How many mortal wounds would Noxious Discharge do to its initial target, one or two?

The rule:

- [The target unit] suffers 1 mortal wound
- All units within 3" of that unit suffer 1 mortal wound (excluding Nurgle units).

It seems to be clear to me that the initial target would suffer 2 mortal wounds (as long as it didn't have the Nurgle keyword) as it is within 3" of itself. Am I correct?

Edit:

Where is Noxious Discharge from?

Is that an old rule? I can not find it.


But from the way it sounds, the context would dictate that the part that says "All units within 3" of that unit" is talking about other units, and not the target unit.

It's from the Death Guard's Fester discipline in the (unreleased) Book of Rust

Maybe wait until the book is out so we can see the final rules before asking questions? (Because things can change, or they can have a section clarifying some of the rules in that book).

We already have seen all parts of that book, there is none of the kind.

I think it's pretty clear the target gets 1 MW, then everything around it gets 1. Just My opinion.

For reference.

Source

To me it's rather clear that the target unit takes 2 MW, even if it might not be intended that way. A unit is always within 3" of itself, and it does not specify other units.

Why would it suffer 2MW ? Because its an aura ability ? Its not.

Aura Abilities​
Some abilities affect models or units in a given range – these are aura abilities. A model with an aura ability is always within range of its effect. The effects of multiple, identically named aura abilities are not cumulative (i.e. if a unit is within range of two models with the same aura ability, that aura ability only applies to the unit once).

Because it suffers 1 MW, then it suffers 1 MW for being with 3" of the targeted unit (itself).

Auras have absolutely nothing to do with this.

 Jidmah wrote:
Because it suffers 1 MW, then it suffers 1 MW for being with 3" of the targeted unit (itself).

Auras have absolutely nothing to do with this.

Where in the rules (except aura abilities) does it say that a unit is within range of itself ? Citation please.

MEASURING DISTANCES
Distances are measured in inches (") between the closest points of the bases of the models you’re measuring to and from.

WITHIN AND WHOLLY WITHIN
If a rule says it applies ‘within’ a certain distance, it applies at any distance that is not more than the specified distance. For example, within 1" means any distance that is not more than 1" away.

Stop trolling p5freak.

There's no such thing as "within range of itself". It's within the 3" range of the psychic power, since 0" is not more than 3".

If a vehicle in a squadron explodes, the squadron takes MWs along with whatever else is nearby.

It takes a MW for being the target and, if still alive, takes another one for being inside 3".

Unless we get to see the rule and it says "other units within 3" or some such thing. It would have to specifically exclude the targeted unit, not specifically include it.

 Jidmah wrote:
MEASURING DISTANCES
Distances are measured in inches (") between the closest points of the bases of the models you’re measuring to and from.

WITHIN AND WHOLLY WITHIN
If a rule says it applies ‘within’ a certain distance, it applies at any distance that is not more than the specified distance. For example, within 1" means any distance that is not more than 1" away.

Stop trolling p5freak.

Your quotation for Measuring Distances talks about models plural, not model singular. It doesn't talk about measure the closest point between a base and the same base.

Its hilarious that the selected unit suffers 1MW even if its a NURGLE unit, but it wouldnt suffer 1MW if its a NURGLE unit within 3" of the selected unit that suffered 1MW.

 doctortom wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
MEASURING DISTANCES
Distances are measured in inches (") between the closest points of the bases of the models you’re measuring to and from.

WITHIN AND WHOLLY WITHIN
If a rule says it applies ‘within’ a certain distance, it applies at any distance that is not more than the specified distance. For example, within 1" means any distance that is not more than 1" away.

Stop trolling p5freak.

Your quotation for Measuring Distances talks about models plural, not model singular. It doesn't talk about measure the closest point between a base and the same base.

So you're saying models can never, ever target themselves with their own ability because they are out of range? Cool story, but absolutely and indisputably wrong.
Oh, and you're also claiming that nothing can move ever, because you are not measuring to "models plural" when moving.

Seriously, I wonder why people who fail to understand even basic logic keep entering rules discussions.

 Jidmah wrote:

 doctortom wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
MEASURING DISTANCES
Distances are measured in inches (") between the closest points of the bases of the models you’re measuring to and from.

WITHIN AND WHOLLY WITHIN
If a rule says it applies ‘within’ a certain distance, it applies at any distance that is not more than the specified distance. For example, within 1" means any distance that is not more than 1" away.

Stop trolling p5freak.

Your quotation for Measuring Distances talks about models plural, not model singular. It doesn't talk about measure the closest point between a base and the same base.

So you're saying models can never, ever target themselves with their own ability because they are out of range? Cool story, but absolutely and indisputably wrong.
Oh, and you're also claiming that nothing can move ever, because you are not measuring to "models plural" when moving.

Seriously, I wonder why people who fail to understand even basic logic keep entering rules discussions.

Actually, RAW, he is correct. The rules refer to multiple bases, not a single one. The distance between something and itself is impossible to calculate as it would require the same thing to exist twice.

The law of conservation has to apply, we cannot take these rules to mean a model is the same as models. Any other interpretation would be absurd.

This is another clear example of how the GW design team writes the worst rules. If GW wanted to fix this, they had ample opportunity in various FAQs and addendums. Maybe we can look forward to an update someday, but there's no other way to play it.

...

Yeah, just kidding. Language fails us sometimes, of course a model can target itself unless specified otherwise.

Don't know why this has to turn into an epistemological discussion.

 Jidmah wrote:
We already have seen all parts of that book, there is none of the kind.

The book has not been released, so you can not be sure of what you claim.

But from the way it sounds, the context would dictate that the part that says "All units within 3" of that unit" is talking about other units, and not the target unit.

So only 1 MW.

 Jidmah wrote:

 doctortom wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
MEASURING DISTANCES
Distances are measured in inches (") between the closest points of the bases of the models you’re measuring to and from.

WITHIN AND WHOLLY WITHIN
If a rule says it applies ‘within’ a certain distance, it applies at any distance that is not more than the specified distance. For example, within 1" means any distance that is not more than 1" away.

Stop trolling p5freak.

Your quotation for Measuring Distances talks about models plural, not model singular. It doesn't talk about measure the closest point between a base and the same base.

So you're saying models can never, ever target themselves with their own ability because they are out of range? Cool story, but absolutely and indisputably wrong.
Oh, and you're also claiming that nothing can move ever, because you are not measuring to "models plural" when moving.

Seriously, I wonder why people who fail to understand even basic logic keep entering rules discussions.

If you're going to quote a rule to back your position, the rule should actually support what you're saying. As techsoldaten pointed out, by RAW that rules quote you gave doesn't apply to single models. If you say we know what they meant for measuring one model's distance or range, then how is that different than someone else saying that we know that GW meant for units other than the target also take 1 MW damage, and that the target unit takes only 1 MW? I suspect that is what they meant to say, but if you wish to put it on a RAW basis please have some actual RAW that applies.

And lay off making personal attacks against anyone disagreeing with you. I could find fault with your basic reading comprehension skills as easily as you're finding fault in other people's basic logic skills, and just passing insults back and forth doesn't do anything to enhance your argument.

Very interesting. Does the 1 Mortal Wound crowd suppose that a psyker cannot cast buffs on themselves, or that a Chapter Master or Mortarion cannot target themselves with their own reroll abilities? If they cannot be said to be within 6" or 18" (say) of themselves.

Not aura abilities, but abilities which tell you to select a unit within a certain range.

 doctortom wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

 doctortom wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
MEASURING DISTANCES
Distances are measured in inches (") between the closest points of the bases of the models you’re measuring to and from.

WITHIN AND WHOLLY WITHIN
If a rule says it applies ‘within’ a certain distance, it applies at any distance that is not more than the specified distance. For example, within 1" means any distance that is not more than 1" away.

Stop trolling p5freak.

Your quotation for Measuring Distances talks about models plural, not model singular. It doesn't talk about measure the closest point between a base and the same base.

So you're saying models can never, ever target themselves with their own ability because they are out of range? Cool story, but absolutely and indisputably wrong.
Oh, and you're also claiming that nothing can move ever, because you are not measuring to "models plural" when moving.

Seriously, I wonder why people who fail to understand even basic logic keep entering rules discussions.

If you're going to quote a rule to back your position, the rule should actually support what you're saying. As techsoldaten pointed out, by RAW that rules quote you gave doesn't apply to single models. If you say we know what they meant for measuring one model's distance or range, then how is that different than someone else saying that we know that GW meant for units other than the target also take 1 MW damage, and that the target unit takes only 1 MW? I suspect that is what they meant to say, but if you wish to put it on a RAW basis please have some actual RAW that applies.

And lay off making personal attacks against anyone disagreeing with you. I could find fault with your basic reading comprehension skills as easily as you're finding fault in other people's basic logic skills, and just passing insults back and forth doesn't do anything to enhance your argument.

Read my entire comment.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
We already have seen all parts of that book, there is none of the kind.

The book has not been released, so you can not be sure of what you claim.

I literally linked a video of a guy flipping through every single page of the book as source. You are making an argument in bad faith.

But from the way it sounds, the context would dictate that the part that says "All units within 3" of that unit" is talking about other units, and not the target unit. So only 1 MW.

And here we see another instance of DeathReaper's famous "I add stuff to a rule that completely changes its meaning so I'm right"-move


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 doctortom wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

 doctortom wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
MEASURING DISTANCES
Distances are measured in inches (") between the closest points of the bases of the models you’re measuring to and from.

WITHIN AND WHOLLY WITHIN
If a rule says it applies ‘within’ a certain distance, it applies at any distance that is not more than the specified distance. For example, within 1" means any distance that is not more than 1" away.

Stop trolling p5freak.

Your quotation for Measuring Distances talks about models plural, not model singular. It doesn't talk about measure the closest point between a base and the same base.

So you're saying models can never, ever target themselves with their own ability because they are out of range? Cool story, but absolutely and indisputably wrong.
Oh, and you're also claiming that nothing can move ever, because you are not measuring to "models plural" when moving.

Seriously, I wonder why people who fail to understand even basic logic keep entering rules discussions.

If you're going to quote a rule to back your position, the rule should actually support what you're saying. As techsoldaten pointed out, by RAW that rules quote you gave doesn't apply to single models. If you say we know what they meant for measuring one model's distance or range, then how is that different than someone else saying that we know that GW meant for units other than the target also take 1 MW damage, and that the target unit takes only 1 MW? I suspect that is what they meant to say, but if you wish to put it on a RAW basis please have some actual RAW that applies.

And lay off making personal attacks against anyone disagreeing with you. I could find fault with your basic reading comprehension skills as easily as you're finding fault in other people's basic logic skills, and just passing insults back and forth doesn't do anything to enhance your argument.

1. The plural thing doesn't work as you think it does.
2. I have proven your claim wrong by providing multiple counter-examples.
3. Nothing prevents the model you are measuring from and the model you are measuring to from being identical.

 Jidmah wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
We already have seen all parts of that book, there is none of the kind.

The book has not been released, so you can not be sure of what you claim.

I literally linked a video of a guy flipping through every single page of the book as source. You are making an argument in bad faith.

I am not, as things can change from test copies of books...

 Jidmah wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
But from the way it sounds, the context would dictate that the part that says "All units within 3" of that unit" is talking about other units, and not the target unit. So only 1 MW.

And here we see another instance of DeathReaper's famous "I add stuff to a rule that completely changes its meaning so I'm right"-move

I literally didn't add anything to the rule, I never do. That is not my move at all.

Do not be like that man, that is not okay to falsely attribute stuff to people.

I always debate in good faith. You claiming I do not is not okay at all man.

In the real world, these videos aren't made using test copies, DeathReaper.

 Jidmah wrote:
In the real world, these videos aren't made using test copies, DeathReaper.

Prove it.


P.S. I know you can not, so this is a moot point.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof

You claim that there are changes between the books used in previews and those release a week later. Show proof of that happening in even a single instance, otherwise your argument is null and void.

 Jidmah wrote:
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof

You claim that there are changes between the books used in previews and those release a week later. Show proof of that happening in even a single instance, otherwise your argument is null and void.

I didn't make the claim that "these videos aren't made using test copies" you did. So prove it...

The burden of proof is on you since you made the claim. But you cant prove it, so it is not my argument that is null and void...

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof

 DeathReaper wrote:
I am not, as things can change from test copies of books...

Original claim, right here. Provide proof or shut up.

