAQ saying that units in transports can be affected by the basic rules, would you agree that the correct interpretation is that which allows them to be?
If i understand you correctly you are saying that the unit would count as moving, but not be affected by the -1 as it counts as being affected?
If this is what you saying i disagree 100%. The unit cannot NORMALLY be affected. Do not miss this word as it is key. Open topped is not normal as it allows the unit to shoot, therefore it can be affected by modifiers and such.
Dadavester wrote: "Units in a transport cannot be affect in any way"
This does not work with the FAQ that states,
"Q: If a transport moves, do any models embarked inside it count
as also having moved?
A: Yes"
So can units be affected whilst in transports or can they not?
If the Answer is "Yes, they can," which imo the FAQ implies, then they keep the -1 from moving.
This says if a transport moves. But it didnt say what happens if the transport moved before the unit embarks. When the unit gets inside the transport stands still.
But, i agree, it implies if the transport moves, an already embarked unit would suffer -1 to hit for moving.
Would you agree, by extension that a unit which can shoot must also use the rules involved in shooting?
In this example (which you have agreed with) the unit counts as moved - the FAQ ruling doesn't mention anything about open-topped. You've agreed that, if a unit counts as having moved, it wil lsuffer the -1 to hit with heavy weapons, even if it's in a vehicle - despite this not actually being referenced in the FAQ.
By your previous argument, the unit would count as moving, but not suffer the penalty as this counts as being "affected".
Having seen the FAQ saying that units in transports can be affected by the basic rules, would you agree that the correct interpretation is that which allows them to be?
If i understand you correctly you are saying that the unit would count as moving, but not be affected by the -1 as it counts as being affected?
If this is what you saying i disagree 100%. The unit cannot NORMALLY be affected. Do not miss this word as it is key. Open topped is not normal as it allows the unit to shoot, therefore it can be affected by modifiers and such.
No, I agree with you. I'm saying that this is what I expected from the other side of the discussion, and wish to see if this has swayed anyone's opinion on the topic.
Dadavester wrote: "Units in a transport cannot be affect in any way"
This does not work with the FAQ that states,
"Q: If a transport moves, do any models embarked inside it count
as also having moved?
A: Yes"
So can units be affected whilst in transports or can they not?
If the Answer is "Yes, they can," which imo the FAQ implies, then they keep the -1 from moving.
This says if a transport moves. But it didnt say what happens if the transport moved before the unit embarks. When the unit gets inside the transport stands still.
But, i agree, it implies if the transport moves, an already embarked unit would suffer -1 to hit for moving.
Would you agree, by extension that a unit which can shoot must also use the rules involved in shooting?
In this example (which you have agreed with) the unit counts as moved - the FAQ ruling doesn't mention anything about open-topped. You've agreed that, if a unit counts as having moved, it wil lsuffer the -1 to hit with heavy weapons, even if it's in a vehicle - despite this not actually being referenced in the FAQ.
By your previous argument, the unit would count as moving, but not suffer the penalty as this counts as being "affected".
Having seen the FAQ saying that units in transports can be affected by the basic rules, would you agree that the correct interpretation is that which allows them to be?
If i understand you correctly you are saying that the unit would count as moving, but not be affected by the -1 as it counts as being affected?
If this is what you saying i disagree 100%. The unit cannot NORMALLY be affected. Do not miss this word as it is key. Open topped is not normal as it allows the unit to shoot, therefore it can be affected by modifiers and such.
No, I agree with you. I'm saying that this is what I expected from the other side of the discussion, and wish to see if this has swayed anyone's opinion on the topic.
Ah ok, fair enough.
Another way to think of it is Normally it is not affected. Normally the unit cannot shoot, so open topped is abnormal and as such they can now be affected as it is not a normal situation.
So, who decides which of the rules no longer count as "anything" because of Open-Topped? Cuz, the rule itself states specific exceptions to "normally cannot do or be affected in anyway", but the general consensus is that we should also exempt anything that affects shooting. Which is fine, but where do you draw the line?
Can I use Stratagems on an Embarked Unit with Open-Topped, because they can only "normally" not get to do so? What about auras and the like? Doesn't make sense that a vehicle that is literally "open" stops Auras like a wall, both inside and out? What about using Psyker Powers? Does it make sense that a unit can shoot from a Transport, but a guy can't just point his finger at someone?
Honestly, I believe Open-Topped should have been written as "a unit Embarked within this vehicle can act and be affected as though it is on the field (measurable range and LOS from the vehicle). Weapon attacks which target this unit have -1 to-hit and the embarked unit can utilize the vehicle's Toughness and Save characteristics, or their own, whichever is better.
