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.

Sliggoth wrote:OK, the core problem locally seems to be that players understand spirit leach to be a psychic ability/ effect. For years GW has had psychers with two types of abilities:



Sliggoth

A friend of mine makes a similar argument as yours. He argues that precedence dictates that SL does not affect units in transports because of precedence he can cite. I listened to his citations and over and over found one decisive difference after another.

When you compare the RAW applicable to the Doom and the RAW applicable to those precedence claims you will see what I'm talking about.

The confusion over models and units isn't really so hard to understand. The rules define a unit as a collection of models. Therefore, when something says targets a unit, some people read targets a collection of models and get confused as to the difference. Its part of the inherent ambiguity in a representational system. It also doesn't help that GW doesn't use consistent defined terms. Essentially, the rules *don't* tell us explicitly that models and units are distinct entities (in fact, sometimes a model may be a unit!); it is gathered from context.

jmurph wrote:The confusion over models and units isn't really so hard to understand. The rules define a unit as a collection of models. Therefore, when something says targets a unit, some people read targets a collection of models and get confused as to the difference. Its part of the inherent ambiguity in a representational system. It also doesn't help that GW doesn't use consistent defined terms. Essentially, the rules *don't* tell us explicitly that models and units are distinct entities (in fact, sometimes a model may be a unit!); it is gathered from context.

I cannot believe you just wrote that. If one entity is called "a" and that entity is a member of set "z" at no time can there be any confusion. If I point at set "z" I am pointing at a set to which "a" belongs. If I point at entity "a" I am pointing at an individual inside set "z". There is NO AMBIGUITY POSIBLE.

At no time are "z" and "a" able to be used interchangibly. One is a constituent of the other. Your statement is like saying there is no difference between entity "google" and set "Internet". Set "Internet" is a grouping of networks of which one is the entity "google". No possible confusion.

Now ignorance is always a possibility. But then again we shouldn't be listening to the ignorant when attempting to understand the rules.

@visa

Ignorance can indeed be a problem...especially if one is ignoring that the rules set for 40k is indeed riddled with abiguities. The wording that GW uses shifts at times, words are sometimes used interchangeably and yet at other times they are used to mean different things.

Also, if one is going to use an arguement about sets, then one should use it correctly. It is perfectly possible for an entity "a" to be a member of set "z" and at the same time be the entirety of set "z', so that entity "a" and set "z" actually can be used interchangeably and there can be ambiguity. In game terms, a single IC is both a single model and is the complete unit of which it is part. So in that case, one can either refer to the model or the unit and be talking about exactly the same thing.

Beginning any statement with "at no time" is fraught with peril.


Sliggoth

Sliggoth wrote:@visa

Ignorance can indeed be a problem...especially if one is ignoring that the rules set for 40k is indeed riddled with abiguities. The wording that GW uses shifts at times, words are sometimes used interchangeably and yet at other times they are used to mean different things.

Also, if one is going to use an arguement about sets, then one should use it correctly. It is perfectly possible for an entity "a" to be a member of set "z" and at the same time be the entirety of set "z', so that entity "a" and set "z" actually can be used interchangeably and there can be ambiguity. In game terms, a single IC is both a single model and is the complete unit of which it is part. So in that case, one can either refer to the model or the unit and be talking about exactly the same thing.

Beginning any statement with "at no time" is fraught with peril.


Sliggoth

Wrong, you are completely missing the certitude that when you are attempting to find a member of a set, you cannot treat them as interchangeable. Please note that I am talking about ----some---- entity, i'm not talking about this entity or that entity, at this point I am talking about ----some---- entity. There is no ambiguity between ---entity--- and ---set--- when you are attempting to look for one metachoice or the other.

Entity = Model
Set = Unit

When a rule asks you to find a unit, it is completely and unambiguously different from when a rule asks you to find a model; there is no ambiguity, even with ICs... Even when you have a one member set there is still no ambiguity... none... Want to know why? Because the rule will still be asking you to look for --->either<---- a model or a unit, not both, and by no means the wrong one... No ambiguity. Just because you are confused and perceive ambiguity is not evidence that ambiguity exists.

Lets explore what it would look like if there was ambiguity...

Kor'sarro Khan and 3 Bikes are a unit. If the game is looking to this unit, I look to find the set and if the test is 'measuring to the unit', I would measure to the closest entity per the relevant rules... If it were ambiguous, I would look to find where Kor'sarro Khan is at (an entity) and find one of the other models in the unit or the set instead (the closet model in Khan's unit)... This makes no sense... Essentially, if you are right, we wouldn't be able to play this game... It wouldn't work... At all, not just confusing, it would be like dividing by zero...

