Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Okay.. I have a doozy of a question for ya......

The gate rule allows a librarian "AND A UNIT HE IS WITH" to go from A to B. Fine. My question is this... The rule says "with" are we reading that as "joined." If so, why? If they meant a "unit" that the librarian has "joined" why not say that? Could it be a unit the libby was just standing next to?

Next question..... If the libby does not have to "join" a unit to be "with" it in terms of the gate psychic power..is "unit" defined in the same way as normal? Basically, anything that's on the board and a model.

ender502

I'm fairly certain it means "joined" i.e. Librarian must have joined the unit as per the IC rules for doing so.

As for the second part of the question, I would guess trying to teleport across the board with a Land Raider is not going to go down well with your oppoonent.

Flashman wrote:I'm fairly certain it means "joined" i.e. Librarian must have joined the unit as per the IC rules for doing so.

I am not trying to be obtuse but please explain why you believe "with" measn the same thing as "joined."

Flashman wrote:As for the second part of the question, I would guess trying to teleport across the board with a Land Raider is not going to go down well with your oppoonent.

It never goes well when a perfectly legal nob biker mob o doom crashes into my lines.... But it happens.


I am not trying to push then envelope or anything. I just want to know what I am ALLOWED to do by the rules as they are given.

ender502

I can't really justify using RAW, particularly as I don't have the Codex to hand at the moment. I just believe "joined" is what was intended.

ender502 wrote:
The gate rule allows a librarian "AND A UNIT HE IS WITH" to go from A to B. Fine. My question is this... The rule says "with" are we reading that as "joined." If so, why? If they meant a "unit" that the librarian has "joined" why not say that? Could it be a unit the libby was just standing next to?
ender502

Shelly: So, I heard you were 'with' that new Librarian Mary
Mary: Yeah we've been going out, I don't think I would say he is 'with' me though...
Shelly: Oh come on your totally 'with' him!
Mary: It's not like we're 'joined' at the hip or anything.

oh goodness, what possible meaning can 'with' possibly mean in the confines of wh40k rules... you can only ever be 'with' something or not 'with' something.

...sigh

in this case the words (with) and (joined) mean the same thing so you do have to be part of the squad to gate them with the libby.

GW have ambiguous words? Yoda not think so! Mmmm.

I think you have to replace 'with' with 'joined'.

Otherwise, I'm putting a Librarian within two inches of a Land Raider Crusader packed with Assault Terminators and gating the whole thing. After all, he's within coherency at 2 inches, which means he's with the LRC (which is a unit), even though it's a vehicle. If they meant 'joined', they would have said it!

It's junk like this that makes GW look like morons. Let someone that hasn't worked on the codex proof-read it. They don't have that 'built-in' understanding of terms, so they won't know that 'with' is supposed to be 'joined' and should, hopefully, catch it.

lol i love the idea i charging in to close combat and gating out with the enemy unit ... but no it means joined no other reading

dietrich wrote:GW have ambiguous words? Yoda not think so! Mmmm.

I think you have to replace 'with' with 'joined'.

Otherwise, I'm putting a Librarian within two inches of a Land Raider Crusader packed with Assault Terminators and gating the whole thing. After all, he's within coherency at 2 inches, which means he's with the LRC (which is a unit), even though it's a vehicle. If they meant 'joined', they would have said it!

It's junk like this that makes GW look like morons. Let someone that hasn't worked on the codex proof-read it. They don't have that 'built-in' understanding of terms, so they won't know that 'with' is supposed to be 'joined' and should, hopefully, catch it.

The pertinent quotes are

"The Librarian, and any unit he is with, are removed..."

and

"If the Librarian travels alone, there is no risk, but if he takes a unit with him, there is a chance..."

I'd generally agree with replacing "with" with "joined". That being the case can the libby port the dedicated transport of the unit he has joined? I guess that really depends on the definition of "unit" in terms of a dedicated transport. Are they, the squad and dedicated transport, "a" unit or two seperate units.

ender502

A transport is a separate unit, so if we're happy that an IC can't "join" a vehicle, I would say no to teleporting Rhinos

Sorry, I'm a big old spoil sport today.

I think it has to be a warrior unit that he has joined. It opens up too many other problems if it's not.

It would be fun to pull out in APOC to allow him to be 'with' enemy units, vehicle units, etc.

Flashman wrote:A transport is a separate unit, so if we're happy that an IC can't "join" a vehicle, I would say no to teleporting Rhinos

Sorry, I'm a big old spoil sport today.

LOL. And with tha jaunty mustache as well? For shame! No big deal. I am just asking questions and not trying to advocate for either answer.

ender502

I agree that the inconsistent wording is sloppy, but I can’t think of any other concept expressed within the 40k rules that “with” could be referring to other than an IC joining a unit.

What if the Librarian is in a Land Raider? The Land Raider is traveling (moving around) with the Librarian in it, wouldn't the inverse be true?

I wouldn't try to play it this way, personally, but ... I mean ... 'with' is not a defined game term. You can define it however you want with some sort of half justification.

That's the problem. "With" has no game meaning. So you have to figure out which actual defined game concept they meant.

Is this really a necessary thread? This really feels like "I have nothing better to do and now I am going to find a loophole in the rules. If one isn't readily apparent, I will make one, dammit!"

Will anybody actually, I mean really for real, try to say that the Librarian cannot Gate with the unit he has joined because he isn't "with" it.

I realize that this is YMDC and as such realism/implementation has no place here, but am I the only one to notice a deludge of such threads recently?

Steelmage99 wrote:Is this really a necessary thread? This really feels like "I have nothing better to do and now I am going to find a loophole in the rules. If one isn't readily apparent, I will make one, dammit!"