I'm no longer responding to you on this topic, you are clearly - as usual - arguing in bad faith since you won't ever admit that you are wrong.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
We already have seen all parts of that book, there is none of the kind.

The book has not been released, so you can not be sure of what you claim.

If that's your position why are you even arguing here? According to you there are no rules for us to use because they haven't been released and we can't be sure of anything about these rules.

As for the original question, it would certainly seem like the target suffers 2MW as it will be within 3" of itself. I would guess that isn't the intention but it is what the rules say.

 Jidmah wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
I am not, as things can change from test copies of books...

Original claim, right here. Provide proof or shut up.

I'm no longer responding to you on this topic, you are clearly - as usual - arguing in bad faith since you won't ever admit that you are wrong.

Yea, I dont have to prove that a book that has not been released can be changed. Because if it has not been released we cant be sure it is not photoshopped...

Check and mate...

And you are lying about me, I never argue in bad faith. Stop being toxic and claiming things that are just not true.

If I am wrong I will 100% admit it.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
I am not, as things can change from test copies of books...

Original claim, right here. Provide proof or shut up.

I'm no longer responding to you on this topic, you are clearly - as usual - arguing in bad faith since you won't ever admit that you are wrong.

Yea, I dont have to prove that a book that has not been released can be changed. Because if it has not been released we cant be sure it is not photoshopped...

Ah yes, because a reviewer that has gotten their official copy of the book straight from GW to review is going to go out of their way in video editing software (not photoshop) to painstakingly change the text of a specific rule frame by frame for... reasons?

Occam's Razor and all that.

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
I am not, as things can change from test copies of books...

Original claim, right here. Provide proof or shut up.

I'm no longer responding to you on this topic, you are clearly - as usual - arguing in bad faith since you won't ever admit that you are wrong.

Yea, I dont have to prove that a book that has not been released can be changed. Because if it has not been released we cant be sure it is not photoshopped...

Ah yes, because a reviewer that has gotten their official copy of the book straight from GW to review is going to go out of their way in video editing software (not photoshop) to painstakingly change the text of a specific rule frame by frame for... reasons?

Occam's Razor and all that.

But it legit can no be verified, never mind that the final printing might be changed from the first run.

You can verify that it has happened before for any other book, or admit that you are reaching for conspiracy theories because that's the best you've got.

 DeathReaper wrote:
If I am wrong I will 100% admit it.

That is a lie.

 Jidmah wrote:


1. The plural thing doesn't work as you think it does.
2. I have proven your claim wrong by providing multiple counter-examples.
3. Nothing prevents the model you are measuring from and the model you are measuring to from being identical.

1. Have you considered that maybe it doesn't work the way youthink it does?
2. Not that I've seen. You've provided a rules quote that doesn't work.
3. Citation please.

Please note that I'm arguing against your "proof" that you provided for your claim, not necessarily the claim itself (though I don't think it's as clearcut as you make it, given some of the occasional sloppiness in GW's rules writing, One could argue the rule you quoted could be one such rule, if you're trying to apply measuring from a model to itself.)

 doctortom wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:


1. The plural thing doesn't work as you think it does.
2. I have proven your claim wrong by providing multiple counter-examples.
3. Nothing prevents the model you are measuring from and the model you are measuring to from being identical.

1. Have you considered that maybe it doesn't work the way youthink it does?
2. Not that I've seen. You've provided a rules quote that doesn't work.
3. Citation please.

Please note that I'm arguing against your "proof" that you provided for your claim, not necessarily the claim itself (though I don't think it's as clearcut as you make it, given some of the occasional sloppiness in GW's rules writing, One could argue the rule you quoted could be one such rule, if you're trying to apply measuring from a model to itself.)

Try to find a rule in the books that definitively doesn't affect the unit from which range is being drawn and also does not include the words "CORE units within" or "other units within".

I suspect you will be as unsuccessful as I have been.

When GW intends for area effects to be exclusive, they explicitly say that in the individual rule.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, wait, the "Within or wholly within" rules resolve this in the first sentence.

"If a rule says it applies within a certain distance, it applies at any distance that is not MORE than the specified distance"

A model is always within range of itself, "within and wholly within" do NOT require a second model to be measured to.

Yep, the way that is worded 2 MW (assuming the first didn't kill the unit!) to the initial unit is what it says.

It's entirely possible that they did not actually mean it that way, and it may get corrected later as part of a FAQ. However, as the fluff text mentions this as a 'splash' it seems not entirely unreasonable that they did indeed mean it to cause 2, as a unit of more than 1 model would likely be hit more than once if it was hit by a splash of noxious liquid.

what is the cost of this ability? If you can do 2MW to a target, for what I am guessing is 3CP with MWs to every model in 3", that isn't so bad....

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
what is the cost of this ability? If you can do 2MW to a target, for what I am guessing is 3CP with MWs to every model in 3", that isn't so bad....

It's a psychic power. And it's UNITS, not models. Big difference.

So that still makes it an amazing power.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
So that still makes it an amazing power.

Depends how cluttered your opponent is. Most auras are 6", so you could get two MW on a character and maybe a few MW on others, assuming it can be targeted.

That's... Not bad, certainly, but not what I'd call amazing.

 Jidmah wrote:
You can verify that it has happened before for any other book, or admit that you are reaching for conspiracy theories because that's the best you've got.

 DeathReaper wrote:
If I am wrong I will 100% admit it.

That is a lie.

Stop. This is not okay. (and frankly off topic, so please refrain from breaking rule #1 in the future).

There is, at absolute best, a thin implication that this isn't to include the original unit. But give they use the word "other" liberally elsewhere, I don't think your context argument holds DR

nosferatu1001 wrote:
There is, at absolute best, a thin implication that this isn't to include the original unit. But give they use the word "other" liberally elsewhere, I don't think your context argument holds DR

I agree.

Allow me to quote the Disgusting Force stratagem, from the Death Guard codex:

"After that model has shot, select one enemy unit that was hit by one or more attacks made with a Plagueburst mortar by that model this turn. Roll one D6 for each other unit within 3" (excluding NURGLE units) of the selected unit: on a 4+, that unit suffers 1 mortal wound."

Emphasis mine. Very similar ability to the second half of Noxious Discharge, except that it explicitly doesn't affect the original target.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
There is, at absolute best, a thin implication that this isn't to include the original unit. But give they use the word "other" liberally elsewhere, I don't think your context argument holds DR

I clearly do not agree, but it is at best unclear.

Judging by the errata to Khârn the Betrayer's "The Betrayer" ability, I am going to guess that this will be FAQ'd to follow the same train of thought.

 DeathReaper wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
There is, at absolute best, a thin implication that this isn't to include the original unit. But give they use the word "other" liberally elsewhere, I don't think your context argument holds DR

I clearly do not agree, but it is at best unclear.

Judging by the errata to Khârn the Betrayer's "The Betrayer" ability, I am going to guess that this will be FAQ'd to follow the same train of thought.

The Betrayer says "another friendly unit" not "units within X"

Wholly within is also VERY explicit and clear, not sure why you're proving Jidmah's commentary right previously but uh, you are.

PoorGravitasHandling wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
There is, at absolute best, a thin implication that this isn't to include the original unit. But give they use the word "other" liberally elsewhere, I don't think your context argument holds DR

I clearly do not agree, but it is at best unclear.

Judging by the errata to Khârn the Betrayer's "The Betrayer" ability, I am going to guess that this will be FAQ'd to follow the same train of thought.

The Betrayer says "another friendly unit" not "units within X"

Wholly within is also VERY explicit and clear, not sure why you're proving Jidmah's commentary right previously but uh, you are.

I am absolutely not "proving Jidmah's commentary right" Why do you think I am?

The most current Codex for Chaos Space Marines is he 8th ed codex, so what dataslate are you looking at...

The Betrayer does not say "another friendly unit" It says "Those attacks automatically hit a friendly unit". A friendly unit includes Khârn the Betrayer.

The Errata makes it so he does not hit himself, because originally he hit himself.

Pleaselet me know what you are talking about because you aren't making much sense.

...so your arguement is that this Psychic Power doesn't deal 2MW to the taget unit because a different rule from 8th edition was FaQ'd to change the wording so that Kharne couldn't deal damage to himself?

So you've gone from "This doesn't work because of some nebulous context and I feel that it doesn't include the target unit" to "the wording of the rule might not be the finalised version and/or was faked by reviewers" and then further to "GW might change it in the future like they did this other rule, so it doesn't work" even though you have no way of knowing that and that wouldn't mean the Psychic Power doesn't currently deal 2 MW RAW either...
Which would also mean you are admitting that it does deal 2 MW to the target unit RAW and thus proving Jidmah's commentary right?

Um... yeah.

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
...so your arguement is that this Psychic Power doesn't deal 2MW to the taget unit because a different rule from 8th edition was FaQ'd to change the wording so that Kharne couldn't deal damage to himself?

So you've gone from "This doesn't work because of some nebulous context and I feel that it doesn't include the target unit" to "the wording of the rule might not be the finalised version and/or was faked by reviewers" and then further to "GW might change it in the future like they did this other rule, so it doesn't work" even though you have no way of knowing that and that wouldn't mean the Psychic Power doesn't currently deal 2 MW RAW either...
Which would also mean you are admitting that it does deal 2 MW to the target unit RAW and thus proving Jidmah's commentary right?

Um... yeah.

That is not at all what I was saying.

Can you read all of my posts next time, and then reply?

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
...so your arguement is that this Psychic Power doesn't deal 2MW to the taget unit because a different rule from 8th edition was FaQ'd to change the wording so that Kharne couldn't deal damage to himself?

So you've gone from "This doesn't work because of some nebulous context and I feel that it doesn't include the target unit" to "the wording of the rule might not be the finalised version and/or was faked by reviewers" and then further to "GW might change it in the future like they did this other rule, so it doesn't work" even though you have no way of knowing that and that wouldn't mean the Psychic Power doesn't currently deal 2 MW RAW either...
Which would also mean you are admitting that it does deal 2 MW to the target unit RAW and thus proving Jidmah's commentary right?

Um... yeah.

That is not at all what I was saying.

Can you real all of my posts next time, and then reply?

Just stop, please.

 DeathReaper wrote:

PoorGravitasHandling wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
There is, at absolute best, a thin implication that this isn't to include the original unit. But give they use the word "other" liberally elsewhere, I don't think your context argument holds DR

I clearly do not agree, but it is at best unclear.

Judging by the errata to Khârn the Betrayer's "The Betrayer" ability, I am going to guess that this will be FAQ'd to follow the same train of thought.

The Betrayer says "another friendly unit" not "units within X"

Wholly within is also VERY explicit and clear, not sure why you're proving Jidmah's commentary right previously but uh, you are.

I am absolutely not "proving Jidmah's commentary right" Why do you think I am?

The most current Codex for Chaos Space Marines is he 8th ed codex, so what dataslate are you looking at...

The Betrayer does not say "another friendly unit" It says "Those attacks automatically hit a friendly unit". A friendly unit includes Khârn the Betrayer.

The Errata makes it so he does not hit himself, because originally he hit himself.

Pleaselet me know what you are talking about because you aren't making much sense.

Spoiler:

Straight from the most recent CSM errata:

"You cannot re-roll or modify hit rolls of 1 made for Khârn the Betrayer in the Fight phase. Instead, those attacks automatically hit another friendly unit within Engagement Range of Khârn. Randomly determine which unit is hit if there is more than one. If there are no other friendly units within Engagement Range of Khârn, the hits are discarded"

So they changed it to explicitly exclude Kharn.

Because before it explicitly included Kharn via Wholly Within or the equivalent 8th edition rule.

So what is even your point here.

 DeathReaper wrote:

PoorGravitasHandling wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
There is, at absolute best, a thin implication that this isn't to include the original unit. But give they use the word "other" liberally elsewhere, I don't think your context argument holds DR

I clearly do not agree, but it is at best unclear.

Judging by the errata to Khârn the Betrayer's "The Betrayer" ability, I am going to guess that this will be FAQ'd to follow the same train of thought.

The Betrayer says "another friendly unit" not "units within X"

Wholly within is also VERY explicit and clear, not sure why you're proving Jidmah's commentary right previously but uh, you are.

The Betrayer does not say "another friendly unit" It says "Those attacks automatically hit a friendly unit". A friendly unit includes Khârn the Betrayer.

The Errata makes it so he does not hit himself, because originally he hit himself.

Exactly.