I dare you to quote me where I said the rules were never ambiguous... Try reading what I said and dont add in nonsense while you read it. I rightfully stated "At no time" because if the rules are asking you for a unit, there is no confusion... if it is looking for a model... there is no confusion... the confusion lies only in the player's error, not in the rules and not in set theory.

Are you two having an argument that has no effect on the rules, as either outcome results into the same result?
HERESY!

Visa this might enlighten you a little http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metonymy

In brief a metonym is a container for the thing contained. Example , if someone asks you if you would like some water, it is perfectly fine to say "yes I would like a glass" Do you actually want the glass? No probably not, you want the water. But it is that same kind of sub-conscious association that blurs the line between unit and model. They are not only related on a set/entity level but they are also metonymic to each other and the rules are sometime written as such

LOL This thread is silly. Seems like someone is mad because he didn't get his way so he is trying to find a loophole to make himself feel better. He's practically all but said that.

A model is a physical miniature. A unit is a representation of a group of models. Models are always units, but units do not always consist of models. I.e. a square is always a rectangle but a rectangle is not always a square.

Once a group of models embarks in a transport, you remove said models, and the unit is still considered in the transport. The unit can still fire out of some vehicles and affect play in various ways even though the models are not present.

What this means: If something measures to the unit (ala Doom), it can be measured to the hull of the vehicle to affect such units.

If something is measured to the "model" (ala exploded), it can not find a model embarked. Therefore it does nothing to the unit, only the vehicle.

"Units" and "Models" are NOT interchangeable.

First of all I'd like to mention that I' not British so some of my words will be wrong. Apparently this is VERY important in this thread.

Oh, and if my post count is too low; PM me. I'll go and spam off-topic like crazy and come back.

deevil wrote:

P1) Spirit Leech affects all units within its (rolled) range.
P2) Embarked units are a unit.
P3) Range to the embarked unit is measured to the vehicle's hull (pg 66).

C1) Therefore, Spirit Leech affects embarked units if the hull of their transport vehicle is found to be within range.

Arguements like this although logically valid cannot be used as the sole means of determining it's validity.

e.g.

P1) Dogs eat all cats within its range.
P2) All jaguar(cars) are cats
P3) Range to the jaguar(car) is measured to the jaguars body

C1) Therefore, Dogs eat jaguar-cars if found to be within range.

Since we know that dogs don't eat cars, we know the argument is false, even if it is logically true statement.

This is the problem, these are assumptions made based on a argument that can easily be proven false.

The problem is, that this IS one of the best ways to determine if something is true, or like you said: valid.

Let's look at the Deevil's quote here and this "logical ladder" (lololol I know I'm stupid and don't know the British word. My family has been covered in shame. It is a bit heretical too, I bet!) and this one:
IF P -> Q AND IF Q -> R.
If both those sentences are correct (true) then P -> R. Period. This is logic and if someone is thinking otherwise, he's wrong.

Now we need to check is if those sentences are true (P->Q is here called a sentence). The only way to do this is to compare them to some given set of rules. In this case: the rulebook and the codex'es (plus some other official crap).

As far as I know P1 P2 and P3 quoted by Deevil are all true so C1 is true. Period.
If no one knows any rule that prove any of P is false OR can prove that rules that made those sentences true are actually incorrect, then there is no logical way to say that C1 is not true. [wow this sentence is long and boring]
Rules written in rulebook or in codex. Rules. Not how something is supposed to be, or why in real life this is stupid.

You said that "Since we know that dogs don't eat cars", but how do you know it? If somewhere in some strange world's rulebook there is a rule like that, then it is true.

There is a difference between logic (It is not logical to tear all your money for no reason) and logic (Hard, cold, and sexy mistress math logic). Here we have to use the sexy one, no matter that we secretly love her ugly sister.

LATE EDIT: This may be a bit off-topic but I think this a bit important. Too many people discard the rules just because they are silly, sound wrong, or by the logic (the ugly one) cannot be. The problem is that there are as many butterface logics as there are people in the world. The one true hot logic is the cold, hard but very stable one. We have to use that no matter how stupid she may sound sometimes.

See the problem is that he used a homonym to make an inductive leap. He is using a word's similarity to another word to jump from multiple steps.

P1) "All dogs eat domesticated cats"
P2) A Ragdoll is a type of domesticated cat?

