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.

So its a well known fact that if you surround a transport and wreck it, that the passengers are destroyed.

The question is, if the squad who destroyed the transport is a DE squad with Power from Pain, does it get the Pain token?

My inclination has been no, but I'd like to hear what other people have to say.

The unit inside wasn't the target of the attack, so no, no pain token.

Additionally don't forget the emergency disembark rule

Yeah I mentioned that the scenario was the transport was surrounded, not just having the access points blocked.

That's how I read it too, thanks for your confirmation.

Anyone else agree/disagree?

No PtP token as the unit did not destroy the unit, the rules for disembarking from a wrecked vehicle did.

I'm not sure which way I'd go on this, don't have the book at work.

But "No PtP token as the unit did not destroy the unit, the rules for disembarking from a wrecked vehicle did" is a bit silly. The plastic men didn't kill anything in the shooting phase either, the rules for their weapons did it. The fact is that the unit would not have died if the DE unit was not there. That, to me, is a causal relationship.

The rule for disembarking killed the models, not the actual models firing weapons.

You wouldn't give them tokens because of a deepstrike mishap caused by landing on the DE, would you?

That is just as "causal" and still not the DE destroying the unit.

sure why not?

I don't think there is a RAW definition of destroyed. So it's open to interpretation.

EDIT: It's silly to say the "rules" for a situation did something, versus the models themselves. The models are tokens that are representations of a certain set of rules. So no matter what, there is a set of rules causing a given event. You can argue that it only takes place when rule set A causes the event, but in this case, rule set A (the dark eldar unit), is at least tangentially involved with the result, as rules set B (disembarking, DS, etc) was triggered by the presence of rule set A. So why shouldn't they get credit?

Did the unit destroy them? No; rolling a 1-2 on the table did
Did the unit destroy them? No; the emergency disembark rules did

CurrentlyUnknown wrote:sure why not?

I don't think there is a RAW definition of destroyed. So it's open to interpretation.

I was under the impression that units had to be destroyed by models with the ability. Not simply destroyed.

Otherwise one could argue that every unit on the table can get one every time since they would not be destroyed had the game not started, making the DE responsible for every destroyed unit they ever see in any game they take part in.

for clarity, since I was editing:

It's silly to say the "rules" for a situation did something, versus the models themselves. The models are tokens that are representations of a certain set of rules. So no matter what, there is a set of rules causing a given event. You can argue that it only takes place when rule set A causes the event, but in this case, rule set A (the dark eldar unit), is at least tangentially involved with the result, as rules set B (disembarking, DS, etc) was triggered by the presence of rule set A. So why shouldn't they get credit?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
and in this case "ruleset A" happens to have the qualifier, PfP


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Did the unit destroy them? No; rolling a 1-2 on the table did
Did the unit destroy them? No; the emergency disembark rules did

Would the unit have been destroyed in either case without the presence of the DE?

The term "destroyed" isn't really precise, and leaves a lot of wiggle room.

CurrentlyUnknown wrote:
Would the unit have been destroyed in either case without the presence of the DE?

This will never apply, as without the DE there is no opponent, so no game. So tokens are given out every single time any unit is destroyed in any game containing DE, regardless of the reason?

I really doubt that.

This will never apply, as without the DE there is no opponent, so no game. So tokens are given out every single time any unit is destroyed in any game containing DE, regardless of the reason?

I really doubt that.

Or, they could just not have been surrounding the vehicle, or in the spot where you DS. That way you can play the game, and the DE did not cause you any issues....


Automatically Appended Next Post:
It's really simple. As long as a DE unit with the PfP rule is a causal factor in an enemy non-vehicle units destruction, I think it gets a token.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
It's like if I pick up your model and hurl it against a wall. I didn't destroy your model, the rules of physics did.

The unit was destroyed indirectly by the DE. But they did not actively destroy it so no, no ptp token.

But they did not actively destroy it so no, no ptp token.

Didn't know they had to "actively destroy" anything. Page reference? Also a definition of "actively destroy" from the codex or BRB?

I can see his point, which is why I posted this question for discussion.

It could be very well said that the unit trying to disembark from the wreck was destroyed by the DE unit since it was blocking the unit from disembarking, therefore triggering the rule that made them destroyed.

Similar to this concept is the fact that if a DE unit shoots its weapons at a unit, it is triggering the shooting rules that are actually the thing destroying the unit.

Dissimilar from this concept is a unit deep striking onto a unit of DE and are destroyed. This scenario can be differentiated in that the two previous scenarios the DE unit took proactive actions that caused the destruction of the unit, whereas this scenario is a passive action (if the unit spread out to try and minimize are to DS) or no action at all.

What qualifies for "destroys" is not entirely defined. There are some clear cases where it applies, but some where its not so clear.