The fact that they HAD TO change Kharn to prevent him from hitting himself is an argument in favour of Noxious Discharge dealing 2 mortal wounds to its initial target. Right? If not, why would they have changed Kharn's ability?

This is a "Looks like an apple, therefore it is an apple." argument.

The rulebook doesn't clarify whether abilities that LOOKS LIKE/WRITTEN LIKE aura abilties are indeed aura abilties.

At best, it's a typo (omission of 'Aura' distinction). At worst, you don't have permission to treat it as if it is aura ability.

RAW is undeterminable, therefore apply HIWPI/RAI interpretation and discuss before game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 MinMax wrote:
Exactly.

The fact that they HAD TO change Kharn to prevent him from hitting himself is an argument in favour of Noxious Discharge dealing 2 mortal wounds to its initial target. Right? If not, why would they have changed Kharn's ability?

It doesn't matter because that's specific to Kharn and Kharn only. Precedents can only provide circumstantial evidences.

 skchsan wrote:
The rulebook doesn't clarify whether abilities that LOOKS LIKE/WRITTEN LIKE aura abilties are indeed aura abilties.

All 9th edition books clearly distinguish between aura and non-aura.

 Jidmah wrote:

 skchsan wrote:
The rulebook doesn't clarify whether abilities that LOOKS LIKE/WRITTEN LIKE aura abilties are indeed aura abilties.

All 9th edition books clearly distinguish between aura and non-aura.

That's precisely the point. 9th edition Aura abilities are distinctly indicated as [Aura]. Note that non-aura abilities are not distinguished as [~Aura], therefore you cannot assume the opposite is true; it's not a case of "all abilities are either aura abilities or ~aura abilities". Thus, we can reasonably conclude that aura ability is a specific subset of abilities, and not a binary condition. Saying "if an ability is not indicated as [aura], then it is non-aura ability" falls under the 'all rectangles are squares' fallacy.

You cannot determine that Noxious Discharge psychic power, which expressly is not indicated as an [Aura] ability, is in fact an aura ability based on the nature of the written text, no matter how same or similar it is to abilities that ARE auras precisely because it lacks the [Aura] distinction. Thus, it is fallacious to claim that the psychic power affects the main target twice because "a model is always in range of its own aura ability".

 skchsan wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

 skchsan wrote:
The rulebook doesn't clarify whether abilities that LOOKS LIKE/WRITTEN LIKE aura abilties are indeed aura abilties.

All 9th edition books clearly distinguish between aura and non-aura.

That's precisely the point. 9th edition Aura abilities are distinctly indicated as [Aura]. Note that non-aura abilities are not distinguished as [~Aura], therefore you cannot assume the opposite is true; it's not a case of "all abilities are either aura abilities or ~aura abilities". Thus, we can reasonably conclude that aura ability is a specific subset of abilities, and not a binary condition. Saying "if an ability is not indicated as [aura], then it is non-aura ability" falls under the 'all rectangles are squares' fallacy.

You cannot determine that Noxious Discharge psychic power, which expressly is not indicated as an [Aura] ability, is in fact an aura ability based on the nature of the written text, no matter how same or similar it is to abilities that ARE auras precisely because it lacks the [Aura] distinction. Thus, it is fallacious to claim that the psychic power affects the main target twice because "a model is always in range of its own aura ability".

Auras are NOT related to the current issue.

Is a unit within the range measured from itself, as determined by "Within/Wholly Within"?

The answer is yes, as W/WW says, very plainly, in no uncertain terms whatsoever, that if you're aren't beyond the max range then you're within. There is no minimum distance, there is no zero distance, you aren't measuring between two models, and it doesn't relate in any relevant way to auras.

A unit is within range of itself for Noxious Discharge and takes an additional MW.

 skchsan wrote:
That's precisely the point. 9th edition Aura abilities are distinctly indicated as [Aura]. Note that non-aura abilities are not distinguished as [~Aura], therefore you cannot assume the opposite is true; it's not a case of "all abilities are either aura abilities or ~aura abilities". Thus, we can reasonably conclude that aura ability is a specific subset of abilities, and not a binary condition. Saying "if an ability is not indicated as [aura], then it is non-aura ability" falls under the 'all rectangles are squares' fallacy.

Citation please where it says that rules marked with (Aura) are aura abilities. Actually dont bother, there is nothing in the rules saying that.

On p. 202 it says :

6. ABILITIES
Many units have one or more special abilities; these will be described here.

Aura Abilities
Some abilities affect models or units in a given range – these are aura abilities. A model with an aura ability is always within range of its effect. The effects of multiple, identically named aura abilities are not cumulative (i.e. if a unit is within range of two models with the same aura ability, that aura ability only applies to the unit once).

There is the definition of aura abilities. If its on a datasheet, in the box named abilities, and it affects models or units in a given range, its an aura ability. There are a lot of rules which fit this description, and many of those rules dont have (Aura). And it doesnt say anything what this (Aura) actually means. We can assume that it means aura ability, but the rules dont say that. GW introduced a new term, but didnt define it.

 p5freak wrote:
There is the definition of aura abilities. If its on a datasheet, in the box named abilities, and it affects models or units in a given range, its an aura ability. There are a lot of rules which fit this description, and many of those rules dont have (Aura). And it doesnt say anything what this (Aura) actually means. We can assume that it means aura ability, but the rules dont say that. GW introduced a new term, but didnt define it.

Which is precisely why I've mentioned that you either take it as though GW made a mistake and didn't slap [Aura] on it and pretend it is effectively one, or you take it at face value and not consider it [Aura] ability. It's a HIWPI. RAW is clear in that it is not clearly defined.

GW should really work on expanding their keyword system. It's working but it's not fully implemented. They can easily apply something like [Chain Effect] - Some abilities have secondary effect after resolving it's effect against the primary target. Unless otherwise noted, do not apply the effects of [Chain Effect] against the primary target.

Its a psychic power, not an ability.

There is no ambiguity, it is not an aura, auras are not relevant to the rule.

PoorGravitasHandling wrote:
Its a psychic power, not an ability.

There is no ambiguity, it is not an aura, auras are not relevant to the rule.

You're over extending that definition. The whole 'wholly within' and 'within' distinction is to define the cut off points.

You're arguing "This strawberry is red, so this red apple must be a strawberry".

 skchsan wrote:

PoorGravitasHandling wrote:
Its a psychic power, not an ability.

There is no ambiguity, it is not an aura, auras are not relevant to the rule.

You're over extending that definition. The whole 'wholly within' and 'within' distinction is to define the cut off points.

You're arguing "This strawberry is red, so this red apple must be a strawberry".

What the hot holy feth are you talking about.

"If a rule says it applies ‘within’ a certain distance, it applies at any distance that is not more than the specified distance. "

Is the targeted unit more than the specified distance away from itself? That's the only question here. The answer may shock and surprise you.

Why are we going back and forth on this Aura/Within issue? The rules here can't be simpler:



Based on the normal reading of GW rules. The target unit takes 2 MW (unless it is a Nurgle Unit with only takes 1 MW) while all other units within 3" take 1 MW.

Was this GW's intent? I would think not, but it is what they wrote. I personally think this is just a really badly written rule as evidenced by this entire thread. Using two conditions like this is just bad and leads to confusion. It be stated as one of the following:

The target unit takes 2 Mortal Wounds (or 1 Mortal Wound if a Nurgle unit). Additionally, all other units within 3" of the target unit take 1 Mortal Wound unless they are a Nurgle unit.

The target unit takes 1 Mortal Wound. Additionally, all other units within 3" of the target unit take 1 Mortal Wound unless they are a Nurgle unit.

Can we have one back and forth without calling each other out like this? Honestly, this sub forum accounts for 95% of animosity on these forums.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Can we have one back and forth without calling each other out like this? Honestly, this sub forum accounts for 95% of animosity on these forums.

Well, one of the back and forth sides is saying, "This is simple, here's the only relevant rule"

And the other side is saying "Oranges aren't purple therefore the aura disproves you".

There are threads that dissolve into salt and then there's... whatever the """logic""" argument was.

You have two points you can resolve them in any order.

The second point also damages the first unit as it is an aura


Yes it is a psycic power but psychic powers can still be auras which is why the vox Espiritum specifically exempts them.

Even if it wasn't aura it would still have the same effect because gw wording of within includes the model itself.

Theirs no grey here

(Also note their is no requirement for an aura to be stamped with aura)

MEASURING DISTANCES
Distances are measured in inches (") between the closest points of the bases of the models you’re measuring to and from.

WITHIN AND WHOLLY WITHIN
If a rule says it applies ‘within’ a certain distance, it applies at any distance that is not more than the specified distance. For example, within 1" means any distance that is not more than 1" away.

I am not convinced that you can measure 0" distance to the base you are measuring from. I dont think you can measure to and from the base itself. You are measuring from one base to another.

"...it applies at any distance that is not more than the specified distance."

PoorGravitasHandling wrote:
"...it applies at any distance that is not more than the specified distance."

I dont think 0" distance is a distance. A 0" distance is non existant, it must be more than 0" to be a distance. You cant measure to and from the base itself.

I think you're focusing on the wrong elements here Yes, the issue is related to the within/wholly within, but not only to that.
It's the combination of the within/wholly within+"other units meaning". Both conditions need to apply to the initial target to suffer 2 MW.

Does the first apply? Sure. Do the second? Unsure, because "other" here isn't defined in GW language as OR (include the original target) or VOR (esclude the original target).

In the logic of language, OR is the common interpretation (because VOR can be built upon that, so compact definitions are preferrable).
In natural language, the VOR is more common and usually implied (and pretty funnily, it's so in many languages not only English -not sure if in ANY language-)

That's the reason why GW should use a symbolic system for their rules and why "raw" as usually meant in this board don't exist. Raw isn't a concept that can be generally applied to natural language.

 p5freak wrote:

PoorGravitasHandling wrote:
"...it applies at any distance that is not more than the specified distance."

I dont think 0" distance is a distance. A 0" distance is non existant, it must be more than 0" to be a distance. You cant measure to and from the base itself.

So you think 0 is more than 3? I don't think we need to be getting into philosophical debates about the nature of zero to parse a very simple rule.

 p5freak wrote:

PoorGravitasHandling wrote:
"...it applies at any distance that is not more than the specified distance."

I dont think 0" distance is a distance. A 0" distance is non existant, it must be more than 0" to be a distance. You cant measure to and from the base itself.

What you think doesn't matter. 0" is a perfect valid value for a distance as per games rules, physics and geometry. You can easily determine the distance between to points, shapes and objects, even if they are congruent. My master thesis happens to be about that exact topic so I can even provide scientific proof for you being wrong.

We also absolutely know that the distance between a model and itself being measurable because of a vast number of precedence cases.

And last but not least, ockham's razor.

Your in every way incorrect way of interpreting the rules solely serves the purpose of finding a problem where there is none.

 Jidmah wrote:

What you think doesn't matter. 0" is a perfect valid value for a distance as per games rules, physics and geometry. You can easily determine the distance between to points, shapes and objects, even if they are congruent. My master thesis happens to be about that exact topic so I can even provide scientific proof for you being wrong.

Your scientific proof doesnt matter. This is a game, not real science.

Yes but the convention is proof by RAW which may at times include basic science such as measuring and what is within an inch

If you don't accept RAW proof then you have no business being on a rules forum because your not playing by the rules

 p5freak wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

What you think doesn't matter. 0" is a perfect valid value for a distance as per games rules, physics and geometry. You can easily determine the distance between to points, shapes and objects, even if they are congruent. My master thesis happens to be about that exact topic so I can even provide scientific proof for you being wrong.

Your scientific proof doesnt matter. This is a game, not real science.

Is a unit more than 3” away from itself, as a yes or no question.

It is within 3"

It is not more than 3"

 p5freak wrote:

PoorGravitasHandling wrote:
"...it applies at any distance that is not more than the specified distance."

I dont think 0" distance is a distance. A 0" distance is non existant, it must be more than 0" to be a distance. You cant measure to and from the base itself.

Wouldn't this suggest that models who are in base contact cannot fight each other? As they are 0" away from each other, and thus in some sort of weird blindspot according to you.

 MinMax wrote:

 p5freak wrote:

PoorGravitasHandling wrote:
"...it applies at any distance that is not more than the specified distance."

I dont think 0" distance is a distance. A 0" distance is non existant, it must be more than 0" to be a distance. You cant measure to and from the base itself.

Wouldn't this suggest that models who are in base contact cannot fight each other? As they are 0" away from each other, and thus in some sort of weird blindspot according to you.