Nothing in the Transport rules states "effect". They say "anything". But, remember that the Core Rules also include stratagems, auras, fighting, and psychic powers. As well as many other things which, I believe, folks would agree that the Open-Topped rule disallows.
As I stated earlier, me and my group also play by the "generally accepted" rules everyone else has brought up. But I also recognize that, in doing so, we aren't playing it by RAW. Because, in this instance as in many others, GW created a situation in which RAW doesn't reflect what we believe to be the intent of the rule.
flandarz wrote: So, who decides which of the rules no longer count as "anything" because of Open-Topped? Cuz, the rule itself states specific exceptions to "normally cannot do or be affected in anyway", but the general consensus is that we should also exempt anything that affects shooting. Which is fine, but where do you draw the line?
Can I use Stratagems on an Embarked Unit with Open-Topped, because they can only "normally" not get to do so? What about auras and the like? Doesn't make sense that a vehicle that is literally "open" stops Auras like a wall, both inside and out? What about using Psyker Powers? Does it make sense that a unit can shoot from a Transport, but a guy can't just point his finger at someone?
Honestly, I believe Open-Topped should have been written as "a unit Embarked within this vehicle can act and be affected as though it is on the field (measurable range and LOS from the vehicle). Weapon attacks which target this unit have -1 to-hit and the embarked unit can utilize the vehicle's Toughness and Save characteristics, or their own, whichever is better.
Aura's are specified in the rule and as such do not affect the unit. There is a separate sentence negating them in the transport rule. Psyker power can only be cast when the Psyker is on the board, so cannot be done in a transport. Strats can only be cast on units on the board as well, unless stated, so the unit is on the board and cannot be affected.
Open-topped gives you permission to shoot. You follow all the rules from shooting, including modifiers. so you get -1 from moving and -1 for attacking flyers.
Its nothing to do with "deciding" what no longer counts, its simply following the shooting rules as you are allowed to shoot.
The Open-Topped rules explicitly gives permission for an embarked unit to attack in the Shooting Phase, but makes no mention of anything that would affect shooting being able to "ignore" the "cannot be affected" clause of the Transport rule. In fact, it lists specific ways in which restrictions and modifiers "pass" to the embarked unit from the vehicle it's Embarked in, rather than using their own restrictions and modifiers. If it started with "An Embarked unit may attack in the shooting phase as if it were on the field..." then the RAW would support your case. Unfortunately, it never gives you permission to treat them as if they are "in play" except in regards to attacking in the shooting phase. Therefore, the Transport Rules still apply to anything that isn't just "attacking", including not being affected by "anything".
Again, not how I play it, but that's how the RAW reads. And as BCB will be quick to point out, 40k is a permissive ruleset in which you're only allowed to do the things the rules say you can. Which, again, includes applying restrictions and modifiers to a unit that is not on the field of play.
Flanderz is absolutely correct here. The rules we have here are clear, regardless of how unintuitive they may seem to be.
Open Topped rules state that models firing from inside vehicles suffer the same penalties/bonuses to firing as the vehicle itself. It says nothing about pre-existing penalties, or penalties from moving and then embarking, it only specifies penalties from the vehicle the unit is now considered to be within.
Therefore, the unit would, bizarrely, not suffer any penalty if it moved, embarked, then fired a heavy weapon from an open topped vehicle that had itself not moved. The rules are permissive. Here the rules clearly tell us what modifiers exist to what units.
Is it intuitive? No.
Does it seem a bit "beardy"? Yes.
Are there a ton of other rule interactions just as unintuitive and beardy as this one? Yes.
flandarz wrote: The Open-Topped rules explicitly gives permission for an embarked unit to attack in the Shooting Phase, but makes no mention of anything that would affect shooting being able to "ignore" the "cannot be affected" clause of the Transport rule. In fact, it lists specific ways in which restrictions and modifiers "pass" to the embarked unit from the vehicle it's Embarked in, rather than using their own restrictions and modifiers. If it started with "An Embarked unit may attack in the shooting phase as if it were on the field..." then the RAW would support your case. Unfortunately, it never gives you permission to treat them as if they are "in play" except in regards to attacking in the shooting phase. Therefore, the Transport Rules still apply to anything that isn't just "attacking", including not being affected by "anything".
Again, not how I play it, but that's how the RAW reads. And as BCB will be quick to point out, 40k is a permissive ruleset in which you're only allowed to do the things the rules say you can. Which, again, includes applying restrictions and modifiers to a unit that is not on the field of play.
Again you are completely ignoring the word NORMALLY in the transport rule.