C1) Dogs eat ragdolls.

I'm not saying that this one cannot be proven wrong.

I just wanted to say that this statement:

Arguements like this although logically valid cannot be used as the sole means of determining it's validity.

is false.
If all the assumptions are true [given the set of rules] then the result is true.
This gets a bit tricky if the rules doesn't cover some grounds, can be blurry (because of language issues: for example homonyms - you said it) or there are rules that are mutually exclusive.
This doesn't mean that the method is incorrect.

Macok wrote:I'm not saying that this one cannot be proven wrong.

I just wanted to say that this statement:

Arguements like this although logically valid cannot be used as the sole means of determining it's validity.

is false.
If all the assumptions are true [given the set of rules] then the result is true.
This gets a bit tricky if the rules doesn't cover some grounds, can be blurry (because of language issues: for example homonyms - you said it) or there are rules that are mutually exclusive.
This doesn't mean that the method is incorrect.

I agree.

So SL is not a shooting attack and it's not a psychic power but on the other hand we all know that according to the fluff DoM is a psyker, actually an extremely potent super psyker... So just what kind of attack is SL?

G

It is not any kind of attack, it is a special rule that inflicts (3d6-Ld) wounds on units within 6" of the Doom.

Macok wrote:

deevil wrote:
Arguements like this although logically valid cannot be used as the sole means of determining it's validity.

e.g.

P1) Dogs eat all cats within its range.
P2) All jaguar(cars) are cats
P3) Range to the jaguar(car) is measured to the jaguars body

C1) Therefore, Dogs eat jaguar-cars if found to be within range.

Since we know that dogs don't eat cars, we know the argument is false, even if it is logically true statement.

This is the problem, these are assumptions made based on a argument that can easily be proven false.

The problem is, that this IS one of the best ways to determine if something is true, or like you said: valid.

Let's look at the Deevil's quote here and this "logical ladder" (lololol I know I'm stupid and don't know the British word. My family has been covered in shame. It is a bit heretical too, I bet!) and this one:
IF P -> Q AND IF Q -> R.
If both those sentences are correct (true) then P -> R. Period. This is logic and if someone is thinking otherwise, he's wrong.

Now we need to check is if those sentences are true (P->Q is here called a sentence). The only way to do this is to compare them to some given set of rules. In this case: the rulebook and the codex'es (plus some other official crap).

As far as I know P1 P2 and P3 quoted by Deevil are all true so C1 is true. Period.

His P2 is absolutely false. All Jaguars are not cats, some are cars.

His argument is therefore invalid.

forkbanger wrote:It is not any kind of attack, it is a special rule that inflicts (3d6-Ld) wounds on units within 6" of the Doom.

What was I thinking?? Of course it's a special attack... Errr I mean rule... Just like hte other ones which we cannot mention.



Dom lands in mycetic spore and bust out of cyaetoc pulsing walls wif biomorphed megavoice grafted to mutated appendage.

"Now here yee all! now all here me! I gots hte special rule and it's very speshul indeed! Come out yer rhinos! Come out yer chimeras! Come out yer devilfishes too! Hey youse guys up thar in that BA harbinger HIT THE DIRTS!!! rip off yer armors and bash yer heads into the rocky ground! Bash yer franking brains out silly! Ya gotta doit coz I gots the very speshul rule from Cruddace! Har har har!!!"

Green Blow Fly wrote:What was I thinking?? Of course it's a special attack... Errr I mean rule... Just like hte other ones which we cannot mention.

What do you expect it to be? It isn't shooting or an assault or a psychic power. It isn't an attack, just like Dangerous Terrain isn't an attack, and Perils of the Warp isn't an attack.

Let me try this.

Dom lands in mycetic spore and bust out of cyaetoc pulsing walls wif biomorphed megavoice grafted to mutated spelling appendage.

"Hurp durp eatin' yur souls like nuthin' else in the game! Pretend like I'm shooting you without a gun and not firing it, yup! Boopadoop, make like I'ma punchin' you!"

Well that explains it.

G

I know I'll get disagreed with by Yak and all the people who consider the INAT rulings final and therefore worthy of defending vigorously, but I'll just throw my 2 copper coins
on Bugman's counter about it anyway.

The Spirit Leach ruling is a rabbit hole. The ruling never should have been made as it was because it IS a rabbit hole. In my opinion the 'RAW' as it is referred to in this forum
are simply lacking in this department. I have seen all the arguments, I still consider them invalid.