According to science, which is a real thing in gaming, as i have now learned, you cannot be in base contact. Because science says atoms repel each other.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yE8rkG9Dw4s


Automatically Appended Next Post:

U02dah4 wrote:
Yes but the convention is proof by RAW which may at times include basic science such as measuring and what is within an inch

If you don't accept RAW proof then you have no business being on a rules forum because your not playing by the rules

Then show me RAW permission to measure to and from the base itself. The rules say distances are measured in inches (") between the closest points of the bases of the models you’re measuring to and from. Bases and models are plural, not singular.

 p5freak wrote:

 MinMax wrote:

 p5freak wrote:

PoorGravitasHandling wrote:
"...it applies at any distance that is not more than the specified distance."

I dont think 0" distance is a distance. A 0" distance is non existant, it must be more than 0" to be a distance. You cant measure to and from the base itself.

Wouldn't this suggest that models who are in base contact cannot fight each other? As they are 0" away from each other, and thus in some sort of weird blindspot according to you.

According to science, which is a real thing in gaming, as i have now learned, you cannot be in base contact. Because science says atoms repel each other.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yE8rkG9Dw4s


Automatically Appended Next Post:

U02dah4 wrote:
Yes but the convention is proof by RAW which may at times include basic science such as measuring and what is within an inch

If you don't accept RAW proof then you have no business being on a rules forum because your not playing by the rules

Then show me RAW permission to measure to and from the base itself. The rules say distances are measured in inches (") between the closest points of the bases of the models you’re measuring to and from. Bases and models are plural, not singular.

The rules make it clear several times that distances can be measured where only one model is involved.

Core rules:

Distances are measured in inches (") between the closest points
of the bases of the models you’re measuring to and from.

Nothing in this statement says that the base you are measuring from and the base you are measuring to have to be different bases. In fact, this is confirmed by the movement rules:

The distance a model moves
is measured using the part of the model’s base (or hull) that moves
furthest along its path (including parts that rotate or pivot).

The Rules Term Glossary entry for "Aura" says

...within a set distance of the model it is on (including that model itself)...

This glossary entry makes it clear that a model is within a set distance of itself.

As for using "models" rather than "model" when discussing measuring distances in the core rules. It is common practice to pluralise when making generalisations in the same way that "they" can be used in generalisations and still apply in the singular in a specific example.

Aash wrote:

The rules make it clear several times that distances can be measured where only one model is involved.

Core rules:

Distances are measured in inches (") between the closest points
of the bases of the models you’re measuring to and from.

Nothing in this statement says that the base you are measuring from and the base you are measuring to have to be different bases.

How do you measure a distance of 0" ? You cant, because there is no 0" distance. You cant measure something that doesnt exist.

Aash wrote:

In fact, this is confirmed by the movement rules:

The distance a model moves
is measured using the part of the model’s base (or hull) that moves
furthest along its path (including parts that rotate or pivot).

Only true for movement.

Aash wrote:

The Rules Term Glossary entry for "Aura" says

...within a set distance of the model it is on (including that model itself)...

This glossary entry makes it clear that a model is within a set distance of itself.

How do you measure a distance of 0" ? You cant, because there is no 0" distance. You cant measure something that doesnt exist.

Zero is an integer, and yes it is possible to measure zero, accuracy of the measurement to 1 significant figure is common, it is also not unknown for rounding to occur, measuring is usually taken as accurate to half the smallest division of the measuring instrument. If you want to get into details such as planck distance, subatomic repulsion and attraction etc, then you are arguing in bad faith. This is a wargaming distance, not quantum physics.

Only true for movement.

Whether or not this is true doesn't change my answer, I was demonstrating that rules allow for measurements where only one model is involved (which you said was not so), I was making no comment on when those rules apply.

Only true for auras. Noxious Discharge is not an aura.

Whether or not this is an aura is irrelevant to my point, I was demonstrating that rules allow for measurements where only one model is involved (which you said was not so), I was making no comment on when those rules apply.

 Blndmage wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
...so your arguement is that this Psychic Power doesn't deal 2MW to the taget unit because a different rule from 8th edition was FaQ'd to change the wording so that Kharne couldn't deal damage to himself?

So you've gone from "This doesn't work because of some nebulous context and I feel that it doesn't include the target unit" to "the wording of the rule might not be the finalised version and/or was faked by reviewers" and then further to "GW might change it in the future like they did this other rule, so it doesn't work" even though you have no way of knowing that and that wouldn't mean the Psychic Power doesn't currently deal 2 MW RAW either...
Which would also mean you are admitting that it does deal 2 MW to the target unit RAW and thus proving Jidmah's commentary right?

Um... yeah.

That is not at all what I was saying.

Can you read all of my posts next time, and then reply?

Just stop, please.

When someone misrepresents what I was saying, I will always let them know.

 p5freak wrote:


The rules say distances are measured in inches (") between the closest points of the bases of the models you’re measuring to and from.

The rule we're discussing here actually says "...not more than the specified distance."

I'll ask again: do you think 0 is more than 3?

On a separate note, this thread should probably be held up as the perfect example of everything wrong with this sub-forum. It's embarrassing the lengths some people will go to just so they don't have to admit they were wrong.

Aash wrote:

Zero is an integer, and yes it is possible to measure zero, accuracy of the measurement to 1 significant figure is common, it is also not unknown for rounding to occur, measuring is usually taken as accurate to half the smallest division of the measuring instrument. If you want to get into details such as planck distance, subatomic repulsion and attraction etc, then you are arguing in bad faith. This is a wargaming distance, not quantum physics.

Ok, no more science stuff, its a game. The rule in question says "...all units within 3" of that unit...". This requires measuring. And you cant measure 0" with a tape measure.

Aash wrote:

Only true for movement.

Whether or not this is true doesn't change my answer, I was demonstrating that rules allow for measurements where only one model is involved (which you said was not so), I was making no comment on when those rules apply.

Only true for auras. Noxious Discharge is not an aura.

Whether or not this is an aura is irrelevant to my point, I was demonstrating that rules allow for measurements where only one model is involved (which you said was not so), I was making no comment on when those rules apply.

I never said you cant measure when only one model is involded, sure you can in the movement phase. What i said is you cant measure a distance of 0", because it doesnt exist. And you cant measure to and from the base itself.

MEASURING DISTANCES
Distances are measured in inches (") between the closest points of the bases of the models you’re measuring to and from.

You cannot measure between the closest point of a base of a model. Between means there must be at least two bases or models.

This is a rule where all tournaments players agree 99.9999% of casual players agree and the there's p5freak. It is well established auras effect their own units because they are within the aura range. Auras are usually a circle and anywhere in that circle is within range.

There's no rules question here and I'm not sure if p5freak is deliberately trolling or genuinely believes the nonsense he's spewing but either way your not going to get him to agree

 p5freak wrote:

Aash wrote:

Zero is an integer, and yes it is possible to measure zero, accuracy of the measurement to 1 significant figure is common, it is also not unknown for rounding to occur, measuring is usually taken as accurate to half the smallest division of the measuring instrument. If you want to get into details such as planck distance, subatomic repulsion and attraction etc, then you are arguing in bad faith. This is a wargaming distance, not quantum physics.

Ok, no more science stuff, its a game. The rule in question says "...all units within 3" of that unit...". This requires measuring. And you cant measure 0" with a tape measure.

Aash wrote:

Only true for movement.

Whether or not this is true doesn't change my answer, I was demonstrating that rules allow for measurements where only one model is involved (which you said was not so), I was making no comment on when those rules apply.

Only true for auras. Noxious Discharge is not an aura.

Whether or not this is an aura is irrelevant to my point, I was demonstrating that rules allow for measurements where only one model is involved (which you said was not so), I was making no comment on when those rules apply.

I never said you cant measure when only one model is involded, sure you can in the movement phase. What i said is you cant measure a distance of 0", because it doesnt exist. And you cant measure to and from the base itself.

MEASURING DISTANCES
Distances are measured in inches (") between the closest points of the bases of the models you’re measuring to and from.

You cannot measure between the closest point of a base of a model. Between means there must be at least two bases or models.

the rule doesn't require measuring of 0", as you say, the rule is

...all units within 3" of that unit.

So you measure 3" from the unit in question and anything inside that distance is within 3" as per the rules definition of "within".

Could someone argue that GW is moving away from the "Unit is affected by it's own Aura" style of play with the Captains not affecting their own re-rolls themselves rules?

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Could someone argue that GW is moving away from the "Unit is affected by it's own Aura" style of play with the Captains not affecting their own re-rolls themselves rules?

That restriction is baked into the captain-level reroll rules now. If they errata it later we'll know what they intended to do all along. Right now it just affects the targeted unit twice.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Could someone argue that GW is moving away from the "Unit is affected by it's own Aura" style of play with the Captains not affecting their own re-rolls themselves rules?

No. That's a result of how they're using the Core keyword.
Drazhar from the DE codex is affected by his own aura (which is based off the Incubi keyword, which he has), while Archons with their regular aura are not (it only affects Core Kabal and Incubi. Archons lack Incubi and Core).
Destoyer Lords from the Necron codex are similar in that regard.
The Palatine from the recent SoB vs DE box also benefits from her aura (will likely change once they get a new codex with the Core keyword, but still).

 p5freak wrote:

 MinMax wrote:

 p5freak wrote:

PoorGravitasHandling wrote:
"...it applies at any distance that is not more than the specified distance."

I dont think 0" distance is a distance. A 0" distance is non existant, it must be more than 0" to be a distance. You cant measure to and from the base itself.

Wouldn't this suggest that models who are in base contact cannot fight each other? As they are 0" away from each other, and thus in some sort of weird blindspot according to you.

According to science, which is a real thing in gaming, as i have now learned, you cannot be in base contact. Because science says atoms repel each other.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yE8rkG9Dw4s

That's a rather glib response. I expected better.

I'll reiterate one of my questions from earlier in the thread - do you also claim that a psyker cannot cast psychic powers on themselves, or that a Chapter Master/Mortarion cannot target themselves with their own reroll abilities?

U02dah4 wrote:
This is a rule where all tournaments players agree 99.9999% of casual players agree and the there's p5freak. It is well established auras effect their own units because they are within the aura range. Auras are usually a circle and anywhere in that circle is within range.

This rule we are talking about is not an aura. Even though you are right, your response has nothing to do with this.

Aash wrote:

the rule doesn't require measuring of 0", as you say, the rule is

...all units within 3" of that unit.

So you measure 3" from the unit in question and anything inside that distance is within 3" as per the rules definition of "within".

Measuring is done between bases and models, its impossible to measure between a base.

 MinMax wrote:

I'll reiterate one of my questions from earlier in the thread - do you also claim that a psyker cannot cast psychic powers on themselves, or that a Chapter Master/Mortarion cannot target themselves with their own reroll abilities?

If those psychic powers or abilities are auras, they can target themselves. Thats what the aura abilities rule says. Assuming (Aura) means that those psychic powers and abilities are aura abilities, the rules dont explain this. However, Noxious Discharge is not an aura.

Well it is an aura it meets the criteria which are very specific

"Some abilities affect models or units in a given range – these are aura abilities." Thats the definition

We know some psychic abilities are auras there is unequivocal precedent on this. E.g. Vox Espiritum, psychic fortress, nullzone

So the only question is does it effect units or models in a given range

Which in this instance isn't contested. Its all units within 3" So it is an aura.

Refusal to accept that is just refusal to accept RAW and makes anything else you say irrelevant.

However in your 3rd quote you admit your wrong if it's an aura and as established it is so congrats you killed your own argument

 p5freak wrote:

Aash wrote:

the rule doesn't require measuring of 0", as you say, the rule is

...all units within 3" of that unit.

So you measure 3" from the unit in question and anything inside that distance is within 3" as per the rules definition of "within".

Measuring is done between bases and models, its impossible to measure between a base.

So you are asserting that 2 bases are required for measuring? On to measure from and one to measure to?
Then how, pray tell, does movement work? How can you measure the distance? Are you required to measure to another model's base to determine how far you can move?