A unit embarked cannot normally do anything or be affected in any way. So normally a unit cannot shoot. Open-topped overrides this rule giving it permission to shoot. You now follow the rules for shooting in which Heavy weapons have a -1 to hit for moving. Stating that the unit cannot be affected and thus does not suffer the -1 one, is completely ignoring the normally. Shooting is not normal for an embarked unit so the second part of the rule does not apply.
To play it your way is to say that,
1's on OC plasma doesn't kill the model.
RF and heavy weapons can fire if the unit has advanced + embarked upon a transport.
Assault weapons do not suffer the -1 if advanced and embarked.
Flyers can be hit without penalty from within an open topped transport.
I'm not ignoring anything. In fact, I stated that Open-Topped provides specific exceptions to what would "normally" be the case for the unit. Anything that doesn't fall under those exceptions remains under the "can't do or be affected by this" clause. Otherwise, you open yourself up to plenty of shenanigans with a claim that Open-Topped means the Embarked unit doesn't fall under "normally" anymore. Like, a Freeboota Unit that is Embarked proccing a +1, even though it isn't on the field.
And, again, not how I play it. My stance is the same as always: the RAW provides a common framework for all players, but it shouldn't get in the way of having a good time. In this case, I don't like that the RAW isn't "realistic", so I use what appears to be the commonly accepted stance on it. Doesn't make it RAW, but it's certainly HIWPI.
Btw: the Flyer example is a poor one, as Open-Topped explicitly says that modifiers that affect the Transport affect the Embarked Unit, and the Transport is 100% affected by a Flyer's penalty to hit rolls.
The FAQ calls out that any effect affecting a transport does not extend to its passengers.
Hard to Hit is an ability which affects enemy units targetting it. Therefore, Hard to Hit does not apply to units shooting out from open topped vehicle.
"normally" is just referring to the fact that it is being affected by the open topped rule. I.e. normally models do not have the open topped rule.. doesn't say it is being affected by anything else. The rules aren't giving you permission for them to be affected by anything else. Who are you to draw arbitrary lines on what "normally" implies... with a permissive rule set we need to read what IS happening, not what we think should be happening.
I.e. off the battlefield models can not be affected in anyway. Time and time again we see this in the rules. No prayers for dark apostles, no continuing to shoot with its other weapons once a model is removed via dieing in the shooting phase from plasma, and no -1 to hit penalty is on the model, if the model was removed. This is the RAW. you can't just decide this one set of affects doesn't count but the rest do.
"normally" a model can not be affected in anyway when it is off the battlefield... but the open top rule makes it so they can. The open topped rule conveniently outlines how it affects the off the battlefield models. What it does not mention in those convenient set of non-"normal" permissions is that a model get's negative modifiers for its own movement.. it only says that a model gets negative modifiers for the vehicles movement.
If it worked the way you guys are suggesting, then if both my vehicle advanced and my model advanced then assault weapons would be hitting with -2 ?
The raw is really clear on this... again, its not a nice way to play, it does exploit the rules, but it IS the RAW.
Type40 wrote: Who are you to draw arbitrary lines on what "normally" implies... with a permissive rule set we need to read what IS happening, not what we think should be happening.
It's precisely this lack of information that we're referring to as a "gap in the RAW".
There's not enough information to even make out what open topped rule does exactly. This is starkly different than the other RAW oddity that's constantly being brought up regarding firing assault weapons after advancing (a case of one rule directly contradicting another).
The claim that "well, we're going to take 'not affected in any way' to mean LITERALLY ALL APPLICABLE rules other than being able to 'make attacks in the shooting phase'" in itself is an interpretation of the written text. You've chosen to interpret it in a sense literal to a fault, which results in various other loopholes and breaks in various other rules.
Your example of 'this happened at a tourney' is explicit example of a 'house rule' regarding the lack of clear wording on the rule. It's how you play it, not what the rule says because the written portion of this rule is incomplete because the 'Specific' in this 'General vs. Specific' isn't being specific enough to override the clauses in the general.
Type40 wrote: Who are you to draw arbitrary lines on what "normally" implies... with a permissive rule set we need to read what IS happening, not what we think should be happening.
It's precisely this lack of information that we're referring to as a "gap in the RAW".
There's not enough information to even make out what open topped rule does exactly. This is starkly different than the other RAW oddity that's constantly being brought up regarding firing assault weapons after advancing (a case of one rule directly contradicting another).
The claim that "well, we're going to take 'not affected in any way' to mean LITERALLY ALL APPLICABLE rules other than being able to 'make attacks in the shooting phase'" in itself is an interpretation of the written text. You've chosen to interpret it in a sense literal to a fault, which results in various other loopholes and breaks in various other rules.