For now I'm happy to just go with the clear cut answers, but I acknowledge there seems to be some grey.

I do agree that the DS scenario is different. However, I would say, that as it stands now with no FAQ (or some other already published precedent), it doesn't matter if a proactive action is taken or not.

To use the analogy you used, the physical location of the DE triggers the rules that causes the unit's destruction. There is a relationship between the DE and the unit's destruction. That's all the PfP rules currently require.

CurrentlyUnknown wrote:Didn't know they had to "actively destroy" anything. Page reference? Also a definition of "actively destroy" from the codex or BRB?

You know, lacking a definition of destroy should mean it never applies, not always applies.

See: Tau Target Priority checks.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

CurrentlyUnknown wrote:There is a relationship between the DE and the unit's destruction. That's all the PfP rules currently require.

I missed that line. Must be me.

But sure by this logic Dark Eldar never destroy anything - their bullets do!

You know, lacking a definition of destroy should mean it never applies, not always applies.

See: Tau Target Priority checks.

Actually, lacking an in game definition necessitates falling back on standard language definitions (vs in game jargon).

Only where there is no standard language definition, or a specific reference to an outdated in game definition (tau target priority) would you say it no longer applies.

CurrentlyUnknown wrote:

You know, lacking a definition of destroy should mean it never applies, not always applies.

See: Tau Target Priority checks.

Actually, lacking an in game definition necessitates falling back on standard language definitions (vs in game jargon).

Only where there is no standard language definition, or a specific reference to an outdated in game definition (tau target priority) would you say it no longer applies.

So the DE need to ACTUALLY destroy their opponent's models?!? That is not better!!

Guy's you're turning this into magic the gathering.. which it's not. It's a table top wargame. If the DE surround the vehicle and blow it to high heaven then they clearly destroyed the unit inside. Otherwise they destroy nothing - the in game 'laws of biology and physics' do!

But sure by this logic Dark Eldar never destroy anything - their bullets do!

There are no bullets. The only reason dark eldar (or any army) "destroy" anything is because the fulfill certain criteria, as laid out in the rules, to do so. Sure, it's an abstraction for bullets, but it is still an abstraction.

Phototoxin wrote:Guy's you're turning this into magic the gathering.. which it's not. It's a table top wargame. If the DE surround the vehicle and blow it to high heaven then they clearly destroyed the unit inside. Otherwise they destroy nothing - the in game 'laws of biology and physics' do!

Again though, the DE are not destroying the embarked models--if anything is it is the transport.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

CurrentlyUnknown wrote:

But sure by this logic Dark Eldar never destroy anything - their bullets do!

There are no bullets. The only reason dark eldar (or any army) "destroy" anything is because the fulfill certain criteria, as laid out in the rules, to do so. Sure, it's an abstraction for bullets, but it is still an abstraction.

And this applies every time any unit is destroyed when DE are (at least) one of the armies.

So the DE need to ACTUALLY destroy their opponent's models?!? That is not better!!

Well I won't if you pull them off the table fast enough. And I get my pain token. But if that's what I gotta do...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

And this applies every time any unit is destroyed when DE are (at least) one of the armies.

Well yes. Any time a unit with the PfP rule (because that's one of the criteria) destroys (I guess if you want to say physically, or at least remove from the tabletop) a non-vehicle unit, then yep, they get a token.

CurrentlyUnknown wrote:

So the DE need to ACTUALLY destroy their opponent's models?!? That is not better!!

Well I won't if you pull them off the table fast enough. And I get my pain token. But if that's what I gotta do...

Lets put it another way they are destroyed because there is no gap or area to place them in. DE may create the lack of space but are not in fact the lack of space so they do not destroy the unit.
The weapons that the DE used are listed so they count as part of the unit.

But it is fair to say, well why did the unit die? units just dont die because they dont want to stand on a pissy elfs toes.

This was meant to go here =\

ChrisCP wrote:Same as forcing a unit to fall back off the board doesn't make a token... whos know thou the might change the rules if enough people ask them

kirsanth wrote:

CurrentlyUnknown wrote:Didn't know they had to "actively destroy" anything. Page reference? Also a definition of "actively destroy" from the codex or BRB?

You know, lacking a definition of destroy should mean it never applies, not always applies.

But English has a very good definition of destroy.

The rules clearly state that you need to pick your dark eldar up and physically bash the other guy's models until they come apart to get a pain token.

At least, that's what Amelia Bedelia would do, she's the most hard core RAW player around.

ChrisP raises a very good point. I don't have the wording of the rule so I don't know the answer but does a DE unit get a token if the opposing unit flees off of the table? This, to me, is an analogous situation since the unit counts as destroyed but the unit isn't finished off by the attacker. If the answer is yes then he should get a token for destroying them while they are in the vehicle. If the answer is no then he shouldn't.