Wow...
1) To me and most of the community the answer seems to be both obvious and unargueable that unless the target unit is Nurgle it satisfies the requirements for both conidtions so takes 2MW.
2) of all the topics that I'd have thought would get to 4 pages this isnt' one of them

Can we stop with the No true Scotsmen of "I and everyone else thinks..." There is no possible way to justify that and it smacks of snarky jerk. Perhaps you are right, but don't act like everyone agrees one this. I honestly don't know the answer, however, as with the majority of threads on this subforum, discuss before hand with your opponent and flip for it on major contention.

 p5freak wrote:
If those psychic powers or abilities are auras, they can target themselves. Thats what the aura abilities rule says. Assuming (Aura) means that those psychic powers and abilities are aura abilities, the rules dont explain this. However, Noxious Discharge is not an aura.

A psychic power like Miasma of Pestilence, in which you choose a single unit with 18", say. Could the psyker nominate themselves as the target? Or the ability of a Chapter Master, to allow a single friendly CORE or CHARACTER unit within 6" to reroll hit rolls. Would you argue that these abilities cannot be used on themselves, as you cannot measure the distance from their base to their own base?

U02dah4 wrote:
Well it is an aura it meets the criteria which are very specific

"Some abilities affect models or units in a given range – these are aura abilities." Thats the definition

Yes, thats the definition. However, on p. 202 it says 6. Abilities, and under that aura abilities. And on p. 203 is a 6 right next to the box with the headline abilities. So only abilities written on a datasheet in that box can be aura abilities.

U02dah4 wrote:

We know some psychic abilities are auras there is unequivocal precedent on this. E.g. Vox Espiritum, psychic fortress, nullzone

We know ? How ? There is nothing in the rules defining what this term (Aura) means.

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:

So you are asserting that 2 bases are required for measuring? On to measure from and one to measure to?

Thats what the rules are saying, or dont they ? Distances are measured in inches between the closest points of the bases of the models you are measuring to and from.

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:

Then how, pray tell, does movement work? How can you measure the distance? Are you required to measure to another model's base to determine how far you can move?

We know because if you want to look at the psychic powers they are literally tagged with "AURA" could not be more explicit

https://spikeybits.com/2020/10/new-rules-space-marines-relics-litanies-psychics-more.html

as to vox espiritum it increases the range of auras and specifically says "it does not increase the range of "psychic powers that are aura abilities" again prooving auras can be created by psychic powers otherwise why add a convoluted wording.

and yes there is a definition of aura as quoted

"Some abilities affect models or units in a given range – these are aura abilities."

it couldn't be any clearer that it is a definition

You can't just declare there is no definition in response to the definition being quoted at you and the fact thats what you did proves your argument has no legs because as you said


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 p5freak wrote:

 MinMax wrote:

I'll reiterate one of my questions from earlier in the thread - do you also claim that a psyker cannot cast psychic powers on themselves, or that a Chapter Master/Mortarion cannot target themselves with their own reroll abilities?

If those psychic powers or abilities are auras, they can target themselves. Thats what the aura abilities rule says. Assuming (Aura) means that those psychic powers and abilities are aura abilities, the rules dont explain this. However, Noxious Discharge is not an aura.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Can we stop with the No true Scotsmen of "I and everyone else thinks..." There is no possible way to justify that and it smacks of snarky jerk. Perhaps you are right, but don't act like everyone agrees one this. I honestly don't know the answer, however, as with the majority of threads on this subforum, discuss before hand with your opponent and flip for it on major contention.

1) Dude this is a rules thread and some things are common knowledge within the community and it's a perfectly reasonable RAI argument to say that. An example would be 8th ed assault weapons which by RAW couldn't fire when advancing. The community have a shared understanding that it could and you can argue till your blue in the face that RAW it couldn't advance and fire - that's not how it's played by anyone. The answer here is obvious at a community level and i can guarantee 100% on how every TO would rule in this case. (Now that's not the case in every situation it is in this one)

2) if you don't know the answer then don't contribute, its perfectly reasonable to not understand the argument or not to come down on either side but every i don't know clouds the thread

3) as stated on other forums role off and discuss with opponents beforehand are not good answers on a rules forum - its an acceptable way to manage an in game dispute you are not expecting, or to acknowledge a contentious issue that cannot be resolved. It is not the solution to a problem on a rules forum unless their is proven ambiguity. As this is outside a game and there is as long as we want to discuss it.

4) It is also not required here as there is no ambiguity. It has been shown to be an AURA by RAW for which the proponent of the opposite view has already contested that if it is an AURA he is wrong. He also has no answer other than to ignore the definition that has been clearly stated to him along with the precedent that psychic powers can produce AURAs.

As entertaining as this back and forth is, what does it have to do with Noxious Discharge?

Because if noxious discharge is an AURA as it has been proven to be. Then P5freak has admitted he is wrong and the problem is resolved.

2 MW on the target 1 on everything else within range (excluding nurgle)

With no argument against.

 p5freak wrote:

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:

So you are asserting that 2 bases are required for measuring? On to measure from and one to measure to?

Thats what the rules are saying, or dont they ? Distances are measured in inches between the closest points of the bases of the models you are measuring to and from.

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:

Then how, pray tell, does movement work? How can you measure the distance? Are you required to measure to another model's base to determine how far you can move?

There are rules how to measure in the movement phase. Whenever it comes to movement you measure like this. When it comes to measuring distances you measure between bases.

The distance a model moves is measured using the part of the model’s base (or hull) that moves furthest along its path (including parts that rotate or pivot).

That isn't what that says though, is it? Just that you measure using the parts that moves furthest. No where does that actually explicitly break the "must measures between two models/bases" rule you're so hung up on. You still "measure" after all.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Can we stop with the No true Scotsmen of "I and everyone else thinks..." There is no possible way to justify that and it smacks of snarky jerk. Perhaps you are right, but don't act like everyone agrees one this. I honestly don't know the answer, however, as with the majority of threads on this subforum, discuss before hand with your opponent and flip for it on major contention.

No, this is not fething both sides. P5Freak dismisses arguments by claiming that "science" has no place, then dismisses another argument because "science" means you can't measure a base to itself for some reason. I guess no one taught them the value of 0.

Another person I can't even call right on this because their reasoning is somehow even more absurd than the above.

Then you have four pages of other people quoting verbatim rules and coming down firmly on Within/Wholly Within. There appears to be a pretty clear consensus now at least.

U02dah4 wrote:
We know because if you want to look at the psychic powers they are literally tagged with "AURA" could not be more explicit

https://spikeybits.com/2020/10/new-rules-space-marines-relics-litanies-psychics-more.html

Spikeybits isnt rules.

U02dah4 wrote:

as to vox espiritum it increases the range of auras and specifically says "it does not increase the range of "psychic powers that are aura abilities" again prooving auras can be created by psychic powers otherwise why add a convoluted wording.

Yes, vox espiritum does say that. But we dont know which psychic powers are aura abilities. The term (aura) is undefined in the rules. Can you explain to me why no psychic power from the librarius or obscuration discipline have (aura) ? Many of them fit the description of an aura ability. Litanies of battle have (aura), but psychic powers dont. Why ?

U02dah4 wrote:

and yes there is a definition of aura as quoted

"Some abilities affect models or units in a given range – these are aura abilities."

it couldn't be any clearer that it is a definition

You can't just declare there is no definition in response to the definition being quoted at you and the fact thats what you did proves your argument has no legs because as you said

I never said there is no definition, there is one. But again, only abilities inside the box named abilities on a datasheet can be aura abilities, as defined on p. 202/203.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

PoorGravitasHandling wrote:

No, this is not fething both sides. P5Freak dismisses arguments by claiming that "science" has no place, then dismisses another argument because "science" means you can't measure a base to itself for some reason. I guess no one taught them the value of 0.

I was told that science has a place in gaming, and now it doesnt have ? Please make up your mind what it is.

I'm not sure why you keep insisting

The term (aura) is undefined in the rules

Aura is defined in the Rules Terms Glossary:

Aura: A rule that is classified as an aura can affect multiple models or
units that meet its criteria and are within a set distance of the model
it is on (including that model itself). If a model is within range of
multiple auras with the same name, it can only be affected by one of those rules at any one time (pg 202).

This article provides screenshots:
https://www.belloflostsouls.net/2020/07/40k-new-editions-fantastic-rules-glossary.html

Aash wrote:
I'm not sure why you keep insisting

The term (aura) is undefined in the rules

Aura is defined in the Rules Terms Glossary:

Aura: A rule that is classified as an aura can affect multiple models or
units that meet its criteria and are within a set distance of the model
it is on (including that model itself). If a model is within range of
multiple auras with the same name, it can only be affected by one of those rules at any one time (pg 202).

Ok, it is. And it says p. 202. I already explained what those rules say. Noxious Discharge is not in the box named abilities on a units datasheet(Neither does it have the (Aura) tag, if we assume that means aura ability). So its not an aura ability.

 p5freak wrote:

U02dah4 wrote:
We know because if you want to look at the psychic powers they are literally tagged with "AURA" could not be more explicit

https://spikeybits.com/2020/10/new-rules-space-marines-relics-litanies-psychics-more.html

Spikeybits isnt rules.

U02dah4 wrote:

as to vox espiritum it increases the range of auras and specifically says "it does not increase the range of "psychic powers that are aura abilities" again prooving auras can be created by psychic powers otherwise why add a convoluted wording.

Yes, vox espiritum does say that. But we dont know which psychic powers are aura abilities. The term (aura) is undefined in the rules. Can you explain to me why no psychic power from the librarius or obscuration discipline have (aura) ? Many of them fit the description of an aura ability. Litanies of battle have (aura), but psychic powers dont. Why ?

U02dah4 wrote:

and yes there is a definition of aura as quoted

"Some abilities affect models or units in a given range – these are aura abilities."

it couldn't be any clearer that it is a definition

You can't just declare there is no definition in response to the definition being quoted at you and the fact thats what you did proves your argument has no legs because as you said

I never said there is no definition, there is one. But again, only abilities inside the box named abilities on a datasheet can be aura abilities, as defined on p. 202/203.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

PoorGravitasHandling wrote:

No, this is not fething both sides. P5Freak dismisses arguments by claiming that "science" has no place, then dismisses another argument because "science" means you can't measure a base to itself for some reason. I guess no one taught them the value of 0.

I was told that science has a place in gaming, and now it doesnt have ? Please make up your mind what it is.

Spikey bits published the relevant rules page to support my statement without me breaking copyright. Saying it's not rules when literally they show you the relevant rules page in its entirely is just dumb.

You have had the aura definition quoted twice.
I can't believe anyone is that dumb that you can have a direct rules quote twice and still ignore what it says

You have had rules quoted showing psychic powers and littanys both not in your box are auras. We know this as they are tagged AURA. It is irrefutable. Furthermore nowhere in the definition does it specify they have to be in the box. That's just made up.

Ignoring the rules as quoted to you only proves your argument deeply stupid as it contradicts the RAW either wrong or that as I suspected earlier that you are a troll and are making no attempt to engage with the rules

U02dah4 wrote:

You have had the aura definition quoted twice.
I can't believe anyone is that dumb that you can have a direct rules quote twice and still saay it doesn't exist.

Ignoring it only proves your argumenf deeply stupid as it contradicts the RAW either wrong or that as I suspected earlier that you are a troll and are making no attempt to engage with the rules

Its you who ignores rules. P. 202/203 clearly shows that only abilities inside the box named abilities on a units datasheet can be aura abilities.

No it doesn't don't lie

you are 100% unable to provide a quote to support that. No where on that page does it say that, which is why you write a page number rather than provide a quote


Just because things in that box are abilities does not mean abilities can't exist outside the box (as proven by auras and littanys contradicting your hypothesis)

U02dah4 wrote:
No it doesn't don't lie

and you are unable to provide a quote to support that. No where on that page does it say that which is why you write a page number rather than provide a quote

Here is your quote from p. 202.

6. ABILITIES
Many units have one or more special abilities; these will be described here.

Aura Abilities
Some abilities affect models or units in a given range – these are aura abilities. A model with an aura ability is always within range of its effect. The effects of multiple, identically named aura abilities are not cumulative (i.e. if a unit is within range of two models with the same aura ability, that aura ability only applies to the unit once).

The red 6 is on p. 203. Right next to the box named abilities. This means that this text refers to that abilities box.

U02dah4 wrote:

Just because things in that box are abilities does not mean abilities can't exist outside the box (as proven by auras and littanys contradicting your hypothesis)

Thats true. But there is no rules basis for that. If psychic powers are aura abilities, why dont they have that (Aura) tag, when they are aura abilities ? None of the SM psychic powers have (Aura). Why do have litanies (Aura), but not psychic powers ?