Your example of 'this happened at a tourney' is explicit example of a 'house rule' regarding the lack of clear wording on the rule. It's how you play it, not what the rule says because the written portion of this rule is incomplete.
The point many of here are trying to make is that there is no discernible RAW regarding this rule.
I am talking about RAW here, and we apply "not affected in any way" to literally every other related effect... so why not this one ?
There isn't a lack of information, in terms of RAW, all applicable information is right there.
If being off the battlefield didn't say the word "normally" that would cause a problem for rules that do explicitly say they affect models off the battlefield. The only reason "normally" is even mentioned there is because there are rules like opened topped that do affect models that are off the battlefield in the explicitly stated ways.
How is this being literal to a fault. This doesn't cause a game break, it doesn't cause a syntax error, it is what it is. The only way for it to apply the way you are suggesting is to add a non-existent house rule to the game saying it does. This isn't a result of lack of information, its a result of a lack of information supporting YOUR house rule... Just because the game doesn't work the way you think it should doesn't mean there is a lack of information due to it not explicitly saying what YOU think it should... have you thought for a second that maybe it isn't an oversight, maybe this was the intentional RAW, maybe it is the way the intended it to be played ? How do you know it isn't ? who are you to tell everyone that you have some special insight about a rule that wasn't actually written down.
We are talking about RAW here, not HIWP. It's fine to not like a rule and play it differently if your opponent agrees. But for you to come here saying that this RAW is incomplete because you think it should be played differently is quite frankly a bit funny. It would be like me saying "my harlies always wound on a 2+ , you just don't know it because the rules on my shooting are incomplete"
Ok, so would you agree that units firing from an open-topped vehicle would follow, and ONLY FOLLOW, the rules governing making 'attacks in the shooting phase' (found in pg 5-7 of battleprimer)?
Each model gets to shoot the weapons they have on their datasheet. Each model gets to use any abilities on their datasheet. (as confirmed by the Starweaver entry stating rising cresendo still works)
But the models are not affected by movement modifiers, as they do not exist, they are not on the battlefield and are not affected in anyway. In the same way, I can not use an example made on a deathjester sitting in a starweaver... as he can not be affected in anyway. Even though he meets all the requirments for the strategem. It would affect him in some way. So I can't do it. movement modifiers would affect the model in someway, so they arn't applied, the model isn't on the battlefield, it doesn't exist for the purpose of game rules.
So, I go ahead and measure range from the vehicle, check the unaffected datasheet for unaffected abilities on the weapon/model. I start the shooting sequence.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Its quite simple really... You ask,,, does this rule or ability change something about the model I am shooting with or does it affect an ability or rule related to the model... if the answer is yes... then it doesnt happen.. if the answer is "no, my model is doing what it always does, is unchanged from it's datasheet and has no modifiers being applied to it" then it is "A" ok and allowed by RAW.
Each model gets to shoot the weapons they have on their datasheet. Each model gets to use any abilities on their datasheet. (as confirmed by the Starweaver entry stating rising cresendo still works) But the models are not affected by movement modifiers, as they do not exist, they are not on the battlefield and are not affected in anyway. In the same way, I can not use an example made on a deathjester sitting in a starweaver... as he can not be affected in anyway. Even though he meets all the requirments for the strategem. It would affect him in some way. So I can't do it. movement modifiers would affect the model in someway, so they arn't applied, the model isn't on the battlefield, it doesn't exist for the purpose of game rules.
So, I go ahead and measure range from the vehicle, check the unaffected datasheet for unaffected abilities on the weapon/model. I start the shooting sequence.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Its quite simple really... You ask,,, does this rule or ability change something about the model I am shooting with or does it affect an ability or rule related to the model... if the answer is yes... then it doesnt happen.. if the answer is "no, my model is doing what it always does, is unchanged from it's datasheet and has no modifiers being applied to it" then it is "A" ok and allowed by RAW.
Entertain me here a bit - I'm going to try and be as literal as you are being.
Firing heavy weapon specifically asks you to confirm whether the model with the heavy weapon moved in the preceding movement phase. If a model is not on the battlefield and cannot be accountable for any reasonable rules interactions, how would you check if the model has moved or not? The only thing affecting the units inside is the clause 'any restrictions or modifiers that apply to this model also apply to its passengers'. It does not say explicitly, thereby giving you permission in a permissive ruleset, to count the transport's movement in the preceding movement phase as if it's the unit embarked's own. If there are no model on the battlefield to check for it's state of its preceding movement, then models embarked cannot fire with their heavy weapons because it cannot be checked.