If models A B C D and E are off the table, their unit is therefore ineligible for any direct attack. It would be easier for you people to stop trying to come up with a way to speak
of mounted (read: embarked) units as vehicle units, units co-existing (an explanation in the BRB, not really a 'rule') The DoM is able to use an indiscriminate area effect attack that
affects units in a range.

The rules allowing you to use psychic powers, shoot out of fire points, and generally do other things while 'embarked' are inclusive rules. This means the rules themselves
break convention to allow the use of certain things while embarked. That means rules that aren't as inclusive shouldn't be considered and I believe it's the spirit of GW's (admittedly shoddy)
FAQ program when asking if you could affect units in vehicles. No. Why? Sanity. So in a wonder of GW ruling, linguistic logic and legal spirit are combined to give your poor embarked
troops the ability to hurt or affect things outside of the vehicle (heretofore measured from the hull). Sweet, I can shoot out of a hole.

Logically speaking, this basically points to something like a webway portal to the real (read: fake) world. Your models, while embarked, are happily on the edge of a table, psyker meditating
near your coke bottle, heavy weapons marine cleaning his plasma coils by your foam tray. When the rules include an option for these people to move through the web way and partially
materialize into the game, they should be affected by things, and not before. THIS is why I completely agree with Runes of Warding affecting a psyker attempted to use an ability while
embarked WITHIN the range measured to the vehicle's hull. He has tried to affect the game and therefore opens himself up for those affects that modify his actions.

However, and this is really the crux of the matter, GW has left no room for me to really believe this 'webway conduit' is anything but initiated by the player whose models/unit are embarked
outside of abilities that force disembarkation or destruction of the comfy confines of the conduit. So, in this vein, I really don't think explosions affect other vehicles in any stretch of any rule.
Spirit Leach, while fluffily I'd happily agree should affect embarked troops, the rules don't include an opportunity for said ability to affect an embarked crew or unit. In my opinion the best
and probably only way that GW would have allowed this would be an inclusive language in the ability itself (read: in the codex).

If a rule doesn't overrule the BRB, then it isn't a rule and follows my above argument that your dudes haven't come out of the vehicular webway.

And I'm done.

yakface wrote:

Macok wrote:some crappy post here

His P2 is absolutely false. All Jaguars are not cats, some are cars.

His argument is therefore invalid.

No argument here.


My post was more about the logical method, and the internal quote (DoM one), rather than obviously wrong external one (cats and cars). I really have to start making my posts a bit clearer.

I loved the cars post.

Zain - you disagered, but didnt show any rules basis for your disagreement.

You stated that, if models A-E are off the table, they are therefore exempt from direct attack - except that is an assumption you have made that is not, anywhere, supported by the rules.

Attack the argument, which is that you can measure to OR from units embarked in a vehicle - there is a rule stating that. If you disagree, state why that argument does not work.

Oh, and the FAQ only stated that *psychic* attacks cannot affect embarked units. You cannot arbitrarily extend that statement, as you have not been allowed to.

The rules basis for my disagreement is simple - All rules inclusive of interacting with models in a vehicle involve the player initiating that interaction.
That IS in fact rules based. That is then supported by the specific statement against psychic powers even though they don't necessarily follow shooting
rules (like Doom on a farseer) can't affect an embarked unit.

My rules disagreement is beyond simple. If DoM was going to affect vehicle units after they (GW) have gone through the trouble of not letting anything else
in the game affect them is a sure bet rabbit hole. The codex would have said 'affects embarked units' in order for that to be so. Simply because linguistically
the BRB and codices use inclusive language to break convention. IE. Take a Warboss and an Ork Nobz squad or Meganobz squad CAN be counted as troops.
That breaks convention of the BRB and codices FOC rules and the BRB states codices overrule the BRB. There is NO ambiguous language in DoM's attack that
leads me to believe they meant to break convention but somehow forgot to say it clearly that the effect's description?

The rules for measuring to a unit are not in dispute. It's quite clearly to the hull of the vehicle. As I stated above, that argument is fairly logical if I use a psychic
power near a RoWarding Farseer while I'm mounted. I am breaking the rule convention in order to use that power while mounted and then open myself up for
psychic defenses. It isn't logical the other way around because the models are never on the table and therefore neither is the unit.

Volkov wrote:Visa this might enlighten you a little http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metonymy

In brief a metonym is a container for the thing contained. Example , if someone asks you if you would like some water, it is perfectly fine to say "yes I would like a glass" Do you actually want the glass? No probably not, you want the water. But it is that same kind of sub-conscious association that blurs the line between unit and model. They are not only related on a set/entity level but they are also metonymic to each other and the rules are sometime written as such

Wrong, the rules are never written as such, people make an error or patently misread them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Klawz wrote:See the problem is that he used a homonym to make an inductive leap. He is using a word's similarity to another word to jump from multiple steps.