I don't think this is the original poster's intent, but... yeah. That.

Steelmage99 wrote:Is this really a necessary thread? This really feels like "I have nothing better to do and now I am going to find a loophole in the rules. If one isn't readily apparent, I will make one, dammit!"

I thought that was standard operating procedure in YMDC. At least it's been this way since I joined Dakka Dakka.

Steelmage99 wrote:Is this really a necessary thread? This really feels like "I have nothing better to do and now I am going to find a loophole in the rules. If one isn't readily apparent, I will make one, dammit!"

In general, if you are only posting to be a tool, i'd suggest just not posting.

Steelmage99 wrote:Will anybody actually, I mean really for real, try to say that the Librarian cannot Gate with the unit he has joined because he isn't "with" it.

I think the greater concern is when someone says they can port the landraider and termies inside because the Libby has joined them as a unit. So, uhhh way to miss the obvious.

Steelmage99 wrote:I realize that this is YMDC and as such realism/implementation has no place here, but am I the only one to notice a deludge of such threads recently?

Yeah, questions...who would have though they'd show up in YMDC? Crazy.....

If you don't like the question, and having nothing to add.... I'd suggest not posting.

Manny- Thanks for the even response. I know it's a somewhat silly question..I also know you are 100% correct... there is no defined game value for "with." I can also get behind saying with and joined are synonymous.

ender502

You can tell it means joined because there's no other way to tell when the librarian is without another unit. With a land raider. Why not with an enemy unit, or any other unit on or off the board?

gaylord500 wrote:You can tell it means joined because there's no other way to tell when the librarian is without another unit. With a land raider. Why not with an enemy unit, or any other unit on or off the board?

Sir... logic and reson have no place in YMDC! Actually, that's the best response so far. Predictibility and ease would demand the "joined" meaning. Great point and kudos to you!

ender502

Can you tell me what 'is' is? That's the YMDC we're used to!

My question still stands. Is this really relevant? As relevant in the real world?

Do any of us play with people that go to this length?

Since "a unit he is with" has no real meaning in game terminology we have to apply logic to the situation.

There are two possibility,

1) "With" means joined.

2) "With" means he does not need to be joined to the unit.

If 1; everything works out smoothly without any apparent complications, i.e. "with" is well defined.

If 2; first we have to figure out what "with" means since it is relevant to how the game plays out. Does it mean within unit coherency? Does it mean base-to-base? Does it mean 3"+? Does it mean in the same army as the unit? We try to apply rules to any of these questions but end up empty handed since we can not connect "with" to any rule. "With" becomes an undefined word that leaves us with an unanswerable question (How do I figure out when my Librarian is "with" a unit?).

So to phrase this as an RAW argument:

We can safely assume that every rule in the rulebook (codex) is not written so that it is meaningless. Since there is some ambiguity involved regarding the text we look at ways the rules can be interpreted. We find out that we are lucky since there are only two options in this case, joined or not. Next we figure out how both options work with other game mechanics (who can be a target of the psychic power). We find out that one option leaves us with an term that can not be defined using the rules. That option is then discarded, leaving us with only one option. Since it works perfectly with other rules and there is no alternative that does the same we can safely assume that this interpretation is in fact RAW.

Steelmage99 wrote:My question still stands. Is this really relevant? As relevant in the real world?

Do any of us play with people that go to this length?

I've been on dakka a long time.... and I know people will go to this length...especially if the length they will go to is merely a strict reading of the rules.

Reason and predicitibility, as I said before, demand the "join" decision... but when has reason EVER been a motivating factor in the rules produced by GW? I remember when a simple reading of the mind war rules said this wa sa shooting attack and consequently could not be used in HTH... The game designers wrote about how they loved to use it in HTH.... What about 4th ed LOS? Remeber the cylinder? Rememebr how only a minority of people used actual LOS?

So how relevant is this....? It isn't until you run into it in a tourney. In that situation 1 of 2 things will happen..You are judged right and sad sack opponent has crappy tournament. That means 50% fail in my book. Or, you are the sad sack and you have a crappy tournament. ANother 50% fail. Sometimes asking what seem slike obvious questions help cement our, and others, knowledge of the rules. This helps everybody in the long run.

ender502

If you have to ask if we need to have this discussion, you've never played Daryl Dean. Just ask C99.

This came up in the first game i used my gating librarian with. I was gating he and a few sternguard vets out of combat with a hive tyrant + tyrant guard that had somehow managed to not to facerape them all through a round of combat.

He says he wants to see my codex to see if i can do this (which as far as we could tell you can), but the first thing he actually notices is the word "with."

"...so is my hive tyrant WITH your librarian then?"

"....uh.....no? I'm pretty sure with just means 'joined'"

"but they're in base to base, how is that not with."

"................Alright well then how about I deploy them over here on this giant piece of impassible terrain?"

".... alright fine 'with' means 'joined'"

Yea, really I might say that if we are interpreting rules, "with" used instead of "joined with" might mean anything the librarian chooses to gate with (in other words, it is any 1 unit he picks). It would be pretty fun if this were the case... the mental image of a Libby running up, tackle hugging a flyrant and teleporting them both a half mile away is really amusng.

However, I think "joined with" is the only way to read it considering they did not specify the conditions of "with" when it comes to choosing the unit to be teleported.

sorry for not adding anything useful, but this:

the mental image of a Libby running up, tackle hugging a flyrant and teleporting them both a half mile away is really amusng

was really quite funny.

And I agree with arnaroe up above - "with" as "joined with" is simple and easy.