Going further, the rules for open topped says 'any restrictions or modifiers that apply to this model also apply to its passengers'. According to the rules in the shooting phase section of the rule, "each type of ranged weapon also has an additional rule that, depending upon the situation, might affect the accuracy of the weapon or when it can be fired." What does it mean exactly, when the transport follows the rules for a heavy weapon where it states "if a model [Open-topped transport] with a Heavy weapon moved in its preceding Movement phase, you must subtract 1 from any hit rolls made when firing that weapon this turn" tries to fire with HB it is equipped with? If it moves, it must subtract 1 from any hit rolls made when firing with the said HB. So now, the effect that which "restricts" and applies "modifiers" to the said transport is "The transport must subtract 1 from to hit rolls made when firing the HB" - according to the open topped rule, the same now applies to the passengers. Now the passengers are subject to the same restriction where it "must subtract 1 from to hit rolls made when firing the HB." What if the unit has another heavy weapon (which the transport does not have) and is trying to shoot with it? The restriction for shooting for the transport applies only to the weapons it is equipped with, because the rules for shooting with heavy weapon does not say "if this model fires any heavy weapon, then subtract 1 from all hits rolls fired from all heavy weapons".
Where are we drawing the conclusion, strictly from the written rule, that passengers embarked on an open topped transport subtract 1 when firing A heavy weapon? The rule is quite specific that it is checked on a model-by-model basis. You cannot carry over the check for the transport onto it's passengers, particularly so because the embarked models are not on the battlefield, therefore it cannot be checked.
What do we do then? What if the transport doesn't have any heavy weapons equipped, and therefore cannot be required to check if the model moved or not for the purpose of firing a heavy weapon. Can the units inside (which does not exist on the battlefield for any rules purpose) fire their heavy weapons?
We don't need these pages of obscure examples and ridiculous theorems.
The rules here are clear.
The only ambiguity is from those who seem to misunderstand what a permissive rule set means and what it allows us to do.
Units in open topped vehicles follow the rules for open topped vehicles. Those rules state only that modifiers that affect the vehicle effect the passenger when they fire. This is what we do when resolving this ruling.
The only ambiguity is from those who seem to misunderstand what a permissive rule set means and what it allows us to do.
Units in open topped vehicles follow the rules for open topped vehicles. Those rules state only that modifiers that affect the vehicle effect the passenger when they fire. This is what we do when resolving this ruling.
/thread right?
I don't see how this is an obscure example. It is quite literal.
All I'm trying to get across here is that your camp's school of thought is just another interpretation of RAW and not THE RAW (the actual rule as written, not once-interpreted rule as written) because rule as literally written doesn't work.
Each model gets to shoot the weapons they have on their datasheet. Each model gets to use any abilities on their datasheet. (as confirmed by the Starweaver entry stating rising cresendo still works)
But the models are not affected by movement modifiers, as they do not exist, they are not on the battlefield and are not affected in anyway. In the same way, I can not use an example made on a deathjester sitting in a starweaver... as he can not be affected in anyway. Even though he meets all the requirments for the strategem. It would affect him in some way. So I can't do it. movement modifiers would affect the model in someway, so they arn't applied, the model isn't on the battlefield, it doesn't exist for the purpose of game rules.
So, I go ahead and measure range from the vehicle, check the unaffected datasheet for unaffected abilities on the weapon/model. I start the shooting sequence.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Its quite simple really... You ask,,, does this rule or ability change something about the model I am shooting with or does it affect an ability or rule related to the model... if the answer is yes... then it doesnt happen.. if the answer is "no, my model is doing what it always does, is unchanged from it's datasheet and has no modifiers being applied to it" then it is "A" ok and allowed by RAW.
Entertain me here a bit - I'm going to try and be as literal as you are being.
Firing heavy weapon specifically asks you to confirm whether the model with the heavy weapon moved in the preceding movement phase. If a model is not on the battlefield and cannot be accountable for any reasonable rules interactions, how would you check if the model has moved or not? The only thing affecting the units inside is the clause 'any restrictions or modifiers that apply to this model also apply to its passengers'. It does not say explicitly, thereby giving you permission in a permissive ruleset, to count the transport's movement in the preceding movement phase as if it's the unit embarked's own. If there are no model on the battlefield to check for it's state of its preceding movement, then models embarked cannot fire with their heavy weapons because it cannot be checked.