P1) "All dogs eat domesticated cats"
P2) A Ragdoll is a type of domesticated cat?

C1) Dogs eat ragdolls.

wrong he is equivocating.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Green Blow Fly wrote:So SL is not a shooting attack and it's not a psychic power but on the other hand we all know that according to the fluff DoM is a psyker, actually an extremely potent super psyker... So just what kind of attack is SL?

G

Yes, he is, and he has 2 abilities, SL is not his shooting attack...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Zain60 wrote:The Spirit Leach ruling is a rabbit hole. The ruling never should have been made as it was because it IS a rabbit hole. In my opinion the 'RAW' as it is referred to in this forum
are simply lacking in this department. I have seen all the arguments, I still consider them invalid.

If models A B C D and E are off the table, their unit is therefore ineligible for any direct attack. It would be easier for you people to stop trying to come up with a way to speak
of mounted (read: embarked) units as vehicle units, units co-existing (an explanation in the BRB, not really a 'rule') The DoM is able to use an indiscriminate area effect attack that
affects units in a range.

So, you've never read the rule under embarking? In the rule book? Go pick yours up and go to the Vehicles section. Go find "Embarking". Your entire argument is invalid and mine is correct.

Embarking
A unit can embark onto a vehicle by moving each
model to within 2" of its access points in the
Movement phase. The whole unit must be able to
embark – if some models are out of range, the unit
must stay outside. When the unit embarks, it is
removed from the table and placed aside, making a
note or otherwise marking that the unit is being
transported (we find that placing one of the unit’s
models on top of the transport works well!). If the
players need to measure a range involving the
embarked unit (except for its shooting), this range is
measured to or from the vehicle’s hull.

You mentioned for a direct attack... SL is not a direct attack to the model or unit... Please try to pay attention.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Zain60 wrote: It isn't logical the other way around because the models are never on the table and therefore neither is the unit.

irrelevant.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Zain60 wrote:The rules basis for my disagreement is simple - All rules inclusive of interacting with models in a vehicle involve the player initiating that interaction.
That IS in fact rules based. That is then supported by the specific statement against psychic powers even though they don't necessarily follow shooting
rules (like Doom on a farseer) can't affect an embarked unit.

My rules disagreement is beyond simple. If DoM was going to affect vehicle units after they (GW) have gone through the trouble of not letting anything else
in the game affect them is a sure bet rabbit hole.

Your disagreement is not only 'beyond simple' its also completely wrong. You have nothing to back your argument, the rules as written support the argument that SL affects embarked units. Why exactly are you still arguing?

I've rarely seen someone so dismissive on a forum, congrats. I have, indeed, read the embarkation rules. I DO NOT believe that the rules (and thank you for RED BOLDING THEM) include some way for ACTIVE effects to interact with said unit unless the description for SL said so. If it had, then the RED BOLDED part would absolutely apply in my opinion. This is not about me not reading rules or having an invalid argument. You disagree on my interpretation of logic and the rule book. That doesn't make me wrong - and it doesn't warrant you talking down to me on an internet forum to try proving your point with little one-liners calling people wrong, irrelevent, and my favorite. 'Why exactly are you still arguing?'

Answer: I disagree and therefore have as much right to speak against this topic as you do for it. Or don't I?

Also to the point about SL not being a shooting attack. I agree. That's also why the ruling is a rabbit hole. If I would (and I don't) concede that measuring to the hull in order to interact with the embarked unit in game terms meant that any area effect attack affecting units hurt them, then it would follow the rules for that attack. However, in this case they had also ruled they get cover saves as IF it was shooting. Which means taking this ruling to its extreme just causes more issues for players to disagree about in my opinion, not solving them. If I can't shoot at embarked units, which I can't, then psuedo-shooting-psychic attacks would be invalidated by the same argument giving it validity. A paradox that is solved by just saying the same thing GW said about psychic attacks 'Um.. No. For sanity' and whatnot. Couldn't have said it better myself.

I don't need some hidden new rules to back my argument up, I am arguing based on the same rules you are arguing, I just see them completely differently than you do.

So an ability that did say 'remove all units in 6' range from the table' wouldn't effct a unit in a transport? What - pray tell - should happend to the unit in the transport then, as it was within 6' and "should" have been remover along with the transport?