Yes I see your red 6 I acknowledge that it shows that things written on 6 are abilities

Saying something will be something is not proof it can't also exist elsewhere. it is permissive not restrictive

We have provided irrefutable proof that psychic powers located elsewhere have the aura tag as an example of where this happens. With the quoted rules page giving them the aura tag.

Which given we are talking about psychic powers is the only relevant area we have to establish


As proven some psychic powers do have the aura tag because the space marine ones as quoted to you on spikey bits with the actual rules page do. (Psychic fortress and nullzone) saying they don't is just stupid when faced witha direct quote of the rules source

but as usual GW is inconsistent in its writing. Their is no rules requirement for auras to have an aura tag. Just that they meet the definition.

Why are we even bothering talking about Auras? The pertinent rule is for what counts as within, which is:

"If a rule says it applies ‘within’ a certain distance, it applies at any distance that is not more than the specified distance."

0 is not more than 3, therefore Noxious Discharge does 2MW to the target. The whole Aura discussion just seems completely irrelevant when there's a simple rule that doesn't require arguing about the definition of a poorly defined rules term.

I've directly asked p5freak twice now whether they think 0 is more than 3 and they have ignored that question both times.

Because as stated if Its an aura he conceads your point

However he won't answer your question because he can't as he does not have a credible answer

Noxious Discharge is not an aura ability. Its neither in the box named abilities on a datasheet, nor does it have the (Aura) tag (if we assume that actually means aura ability). Can we end this aura talk now ?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slipspace wrote:
Why are we even bothering talking about Auras? The pertinent rule is for what counts as within, which is:

"If a rule says it applies ‘within’ a certain distance, it applies at any distance that is not more than the specified distance."

0 is not more than 3, therefore Noxious Discharge does 2MW to the target. The whole Aura discussion just seems completely irrelevant when there's a simple rule that doesn't require arguing about the definition of a poorly defined rules term.

I've directly asked p5freak twice now whether they think 0 is more than 3 and they have ignored that question both times.

I already told you that a 0" distance is non existent. Your rule cannot apply because it requires a distance. If there is no distance, you cant be within that distance.

 p5freak wrote:
I already told you that a 0" distance is non existent.

That is wrong, and can be proven. The science you claim that does not apply is math, by the way.

For a circle c1 with a radius of r1 and the coordinates (x1,y1) and a circle c2 with a radius of r2 and the coordinates (x2, y2) the distance d between the closest point of those two circles is
d = sqrt((x2 − x1)^2 + (y2 − y1)^2) − (r2 + r1).

This formula is solvable for d = 0 if both circles have the same coordinates and radius.

Oh, and for the "0 is not a distance!" strawman, math also has a solution. If something is non-existent, you cannot add anything to it. However, 0"+1" = 1", therefore 0" exists.

So, I ask you once more - do you think that math does not apply to Warhammer 40k? Do not answer with anything but yes or no.

P5 - just quit. You're arguing an absurd position.
0" is absolutely not more than 3". Prove otherwise, or concede.

Indeed it has been proven to be an aura as a tag and being within 6 are not requirements. You have conceded auras can effect themselves

your position is absurd you have been given two different proofs proving your wrong prove otherwise on both or concede

I am not arguing an absurd position, and i dont concede to anything. You are wrong. Lets agree to disagree. This is going nowhere.

 p5freak wrote:
I am not arguing an absurd position, and i dont concede to anything. You are wrong. Lets agree to disagree. This is going nowhere.

You're arguing 0 is not less than 3. Your definition of absurd is different to literally everyone else's.

 p5freak wrote:

i dont concede to anything

Which is the problem with trying to debate you. You're so desperate not to be wrong you're invoking atomic structure and outright absurdities just to avoid having to admit that your position is incorrect. There's no point in debating someone like that.

Couldn't agree more

 p5freak wrote:
I am not arguing an absurd position, and i dont concede to anything. You are wrong. Lets agree to disagree. This is going nowhere.

You have argued you cannot measure 0", when within the limits of acceptability in this game you can, same as you can measure 3". You're claiming that 0" doesn't exist, when you have been proven wrong on that as well. You're unable to refute that 0" is less than 3", meaning you are wring on that rule as well. And so on

Your position is untenable.

 skchsan wrote:
This is a "Looks like an apple, therefore it is an apple." argument.

The rulebook doesn't clarify whether abilities that LOOKS LIKE/WRITTEN LIKE aura abilties are indeed aura abilties.

At best, it's a typo (omission of 'Aura' distinction). At worst, you don't have permission to treat it as if it is aura ability.

RAW is undeterminable, therefore apply HIWPI/RAI interpretation and discuss before game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 MinMax wrote:
Exactly.

The fact that they HAD TO change Kharn to prevent him from hitting himself is an argument in favour of Noxious Discharge dealing 2 mortal wounds to its initial target. Right? If not, why would they have changed Kharn's ability?

It doesn't matter because that's specific to Kharn and Kharn only. Precedents can only provide circumstantial evidences.

There hasn't been a reasonable post in this thread since this one

HIWPI, the power does 2 wounds to the main target. However, I really don't think it's clear RAW. In order for that to be true, you'd have to prove one of two things, and I don't think anyone has done that:
- Noxious Discharge is an aura ability
- The rules permit you to measure the distance between a model's base and that same model's base outside of aura abilities

In what way does it not meet the aura definition

" Some abilities affect models or units in a given range – these are aura abilities"

It affects units -yes

it has a given range -yes within 3"

Is it an ability - yes psychic powers are abilities (as proven by the other psychic powers auras that are stamped)

They are the only three requirements of an aura.

That's pretty solid, but you also need to be able to prove that the target of Noxious Discharge is "a model with an aura ability" in order for it to be in range of itself

 Nate668 wrote:
That's pretty solid, but you also need to be able to prove that the target of Noxious Discharge is "a model with an aura ability" in order for it to be in range of itself

That's irrelevant. It's within 3" of itself according to the rules for being within/wholly within. The definition of Auras are really not relevant to the discussion and just confuse matters further for no gain.

Slipspace wrote:

 Nate668 wrote:
That's pretty solid, but you also need to be able to prove that the target of Noxious Discharge is "a model with an aura ability" in order for it to be in range of itself

That's irrelevant. It's within 3" of itself according to the rules for being within/wholly within. The definition of Auras are really not relevant to the discussion and just confuse matters further for no gain.

Read literally 3 posts back from yours. I said HIWPI, the target takes two wounds, but that's not clearly RAW unless you can prove that the rules permit you to measure the distance between a model's base and itself. (or that the AoE portion of Noxious Discharge counts as an aura ability of the target, which is why we were talking about auras).

 Nate668 wrote:

Slipspace wrote:

 Nate668 wrote:
That's pretty solid, but you also need to be able to prove that the target of Noxious Discharge is "a model with an aura ability" in order for it to be in range of itself

That's irrelevant. It's within 3" of itself according to the rules for being within/wholly within. The definition of Auras are really not relevant to the discussion and just confuse matters further for no gain.

Read literally 3 posts back from yours. I said HIWPI, the target takes two wounds, but that's not clearly RAW unless you can prove that the rules permit you to measure the distance between a model's base and itself. (or that the AoE portion of Noxious Discharge counts as an aura ability of the target, which is why we were talking about auras).

Are there any rules that indicate they would NOT take the damage?

Just that the rules don't clearly define that a unit is within a distance of itself, except where it's specifically called out in the description of auras.

 Nate668 wrote:
Just that the rules don't clearly define that a unit is within a distance of itself, except where it's specifically called out in the description of auras.

So are you of the opinion that a Nurgle Daemon Prince cannot cast Miasma Of Pestilence on themselves?

I would play it that they can, but strictly RAW, I think it's not totally clear.

And mostly I think that whenever these threads end up 3+ pages long, people should stop calling each other idiots and maybe consider the fact that the RAW in question isn't 100% clear.

I’m just gonna keep asking the same question:

Is a unit that wants to cast miasma of pestilence on itself more than 18” away from itself?

Is a unit affected by pestilent fallout more than 3” away from itself?

No. A unit is 0 inches away from itself, if that is logically possible. A unit cannot be "away" from itself, since it is always where it is.

Then the rules of within and wholly within have both of those psychic powers affect the unit. In the case of pestilent fallout, it affects it twice.

Wasn’t that easy.

I don't see why you are being all smarmy tone to me, I'm agreeing with you. My point of contention was had been on if this was a "targetable" spell/ability/I'msickofallthestupidterms.

That's a totally reasonable interpretation of the rules. But it's also reasonable to say that the model is not "at any distance that is not more than the specified distance" because it is not at any distance at all from itself.

If you had no apples, and someone asked you "do you have any number of apples fewer than 3 apples?" and you responded "yes," you might get some strange looks.

All I'm trying to say here is that it isn't unequivocally clear.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
I don't see why you are being all smarmy tone to me, I'm agreeing with you. My point of contention was had been on if this was a "targetable" spell/ability/I'msickofallthestupidterms.

My smariness stems from you both-sidesing earlier.

Zero is not an amount of something, it is actually the negation of the simple idea of an amount. While it has a representitive number or symbol for it, it is a logical construct. You cannot prove zero exists.

Except you do not need to prove that - and you can - you just need to show the model is not more than 3". Which you can do, because you measure 3" away and see the model is within that

It's utterly clear RAW

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Zero is not an amount of something, it is actually the negation of the simple idea of an amount. While it has a representitive number or symbol for it, it is a logical construct. You cannot prove zero exists.

OMG! Everybody know what zero is. It is the numerical representation of either nothing (when counting) or a lack of distance (when measuring). If you take zero steps, you are where you started. If you have zero apples, you have no apples. There is no need to prove either of these because zero, like any number, is a numerical representation.

So when it comes to measuring distance, something is alway zero distance from itself.

The point is that zero is not just any number. Is a model 0” from itself, and therefore “at any distance” from itself, or does it have no distance from itself, and therefore is not “at any distance”from itself?

Neither interpretation is unreasonable. If you have zero apples, do you have any number of apples?

 Nate668 wrote:
The point is that zero is not just any number. Is a model 0” from itself, and therefore “at any distance” from itself, or does it have no distance from itself, and therefore is not “at any distance”from itself?

Neither interpretation is unreasonable. If you have zero apples, do you have any number of apples?

I have provided mathematical proof above that zero is a number and that a circle can be within 0" of itself.

Your interpretation is unreasonable because you are trying to apply a philosophical argument to math and rules. This is not a philosophical discussion.

It's also worth noting that the rules is asking "do you have 3 apples or less?" to which a person with 0 apples would have to reply "yes" and suffer a mortal wound because of that

 alextroy wrote:
Why are we going back and forth on this Aura/Within issue? The rules here can't be simpler:



Based on the normal reading of GW rules. The target unit takes 2 MW (unless it is a Nurgle Unit with only takes 1 MW) while all other units within 3" take 1 MW.

Was this GW's intent? I would think not, but it is what they wrote. I personally think this is just a really badly written rule as evidenced by this entire thread. Using two conditions like this is just bad and leads to confusion. It be stated as one of the following:

The target unit takes 2 Mortal Wounds (or 1 Mortal Wound if a Nurgle unit). Additionally, all other units within 3" of the target unit take 1 Mortal Wound unless they are a Nurgle unit.

The target unit takes 1 Mortal Wound. Additionally, all other units within 3" of the target unit take 1 Mortal Wound unless they are a Nurgle unit.

It seemed worth quoting this to reinject it. I agree that RAW it's 2 MW target, others 1MW, but the way the rules read leaves a question about GW's intent, which makes it worth discussing with your opponent beforehand to see if he agrees with the 2MW/1 MW, or if he thinks they meant everyone gets 1 MW. Better to have a discussion beforehand to make sure there's agreement than to have a heated argument during the game.

 Jidmah wrote:

 Nate668 wrote:
The point is that zero is not just any number. Is a model 0” from itself, and therefore “at any distance” from itself, or does it have no distance from itself, and therefore is not “at any distance”from itself?

Neither interpretation is unreasonable. If you have zero apples, do you have any number of apples?

I have provided mathematical proof above that zero is a number and that a circle can be within 0" of itself.

Your interpretation is unreasonable because you are trying to apply a philosophical argument to math and rules. This is not a philosophical discussion.

It's also worth noting that the rules is asking "do you have 3 apples or less?" to which a person with 0 apples would have to reply "yes" and suffer a mortal wound because of that

If this were a math problem, you'd be spot on, but it's not. When you're debating the rules as written, language is just as (if not more) important than math. It's not philosophical to say a model is not "at any distance" from itself. And with regards to your "less than 3 apples," comment, the wording of the rule isn't "not more than x inches," but rather "at any distance not more than," which allows for a valid interpretation in which "no distance" does not meet the requirement.