Going further, the rules for open topped says 'any restrictions or modifiers that apply to this model also apply to its passengers'. According to the rules in the shooting phase section of the rule, "each type of ranged weapon also has an additional rule that, depending upon the situation, might affect the accuracy of the weapon or when it can be fired." What does it mean exactly, when the transport follows the rules for a heavy weapon where it states "if a model [Open-topped transport] with a Heavy weapon moved in its preceding Movement phase, you must subtract 1 from any hit rolls made when firing that weapon this turn" tries to fire with HB it is equipped with? If it moves, it must subtract 1 from any hit rolls made when firing with the said HB. So now, the effect that which "restricts" and applies "modifiers" to the said transport is "The transport must subtract 1 from to hit rolls made when firing the HB" - according to the open topped rule, the same now applies to the passengers. Now the passengers are subject to the same restriction where it "must subtract 1 from to hit rolls made when firing the HB." What if the unit has another heavy weapon (which the transport does not have) and is trying to shoot with it? The restriction for shooting for the transport applies only to the weapons it is equipped with, because the rules for shooting with heavy weapon does not say "if this model fires any heavy weapon, then subtract 1 from all hits rolls fired from all heavy weapons".
Where are we drawing the conclusion, strictly from the written rule, that passengers embarked on an open topped transport subtract 1 when firing A heavy weapon? The rule is quite specific that it is checked on a model-by-model basis. You cannot carry over the check for the transport onto it's passengers, particularly so because the embarked models are not on the battlefield, therefore it cannot be checked.
What do we do then? What if the transport doesn't have any heavy weapons equipped, and therefore cannot be required to check if the model moved or not for the purpose of firing a heavy weapon. Can the units inside (which does not exist on the battlefield for any rules purpose) fire their heavy weapons?
You are getting confused about what it means to be "affected"
You clearly just follow the rules written on open top... did the transport move,,, heavy weapons -1 to hit... not hard, that's simply what it says.
Again ask, "does the rule/ability change the models datasheet in anyway" ? and then ask, "does the rule/ability affect anything the model does in anyway" ?
If the answer is yes, then the model is not affected. Simple that's what the RAW is.
Then you read the open topped rule, check your UNAFFECTED datasheet and continue to shoot. Are you trying to suggest that movement penalties/restrictions on weapons don't affect the the way they work ? Because that's even more confusing.
The only ambiguity is from those who seem to misunderstand what a permissive rule set means and what it allows us to do.
Units in open topped vehicles follow the rules for open topped vehicles. Those rules state only that modifiers that affect the vehicle effect the passenger when they fire. This is what we do when resolving this ruling.
/thread right?
I don't see how this is an obscure example. It is quite literal.
All I'm trying to get across here is that your camp's school of thought is just another interpretation of RAW and not THE RAW (the actual rule as written, not once-interpreted rule as written) because rule as literally written doesn't work.
Except they do work,,,, just not the way you think they should XD.
Type40 wrote: You clearly just follow the rules written on open top... did the transport move,,, heavy weapons -1 to hit... not hard, that's simply what it says.
Citation please. Rules for heavy weapon is not a blanket "if moved, heavy weapons -1 to hit." It is generally accepted short hand.
Open topped ability does not grant you explicit permission to count the transport's movement as the passengers for the purpose of determining whether it moved or not. It simply tells you, whatever applies to the transport applies to the passengers, barring exceptions.
If we go so far as taking this into Special Snowflake route, the only restrictions and modifiers that affect the passengers are "the passengers cannot shoot if this model has Fallen Back in the same turn", "cannot shoot (except with Pistols) if this model is within 1" of an enemy unit", and whatever "so on" is in terms of game terms.
It's a lazily written rule that needs a lot of user intervention to work.
when they do so,any restrictions or modifiers that apply to this model also apply to its passengers
Open topped rules.
so did the transport move ?
if so the transport gets the following restriction on heavy weapons.
If a model with a Heavy weapon moved in its preceding Movement phase,you must subtract 1 from any hit rolls made when firing that weapon this turn.
brbpg 180
Which as per the open topped rule, explicitly states, then applies to its passengers.
I.e. a special exception to a model off the battlefield being affected in anyway.
You are correct... it doesn't give you permission to count the transport's movement as the passengers. It applies its own restrictions/penalties on to the passengers. Just like it says.
But I am not sure why this is confusing to you... you just have to do what it says,,, no more, no less.
Other then what it is explicitly says to do to these off the battlefield models, they are not affected in anyway. The exception to "normally" is explicitly stated in the open topped rules... why are you finding this so complicated... did you really need me to cite open topped and heavy weapons, read them yourself before you start posting about them.
If a model with a Heavy weapon moved in its preceding Movement phase,you must subtract 1 from any hit rolls made when firing that weapon this turn.