That's a pretty easy one for me, in my argument GW would simply say:

Remove any unit, even if embarked in a vehicle, within 6"

or

Any vehicle or unit within 6" are removed from the table outright.

I just believe that all language I have read, including on the page describing what happens to embarked passengers during damage to the vehicle is inclusive.
The only official FAQ entry I have read (there may be others that I haven't obviously) is about psychic abilities against embarked passengers. That was a solid 'no'

I believe in a game environment built around making only a few ways to affect embarked passengers wouldn't be transcended by an ability on a special character
unless it overtly said so. If the language had in it, ANYTHING to do with a vehicle or units inside I would think differently in a heartbeat.

The trumpeted quote about measuring to the hull is not in debate. If something IS allowed by a rule convention to affect troops embarked, then that's how you measure to them.

I don't believe this is one of those cases.

Okay, so how is your qualification 'better' than the one I gave.

(yours: even if embarked in a vehicle, mine: all)

Zain60 wrote:
The trumpeted quote about measuring to the hull is not in debate. If something IS allowed by a rule convention to affect troops embarked, then that's how you measure to them.

I don't believe this is one of those cases.

Despite the rules supporting it working in this case?
The fact that there isn't a specific allowance for the rule to apply in a situation where it already applies by RAW isn't an argument against it, it's just your opinion.

The power says it does X to everything it can measure to, nothing stops it from doing so to embarked units. It doesn't require LOS, or any of the other requirements that normally stop such things, and the rules specifically provide a way to make the only required measurement. It's an extremely simple situation when you boil it down.

That's the allowance, YOU need to provide something that disallows the ability working normally before the ability needs an allowance to overcome it.
Your opinion on how specific the rules have to be for you to think the case is valid, or your opinion on how somewhat similar situations have been ruled on in the past should be applied, doesn't change how the rules in this case as written actually work.

I'm not trying to say I'm better than you or my interpretation is better. I just disagree and I won't get into a 'one up' game for the sake of making an argument.
If disagreeing on a ruling means people here think I'm pooping on their virtual head or somehow think I'm in any way better because I see something differently,
I can guarantee that is not the case.

My comment about GW saying overtly that vehicle borne units are affected in each case is why mine was different, not better.

In response to criticism of my opinion, I re-read the rulebook in the past hour or so in every reference to vehicles and to embarked troops.
My opinion has not changed.

I do, however, support vehicles being dubbed units. BRB (Pg 3) supports that units can be comprised of models of infantry just as easily as one large model/vehicle.
Vehicles = units. If spirit leach had the damage capacity to damage a vehicle it should in fact hurt the vehicle. I don't see there being a rule that targetless
attacks or stray attacks with wording affecting units like a Vibro-cannon or barrage affects vehicle borne units. It will hit the vehicle though and whatever effect
the rule book (p 67) states the vehicles condition has on its passengers is then passed on in that vein. No other way in the rule book or any codex I can think of
violates those guidelines without specifically saying so.



Zain~


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gorkamorka wrote:

Zain60 wrote:
The trumpeted quote about measuring to the hull is not in debate. If something IS allowed by a rule convention to affect troops embarked, then that's how you measure to them.

I don't believe this is one of those cases.

Despite the rules supporting it working in this case?
The fact that there isn't a specific allowance for the rule to apply in a situation where it already applies by RAW isn't an argument against it, it's just your opinion.

The power says it does X, nothing stops it from doing so to embarked units. It doesn't require LOS, or any of the other requirements that normally stop such things, and the rules specifically provide a way to make the only required measurement.

That's the allowance, YOU need to provide something that disallows the ability working normally before the ability needs an allowance to overcome it.
Your opinion on how specific the rules have to be for you to think the case is valid, or your opinion on how somewhat similar situations have been ruled on in the past should be applied, doesn't change how the rules in this case as written actually work.

I disagree it's an allowance, and I cannot find something that disallows it or anything I think is plainly allowing it. I don't think that means the ruling is correct, I think it's ambiguous on the part of GW.
I obviously have struck some sort of nerve arguing my interpretation of the rule and have already been insulted and talked down to for it so I think I'm done on this thread.

If everyone is in agreement but me then It's a different situation then I thought. I believed that these threads were for discussion on contentious issue(s). I didn't realize that discussion was over and
I should have stopped posting.

I hope GW makes a ruling on this soon, even if it's to say my point of view is invalidated. I'm fine with that, this isn't personal to me in any way.