But I'm not even arguing that it should be played that way! Why is it so fething hard to accept that the rules aren't written in such a way that only one interpretation is valid?

 Nate668 wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

 Nate668 wrote:
The point is that zero is not just any number. Is a model 0” from itself, and therefore “at any distance” from itself, or does it have no distance from itself, and therefore is not “at any distance”from itself?

Neither interpretation is unreasonable. If you have zero apples, do you have any number of apples?

I have provided mathematical proof above that zero is a number and that a circle can be within 0" of itself.

Your interpretation is unreasonable because you are trying to apply a philosophical argument to math and rules. This is not a philosophical discussion.

It's also worth noting that the rules is asking "do you have 3 apples or less?" to which a person with 0 apples would have to reply "yes" and suffer a mortal wound because of that

If this were a math problem, you'd be spot on, but it's not. When you're debating the rules as written, language is just as (if not more) important than math. It's not philosophical to say a model is not "at any distance" from itself. And with regards to your "less than 3 apples," comment, the wording of the rule isn't "not more than x inches," but rather "at any distance not more than," which allows for a valid interpretation in which "no distance" does not meet the requirement.

But I'm not even arguing that it should be played that way! Why is it so fething hard to accept that the rules aren't written in such a way that only one interpretation is valid?

Why is it so hard to understand that base to base fighting ceases to function (can't be in engagement range if you're at no distance!), self cast psychics fail, in addition to whatever else requires within and wholly within to work off just the RAW and not people's fevered imaginings of what the RAW would hypothetically be if models were treated as gaping holes in the distance measurements.

Its an argument being made to "win" the discussion, not to actually figure out whats going on.

FWIW engagement range doesn’t break in the RAW in the same way due to the wording of the within/wholly within rule.

The only argument I’m trying to win is that the people in the thread who interpret the RAW such that the power only deals 1 wound are not trolls, idiots, nonsensical, or whatever else they’ve been accused of in this thread.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
I am not, as things can change from test copies of books...

Original claim, right here. Provide proof or shut up.

I'm no longer responding to you on this topic, you are clearly - as usual - arguing in bad faith since you won't ever admit that you are wrong.

Yea, I dont have to prove that a book that has not been released can be changed. Because if it has not been released we cant be sure it is not photoshopped...

Thank you for adding to the unbearable noise.

The book was released on Saturday. Pick up a copy or kindly leave the thread, as your stance is doing nothing in support of any argument.

 MinMax wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
I am not, as things can change from test copies of books...

Original claim, right here. Provide proof or shut up.

I'm no longer responding to you on this topic, you are clearly - as usual - arguing in bad faith since you won't ever admit that you are wrong.

Yea, I dont have to prove that a book that has not been released can be changed. Because if it has not been released we cant be sure it is not photoshopped...

Thank you for adding to the unbearable noise.

The book was released on Saturday. Pick up a copy or kindly leave the thread, as your stance is doing nothing in support of any argument.

Says the guy adding to the unbearable noise/off topic for no reason.

The book was not released when I posted that.

Kindly stay on topic or leave the thread. Your post did nothing in support of any argument

 Nate668 wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

 Nate668 wrote:
The point is that zero is not just any number. Is a model 0” from itself, and therefore “at any distance” from itself, or does it have no distance from itself, and therefore is not “at any distance”from itself?

Neither interpretation is unreasonable. If you have zero apples, do you have any number of apples?

I have provided mathematical proof above that zero is a number and that a circle can be within 0" of itself.

Your interpretation is unreasonable because you are trying to apply a philosophical argument to math and rules. This is not a philosophical discussion.

It's also worth noting that the rules is asking "do you have 3 apples or less?" to which a person with 0 apples would have to reply "yes" and suffer a mortal wound because of that

If this were a math problem, you'd be spot on, but it's not. When you're debating the rules as written, language is just as (if not more) important than math. It's not philosophical to say a model is not "at any distance" from itself. And with regards to your "less than 3 apples," comment, the wording of the rule isn't "not more than x inches," but rather "at any distance not more than," which allows for a valid interpretation in which "no distance" does not meet the requirement.

bs. Measuring distances is nothing but math, rules are nothing but logic. Your argument has no place here and is, in fact, in violation of the forum rules.

But I'm not even arguing that it should be played that way! Why is it so fething hard to accept that the rules aren't written in such a way that only one interpretation is valid?

An interpretation that breaks the game and contradicts precedents if consistently applied across the whole ruleset is not a valid interpretation. Period.
All this nonsense does is confuse people who are actually looking for answers.

Oh, and as a final nail in your argument's coffin: If 0" wasn't a distance, units in base contact with a model providing an aura would not benefit from that aura, because the distance between them is 0".

 Nate668 wrote:
FWIW engagement range doesn’t break in the RAW in the same way due to the wording of the within/wholly within rule.

The only argument I’m trying to win is that the people in the thread who interpret the RAW such that the power only deals 1 wound are not trolls, idiots, nonsensical, or whatever else they’ve been accused of in this thread.

Their are instances in 40k where there can be different interpretations where something is unclear such as with two fight firsts and a fight last ability on the same unit.

This is not one of those instances their is no ambiguity here the argument is crystal clear from a RAW perspective.

So if after examining the crystal clear evidence you continue to adamantly protest that black is white inspite of the evidence. Then the question is why are you doing that as it has nothing to do with the rules and makes thread like this which has a simple answer for new players ridiculously long and unreadable. Which is detrimental to the forum

The answer is 2w and 1w on everything else in range.

 Nate668 wrote:
FWIW engagement range doesn’t break in the RAW in the same way due to the wording of the within/wholly within rule.

The only argument I’m trying to win is that the people in the thread who interpret the RAW such that the power only deals 1 wound are not trolls, idiots, nonsensical, or whatever else they’ve been accused of in this thread.

Thank you for posting this. Too often we dial up the temperature on this sub to over 200 degrees when someone makes a simple statement that they do not believe the base position is true.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:

 Nate668 wrote:
FWIW engagement range doesn’t break in the RAW in the same way due to the wording of the within/wholly within rule.

The only argument I’m trying to win is that the people in the thread who interpret the RAW such that the power only deals 1 wound are not trolls, idiots, nonsensical, or whatever else they’ve been accused of in this thread.

Thank you for posting this. Too often we dial up the temperature on this sub to over 200 degrees when someone makes a simple statement that they do not believe the base position is true.

If you're base-to-base then you're at zero, and the silly "arguments" above apply. Ditto with being base-to-base with obstacle terrain, or a friendly aura.

If you can't measure 0" out, the game breaks.

Its an argument for "winning" the thread not resolving the RAW.

I'm not sure what it says about me that I'm willing to keep arguing with the people who are still here that are willing to die on the hill of "the people who don't agree with me are trolls, idiots, rule breakers, and English language sentences can only be interpreted ONE WAY!" without actually addressing the argument, but here goes!

Let's get all the relevant rules together:

MEASURING DISTANCES
Distances are measured in inches (") between the closest points of the bases of the models you’re measuring to and from.

WITHIN AND WHOLLY WITHIN
If a rule says it applies ‘within’ a certain distance, it applies at any distance that is not more than the specified distance. For example, within 1" means any distance that is not more than 1" away. If a rule says it affects models that are ‘within’, then it applies so long as any part of the model’s base (or hull) is within the specified distance.

Aura Abilities​
Some abilities affect models or units in a given range – these are aura abilities. A model with an aura ability is always within range of its effect. The effects of multiple, identically named aura abilities are not cumulative (i.e. if a unit is within range of two models with the same aura ability, that aura ability only applies to the unit once).

Here's the argument for the target of Noxious Discharge only taking a single wound:
- The MEASURING DISTANCES rules do not permit us to measure the distance between a model and itself. Logically, something cannot have distance to itself, and we are not permitted to measure, so the distance is undefined/does not exist.

- Undefined/nothing is not "any distance," and so does not meet the requirements of WITHIN AND WHOLLY WITHIN.

And here are asides to address counter-arguments that have been presented:
- Noxious Discharge is not explicitly defined as an aura ability, and even if we consider that the 2nd bullet point of the ability meets the requirements of an aura ability, the target of Noxious Discharge is not "a model with an aura ability," it is the target of an aura ability.

- Engagement range/base contact still works fine, because we are permitted to measure between two models. We measure 0", and everything works. Also, the WITHIN AND WHOLLY WITHIN rules apply "as long as any part of the model's base (or hull) is within the specified distance"

- Undefined/nothing is distinctly different from 0" and the two cannot be freely interchanged. Undefined/nothing has no unit of measurement (because we were not permitted to measure).

The funny thing is that I fully expect GW to have written those 2 bullet point trying to be clearer, because otherwise (only with the second bullet point, that for many of you already implies that everyone in get 1 MW) someone would have tried to interpret is as the original target don't take any MW (for exactly the same reasoning with 0" shouldn't be a distance).

That said, I read it pretty clearly as 1 MW.
I think otherwise it would have been probably something like "the target unit suffer 2MW, and any other unit within 3" suffer 1 MW".
Could really be both.

No, no, people are arguing that zero isn't a measurable value and that something which is at no distance isn't at any distance. Its either measurable, and wholly within applies, or its not measurable, and things that are base to base (and thus zero distance) break.

You don't get to have this both ways.

To address measuring, within and wholly within never ask you to measure to or between anything (similar to how we can measure while moving a model without reference to a second model given the how-to-measure-rules, GW rules contradict themselves). It's just "are you not outside range". The first "how to measure" blurb isn't relevant.

 Nate668 wrote:
I'm not sure what it says about me that I'm willing to keep arguing with the people who are still here that are willing to die on the hill of "the people who don't agree with me are trolls, idiots, rule breakers, and English language sentences can only be interpreted ONE WAY!" without actually addressing the argument, but here goes!

I'm not going even going to read your arguments, as we know that units like chapter masters and psykers can use abilities with a range on themselves. Therefore a model can measure to itself, and the distance is 0", and no matter what you pull out of your superior understanding of the English language changes that. Hint: If math and logic disagree with you, a less accurate science is never going to prove your right.

Stop trying to win an argument just for the sake of winning.

@ nate668
Quoting your text then responding

Here's the argument for the target of Noxious Discharge only taking a single wound:
- The MEASURING DISTANCES rules do not permit us to measure the distance between a model and itself. Logically, something cannot have distance to itself, and we are not permitted to measure, so the distance is undefined/does not exist.

* this argument is blatantly False there are numerous instances within the game when models are required to do so. Auras psychic powers and litanies being exampled you can't say you can't do it when other areas of rules require you to do so and claiming that you can't breaks the game because none of these function.

- Undefined/nothing is not "any distance," and so does not meet the requirements of WITHIN AND WHOLLY WITHIN.

* this argument is blatantly false within and wholey within are defined terms there are numerous instances within the game when models are required to do so. Auras psychic powers and litanies being exampled you can't say you can't do it when other areas of rules require you to do so. And claiming that you can't breaks the game. Wholey within is a 1 or 0 - either you are wholey within or you are not. You are within 3" or you are not.

And here are asides to address counter-arguments that have been presented:
- Noxious Discharge is not explicitly defined as an aura ability, and even if we consider that the 2nd bullet point of the ability meets the requirements of an aura ability, the target of Noxious Discharge is not "a model with an aura ability," it is the target of an aura ability.

* this statement is blatantly false there is no requirement to explicitly state something is an aura
Something is an aura if it meets the definition
This does
The psychic power creates an aura without being one in the same way as nullzone does or psychic fortress which are tagged


- Engagement range/base contact still works fine, because we are permitted to measure between two models. We measure 0", and everything works. Also, the WITHIN AND WHOLLY WITHIN rules apply "as long as any part of the model's base (or hull) is within the specified distance"

* engagement range has nothing to do with the question and has no impact on the answer

- Undefined/nothing is distinctly different from 0" and the two cannot be freely interchanged. Undefined/nothing has no unit of measurement (because we were not permitted to measure).

*Nothing and 0" are irrelevant to the question the question is are you within 3" of an aura the answer is yes a part of its base is within 3"of another part of its base

None of these are valid rules arguments we have three blatantly false statements and two irrelevant points.