Also applies to it's passengers, how do you know if the passengers moved or not?
Rule working in a way you think it works doesn't make it RAW. In order for the rule to work the way you're explaining how it works (if it indeed works at all, that is) it require a lot of assumptions and inferences to do so.
"when they do so,any restrictions or modifiers that apply to this model also apply to its passengers"
Seriously, read it.
Does it say that the heavy weapon rule applies to its passengers or does it say the RESTRICTIONS/MODIFIERS apply to its passengers ? ...
We do not care whether or not the passengers have moved... it does not mater. No where does it say that it matters. All that maters is whether or not the transport is receiving a restriction/modifier. Not WHY it is. If the transport does, the passengers have the same restriction/modifier...
Read the rule and do what it says... again not complicated.
It's the restriction as a whole that applies, not the result of resolving the restriction that applies as per wording the rule.
-A transport must follow all the rules & related restrictions & modifiers when it makes a ranged attack during the shooting phase. -Units embarked on a open topped vehicle is not affected in any way due to embark rule, but may attack in the shooting phase, following all the rules that the transport must follow for making a ranged attack in the shooting phase. -The heavy weapon rule states that if a model equipped with a heavy weapon has moved in the preceding movement phase, it subtracts 1 from hit rolls made for that weapon.
I believe we agree with the above. Correct me if I'm wrong.
The following is part where your input is altering the meaning of the above. -If a transport moves, then subtract 1 from all the hit rolls made for any heavy weapon it is attacking with. -Therefore, subtract 1 from all hit rolls made for any models embarked that is equipped with a heavy weapon that is making an attack.
Here you've made an assumption that the modifier, and the modifier only, applies to the passenger, without regards to the conditional clause that triggers the modifier to be applied. You've made a conscious choice to disregard the IF portion of the restriction when considering its effect on the passengers, and apply the modifier because the transport did something.
The passengers are subject to the restriction and modifier that "If a model with a Heavy weapon moved in its preceding Movement phase,you must subtract 1 from any hit rolls made when firing that weapon this turn" which the transport is subject to, as per wording of the open topped rule. It's the restriction itself it (embarked unit) is liable for and not the just resolution of the said restriction (suffers -1 to hit).
The rule is a null argument. There aren't enough definitive clauses to make it work as is.
No, the -1 to hit with a heavy while moving is not a house rule, its a rule from the Heavy Weapon type in the Core Rules. Have you EVER even read the rules?
Which would affect a unit which is not on the battlefield in any way. Have your EVER even read the rules ?
Actually, it states "If a model with a Heavy weapon moved in its preceding Movement phase, you must subtract 1 from any hit rolls made when firing that weapon this turn."
So, if you want to be pedantic about it the penalty is on the weapon when it shoots, not the model in the unit. The embarked rule doesn't state the weapons are unaffected.
If you REALLY want to be pedantic it says "you must subtract 1 from any hit rolls made WHEN FIRING THAT WEAPON this trun." that doesn't say its a modifier on the weapon. It says its a modifier applied "when firing that weapon."
But if we are spliting hairs on the subject.
skchsan wrote: It's the restriction as a whole that applies, not the result of resolving the restriction that applies as per wording the rule.
-A transport must follow all the rules & related restrictions & modifiers when it makes a ranged attack during the shooting phase.
-Units embarked on a open topped vehicle is not affected in any way due to embark rule, but may attack in the shooting phase, following all the rules that the transport must follow for making a ranged attack in the shooting phase.
-The heavy weapon rule states that if a model equipped with a heavy weapon has moved in the preceding movement phase, it subtracts 1 from hit rolls made for that weapon.
I believe we agree with the above. Correct me if I'm wrong.
The following is part where your input is altering the meaning of the above.
-If a transport moves, then subtract 1 from all the hit rolls made for any heavy weapon it is attacking with.
-Therefore, subtract 1 from all hit rolls made for any models embarked that is equipped with a heavy weapon that is making an attack.
Here you've made an assumption that the modifier, and the modifier only, applies to the passenger, without regards to the conditional clause that triggers the modifier to be applied. You've made a conscious choice to disregard the IF portion of the restriction when considering its effect on the passengers, and apply the modifier because the transport did something.
The passengers are subject to the restriction and modifier that "If a model with a Heavy weapon moved in its preceding Movement phase,you must subtract 1 from any hit rolls made when firing that weapon this turn" which the transport is subject to, as per wording of the open topped rule. It's the restriction itself it (embarked unit) is liable for and not the just resolution of the said restriction (suffers -1 to hit).
The rule is a null argument. There aren't enough definitive clauses to make it work as is.
No the restriction itself is "you must subtract 1 from any hit rolls made when firing that weapon this turn." in regards to heavy weapons.
Again, why don't you just do what it says to do ? stop trying to find ways to make it say something else. It doesn't say apply the heavy weapon rule, this is not an assumption, this is literally what it says. Yes, I HAVE made a conscious choice to disregard the IF portion. Because the IF portion IS NOT the restriction. I have made the conscious choice to disregard it because IT TELLS ME TO. It says "apply restrictions and modifiers " it does not say "apply weapon rules as though the passengers made the same movement as the transport."
If I say "if you do not eat your dinner, you do not get desert." I am restricting you from desert. This isn't rocket science. Just do what the rule says. Apply the restriction. The models inside never moved. It doesn't say "apply movement to the model." by your logic there would be no restriction whatsoever if the the unit was already embarked and then the transport moved during the shooting phase. Because if the restriction includes the entire heavy weapon rule (which is not how syntax works but hypothetically) then as long as the unit stays embarked it will never trigger the "restriction."
That is not how it works. The restrictions/modifiers are applied... not the entire rule, that's A: not what it says and B: would not make sense in the context of the rest of the rules.
Yes of course, "its not written properly" because you don't like what it actually says to do. lol.
If you just do what it actually says to do, it makes complete sense. Your bending it and saying it doesn't work , it is lacking information, and is written poorly because you can't get your head around the fact that you should just do what it is actually telling you to do lol.
We are done with this conversation. If you don't want to follow the rules so badly you have decided that the only way it could possibly say what it says is for it to be written wrong, that is on you XD.
Type40 wrote: Yes of course, "its not written properly" because you don't like what it actually says to do. lol.
If you just do what it actually says to do, it makes complete sense. Your bending it and saying it doesn't work , it is lacking information, and is written poorly because you can't get your head around the fact that you should just do what it is actually telling you to do lol.
We are done with this conversation. If you don't want to follow the rules so badly you have decided that the only way it could possibly say what it says is for it to be written wrong, that is on you XD.
So paraphrasing from earlier post.
If we say open topped actually does what you claim it does then: -rolls of 1 on OC plasma can't never kill the firer. -you can fire RF, pistol, grenade and heavy weapons if the unit advanced & embarked into a transport. -you can fire assault weapons after advancing without -1 to hit if the unit advanced & embarked into a transport. -you can fire heavy weapon after moving without -1 to hit if the transport embarked onto was stationary. -you can fire after falling back and embarking on a transport. -minus to hit is ignored so long as the ability is worded so that it affects the attacker, and the transport did not previously engage the target with the rule.
Being open topped is super good - even better than knights who pretty much ignore all the core rules. No wonder they're so rare.
Type40 wrote: Yes of course, "its not written properly" because you don't like what it actually says to do. lol.
If you just do what it actually says to do, it makes complete sense. Your bending it and saying it doesn't work , it is lacking information, and is written poorly because you can't get your head around the fact that you should just do what it is actually telling you to do lol.
We are done with this conversation. If you don't want to follow the rules so badly you have decided that the only way it could possibly say what it says is for it to be written wrong, that is on you XD.
So paraphrasing from earlier post.
If we say open topped actually does what you claim it does then:
-rolls of 1 on OC plasma can't never kill the firer.
-you can fire RF, pistol, grenade and heavy weapons if the unit advanced & embarked into a transport.
-you can fire assault weapons after advancing without -1 to hit if the unit advanced & embarked into a transport.
-you can fire heavy weapon after moving without -1 to hit if the transport embarked onto was stationary.
-you can fire after falling back and embarking on a transport.
-minus to hit is ignored so long as the ability is worded so that it affects the attacker, and the transport did not previously engage the rule.
-rolls of 1 on OC plasma can't never kill the firer.
Wrong that is an ability on the datasheet and it isn't being affected by something (i.e. like I explained, you are confused about what it means to have a model affected by something. Following its unchanged rules from its datasheet is not it being affected by something).
-you can fire RF, pistol, grenade and heavy weapons if the unit advanced & embarked into a transport.
Correct
-you can fire assault weapons after advancing without -1 to hit if the unit advanced & embarked into a transport.
Correct
-you can fire heavy weapon after moving without -1 to hit if the transport embarked onto was stationary.
Correct
-you can fire after falling back and embarking on a transport.
Correct
As silly as all that is, that IS RAW.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Sorry you don't like how good Open-Topped vehicles are.
But it is what it is.
p.s. this also means you can not use stratagems or any other abilities on the units inside.