The opposing argument is RAW this is an aura because it meets the definition being an aura according to the rules and it is clearly stated that auras effect the unit with the aura according to the rules.

and even if it were not an aura it would still effect a unit because we have precedent on how measuring works in 40k e.g. in auras

So on the one side we have 3 false claims and two irrelevant points and on the other we have two solid rules based arguments.

I dunno guys, one side is quoting rules to prove their point and the other is just saying "This is blatantly false!" without providing evidence (or even reading the argument!). I don't think you guys are very good at this...

It's almost like the whole argument comes down to 'a thing has a measurable distance to itself and that distance is 0"' vs "a thing can't have a distance to itself"

Could it be that it depends on how you choose to interpret the word "distance," and that maybe both are acceptable answers?

Except that within and wholly within doesn't care? It asks if you are not outside the maximum range. It doesn't ask if you are outside the maximum range and also in a deadzone where we debate the meaning of 0. It doesn't ask if the unit is outside the maximum range and also is itself. It doesn't ask if the ability is an aura. It doesn't ask you to measure between two models.

It just asks, "is this unit outside the maximum range?".

And the answer is no.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Nate668 wrote:
I dunno guys, one side is quoting rules to prove their point and the other is just saying "This is blatantly false!" without providing evidence (or even reading the argument!). I don't think you guys are very good at this...

It's almost like the whole argument comes down to 'a thing has a measurable distance to itself and that distance is 0"' vs "a thing can't have a distance to itself"

Could it be that it depends on how you choose to interpret the word "distance," and that maybe both are acceptable answers?

Yes one side has quoted clear rules such as the definition of aura.

And one side has made blatantly false statements which contradict the rules with zero relevant quotes to support there position. Their is nothing to challenge in a false statement other than to state that its false its not evidence of anything. (Although I did try and explain why its false but no reason you would address any of that because you can't.

Arguments about zero are irrelevant so equally not worth challenging

the only relevant question is are you within 3"

"WITHIN AND WHOLLY WITHIN
If a rule says it applies ‘within’ a certain distance, it applies at any distance that is not more than the specified distance."

The base is not more than 3" away from the base therefore it applies

 Nate668 wrote:
I'm not sure what it says about me that I'm willing to keep arguing with the people who are still here that are willing to die on the hill of "the people who don't agree with me are trolls, idiots, rule breakers, and English language sentences can only be interpreted ONE WAY!" without actually addressing the argument, but here goes!

Well done gents, consider that hill died upon. What would you like on your tombstones?

"Nate668 finally admitted he had produced zero evidence to support his argument" would be a nice quote

Followed up with

"Therefore 2MW on the target and 1 on everything else within 3" so it's clear to anyone reading the thread".

Might I suggest an amendment to "Nate668 finally admitted that he had produced zero evidence that I, U02dah4 am able to understand?"

 Nate668 wrote:
Well done gents, consider that hill died upon. What would you like on your tombstones?

I'd like "Nate668 can't differentiate between a rule thats asks if you're outside of a range and is inclusive and their own rule that tries to determine if a unit is measured inside that range and exclusive"

 Nate668 wrote:
Might I suggest an amendment to "Nate668 finally admitted that he had produced zero evidence that I, U02dah4 am able to understand?"

Considered / rejected I understand your evidence-its not evidence- that's why in this case I say the answer is clear. no opposing rules quotes or evidence relevant to the question have been provided. Where as in other threads such as the adjacent fight first thread I acknowledge ambiguity and interpretation are relevant.

PoorGravitasHandling wrote:

 Nate668 wrote:
Well done gents, consider that hill died upon. What would you like on your tombstones?

I'd like "Nate668 can't differentiate between a rule thats asks if you're outside of a range and is inclusive and their own rule that tries to determine if a unit is measured inside that range and exclusive"

Sorry, we're all out of that one. I can do "Nothing is something, and it's measured in inches, damn it!"

Again we're back to this.

 doctortom wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
Why are we going back and forth on this Aura/Within issue? The rules here can't be simpler:



Based on the normal reading of GW rules. The target unit takes 2 MW (unless it is a Nurgle Unit with only takes 1 MW) while all other units within 3" take 1 MW.

Was this GW's intent? I would think not, but it is what they wrote. I personally think this is just a really badly written rule as evidenced by this entire thread. Using two conditions like this is just bad and leads to confusion. It be stated as one of the following:

The target unit takes 2 Mortal Wounds (or 1 Mortal Wound if a Nurgle unit). Additionally, all other units within 3" of the target unit take 1 Mortal Wound unless they are a Nurgle unit.

The target unit takes 1 Mortal Wound. Additionally, all other units within 3" of the target unit take 1 Mortal Wound unless they are a Nurgle unit.

It seemed worth quoting this to reinject it. I agree that RAW it's 2 MW target, others 1MW, but the way the rules read leaves a question about GW's intent, which makes it worth discussing with your opponent beforehand to see if he agrees with the 2MW/1 MW, or if he thinks they meant everyone gets 1 MW. Better to have a discussion beforehand to make sure there's agreement than to have a heated argument during the game.

Alex has a good point about, despite RAW having the unit take 2MW (unless Nurgle), that the rules are written poorly and suggest that GW's intent is only to have the target take 1 MW. It's worth talking about with your opponent before hand to see if he thinks the (perceived) RAI is for it to be 1 wound or 2 on the target unit, and make sure you're in agreement with your opponent about how you're playing the rule. A little discussion to avoid confusion (or worse) during the game doesn't do any harm.

This whole discussion seems to be more a RAW vs RA(perceived)I than a RAW vs RAW argument. Approaching this as a RAW vs RAW argument isn't going to solve things.

Let them get their last word in, and then can we lock this thread already?

He clearly can't but its not relevant

the only relevant question is are you within 3"

"WITHIN AND WHOLLY WITHIN
If a rule says it applies ‘within’ a certain distance, it applies at any distance that is not more than the specified distance."

The base is not more than 3" away from the base therefore it applies

The position or absence of zero has no bearing on if zero is a bigger number than 3 is not

Also you can measure zero you measure zero by measuring the inverse is what I have measured different from 0 yes then it's not 0


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 doctortom wrote:
Again we're back to this.

 doctortom wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
Why are we going back and forth on this Aura/Within issue? The rules here can't be simpler:



Based on the normal reading of GW rules. The target unit takes 2 MW (unless it is a Nurgle Unit with only takes 1 MW) while all other units within 3" take 1 MW.

Was this GW's intent? I would think not, but it is what they wrote. I personally think this is just a really badly written rule as evidenced by this entire thread. Using two conditions like this is just bad and leads to confusion. It be stated as one of the following:

The target unit takes 2 Mortal Wounds (or 1 Mortal Wound if a Nurgle unit). Additionally, all other units within 3" of the target unit take 1 Mortal Wound unless they are a Nurgle unit.

The target unit takes 1 Mortal Wound. Additionally, all other units within 3" of the target unit take 1 Mortal Wound unless they are a Nurgle unit.

It seemed worth quoting this to reinject it. I agree that RAW it's 2 MW target, others 1MW, but the way the rules read leaves a question about GW's intent, which makes it worth discussing with your opponent beforehand to see if he agrees with the 2MW/1 MW, or if he thinks they meant everyone gets 1 MW. Better to have a discussion beforehand to make sure there's agreement than to have a heated argument during the game.

Alex has a good point about, despite RAW having the unit take 2MW (unless Nurgle), that the rules are written poorly and suggest that GW's intent is only to have the target take 1 MW. It's worth talking about with your opponent before hand to see if he thinks the (perceived) RAI is for it to be 1 wound or 2 on the target unit, and make sure you're in agreement with your opponent about how you're playing the rule. A little discussion to avoid confusion (or worse) during the game doesn't do any harm.

This whole discussion seems to be more a RAW vs RA(perceived)I than a RAW vs RAW argument. Approaching this as a RAW vs RAW argument isn't going to solve things.

That is not a good point the convention is that you follow RAW unless it breaks the game then you go to RAI and look at intention. The game isn't broken here so RAI is irrelevant and as conceded RAW is 2. So any argument predicated on RAI in this case is wrong. Unless you can show the RAW is broken and neither side has contested that.

I mean by that argument RAI tac marines need an extra attack grey knights need an extra wound imperial knights melta weapons need to change to match other melta weapons. I mean how many dozens of other rules do we change because we arbitrarily don't like the wording

We stick to RAW and one side has no case

U02dah4 wrote:

 doctortom wrote:
Again we're back to this.

 doctortom wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
Why are we going back and forth on this Aura/Within issue? The rules here can't be simpler:



Based on the normal reading of GW rules. The target unit takes 2 MW (unless it is a Nurgle Unit with only takes 1 MW) while all other units within 3" take 1 MW.

Was this GW's intent? I would think not, but it is what they wrote. I personally think this is just a really badly written rule as evidenced by this entire thread. Using two conditions like this is just bad and leads to confusion. It be stated as one of the following:

The target unit takes 2 Mortal Wounds (or 1 Mortal Wound if a Nurgle unit). Additionally, all other units within 3" of the target unit take 1 Mortal Wound unless they are a Nurgle unit.

The target unit takes 1 Mortal Wound. Additionally, all other units within 3" of the target unit take 1 Mortal Wound unless they are a Nurgle unit.

It seemed worth quoting this to reinject it. I agree that RAW it's 2 MW target, others 1MW, but the way the rules read leaves a question about GW's intent, which makes it worth discussing with your opponent beforehand to see if he agrees with the 2MW/1 MW, or if he thinks they meant everyone gets 1 MW. Better to have a discussion beforehand to make sure there's agreement than to have a heated argument during the game.

Alex has a good point about, despite RAW having the unit take 2MW (unless Nurgle), that the rules are written poorly and suggest that GW's intent is only to have the target take 1 MW. It's worth talking about with your opponent before hand to see if he thinks the (perceived) RAI is for it to be 1 wound or 2 on the target unit, and make sure you're in agreement with your opponent about how you're playing the rule. A little discussion to avoid confusion (or worse) during the game doesn't do any harm.

This whole discussion seems to be more a RAW vs RA(perceived)I than a RAW vs RAW argument. Approaching this as a RAW vs RAW argument isn't going to solve things.

That is not a good point the convention is that you follow RAW unless it breaks the game then you go to RAI and look at intention. The game isn't broken here so RAI is irrelevant and as conceded RAW is 2. So any argument predicated on RAI in this case is wrong. Unless you can show the RAW is broken and neither side has contested that.

I mean by that argument RAI tac marines need an extra attack grey knights need an extra wound imperial knights melta weapons need to change to match other melta weapons. I mean how many dozens of other rules do we change because we arbitrarily don't like the wording

We stick to RAW and one side has no case

So you played it that assault weapons couldn't fire when advancing because it was RAW? Or that 4th edition terminators didn't have terminator armor because it wasn't listed? Or a myriad of rules that BCB had on his list, not all were game breakers but most were "stupid RAW"

If there's something where RAI looks like it differs from RAW it is always appropriate to ask about it. You might stick with the RAW, but it's always good to have discussed it.

the 8th Ed assault weapons rule broke the game as it did not allow assault weapons to fire due to a conflict between two separate rules as I said you follow RAW unless RAW is broken then go to RAI. It was valid in that instance to go to RAI

It was an exceptional case and It was also crystal clear what the intention was

In this instance RAW is clear RAI is unknown it is a very different situation

Your perfectly entitled to think about it but your thoughts are not relevant to the rules question. We cannot know intention. It reads like it should be 2w to me because that's what it says if they wanted it to be 1w they would have ignored the 1st bullet point. Intention is not usually clear unless GW state in an FAQ we can only guess and whenever anyone guess someone can guess something different.

We can however say what the RAW is so if the RAW is clear we ignore RAI whatever we think of it

I didn't play in 4th so cannot comment to the terminator question but it's not relevant to this one as its a 4th Ed answer

 Nate668 wrote:

PoorGravitasHandling wrote:

 Nate668 wrote:
Well done gents, consider that hill died upon. What would you like on your tombstones?

I'd like "Nate668 can't differentiate between a rule thats asks if you're outside of a range and is inclusive and their own rule that tries to determine if a unit is measured inside that range and exclusive"

Sorry, we're all out of that one. I can do "Nothing is something, and it's measured in inches, damn it!"

And if the rule said "if in range" like you want it to instead of "not out of range" like it does this would be an irritating roadblock.

Doctor - we have a good handle on intent. Other similar two part effects have "other" units. This doesn't.

There isn't any obvious intent to say they meant it not to be 2mw.