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.

rigeld2 wrote:
A) I've asked in the past to please stop using yellow as its hard for me to read.
B) the actual KFF rule requires measuring to the Mek. The FAQ does not say to measure to the wargear. It says to measure the range of the wargear from the hull of the transport. Nothing in that FAQ changes the target of what you measure to.

A) Changing the font colour from your browser of choice should fix that right up for you

B) Yes, the actual KFF rule 'does' require measuring to the Mek. Regretably it is impossible to measure to the Mek itself when it is in a transport as there is no specific rule which gives you permission to do so. Fortunately however, you are still able to 'measure the range of such items' from the transports' hull instead, which is functionally identical in most cases.

Fragile wrote:And your failing to realize those items of wargear are on a specific model.

on the contrary: I realise that they are on the Mek just fine, I've just taken issue with conflating the ability to determine range on it's wargear with the ability to determine range on it's model when it is embarked.

 Neorealist wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
A) I've asked in the past to please stop using yellow as its hard for me to read.
B) the actual KFF rule requires measuring to the Mek. The FAQ does not say to measure to the wargear. It says to measure the range of the wargear from the hull of the transport. Nothing in that FAQ changes the target of what you measure to.

A) Changing the font colour from your browser of choice should fix that right up for you

Mobile Safari doesn't have that option afaik, and its not yellow specifically I have a problem with, but yellow on white - since the high contrast theme is the easiest to read. No matter, I've asked politely multiple times, you've treated me rudely multiple times, ill not bother anymore.

B) Yes, the actual KFF rule 'does' require measuring to the Mek. Regretably it is impossible to measure to the Mek itself when it is in a transport as there is no specific rule which gives you permission to do so. Fortunately however, you are still able to 'measure the range of such items' from the transports' hull instead, which is functionally identical in most cases.

Right - you're able to measure to the Mek from hull of the transport. That's a model, in case you weren't aware.

At this point it is probably best to leave Neo to it.

The rules have been clearly explained, theyre unwilling to listen

rigeld2 wrote:Mobile Safari doesn't have that option afaik, and its not yellow specifically I have a problem with, but yellow on white - since the high contrast theme is the easiest to read. No matter, I've asked politely multiple times, you've treated me rudely multiple times, ill not bother anymore.

I resent being called rude as i've been nothing but polite in each of my responses. In any case, i respect your right to your opinions and am not going to comment further on it.

rigeld2 wrote:Right - you're able to measure to the Mek from hull of the transport. That's a model, in case you weren't aware.

No, that isn't what it actually says. You have permission to measure range to the item within the transport, not the model carrying it. It's a small, but important distinction.

nosferatu1001 wrote:The rules have been clearly explained, theyre unwilling to listen

I don't feel such comments really add anything and are therefore not all that helpful to this discussion. Do you?

 Neorealist wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:Right - you're able to measure to the Mek from hull of the transport. That's a model, in case you weren't aware.

No, that isn't what it actually says. You have permission to measure range to the item within the transport, not the model carrying it. It's a small, but important distinction.

 Neorealist wrote:

FAQ Entry:
"Q: Do embarked passengers with 'area of effect’ wargear, such as the Big Mek’s Kustom Force Field, measure the range of such items from the hull of the transport they are embarked upon? (p78)
A: Yes. "
The pertinent points being the references to 'area of effect wargear', and the 'range of such items'.

Show me in that FAQ where it says to measure to the wargear. All you've pointed out so far is that some wargear has an area of effect and that such items are measured from the hull of a transport. Since, in the case of the KFF, the Mek is an embarked passenger he must measure the range from the hull of the transport. That doesn't mean the rules suddenly change to measure to his wargear instead of him.

You've quoted it yourself above: that FAQ note indicates that you measure the range of the item from the hull of the transport, and says nothing about allowing one to measure the 'range to the model' from the transport.

 Neorealist wrote:
You've quoted it yourself above: that FAQ note indicates that you measure the range of the item from the hull of the transport, and says nothing about allowing one to measure the 'range to the model' from the transport.

It actually says that for embarked passengers with items that have an area of effect, you measure range from the hull.
You keep skipping the embarked passengers like its unimportant, but its vitally important.

rigeld2 wrote: It actually says that for embarked passengers with items that have an area of effect, you measure range from the hull.
You keep skipping the embarked passengers like its unimportant, but its vitally important.

I'm not ignoring it, i just believe you are incorrect regarding the context.

If there are embarked passengers with 'area of effect' wargear, you are instructed to measure the 'range of such items' from the hull. At what point does that note give you permission to measure range to a specific embarked passenger?

 Neorealist wrote:

rigeld2 wrote: It actually says that for embarked passengers with items that have an area of effect, you measure range from the hull.
You keep skipping the embarked passengers like its unimportant, but its vitally important.

I'm not ignoring it, i just believe you are incorrect regarding the context.

If there are embarked passengers with 'area of effect' wargear, you are instructed to measure the 'range of such items' from the hull. At what point does that note give you permission to measure range to a specific embarked passenger?

You are measuring the range of a KFF from the hull.
What is the range of a KFF? 6"
What must the KFF be measured to? The Mek. The FAQ allows you to measure to the hull instead.

To those in the PRO position here, it's worth noting that Neorealist's arguments have been (relatively) polite. I don't recall him making a specific statement that he was making a case for RAW only, throwing RAI/HIWPI out the window, but that's how I interpreted it. Where better than YMDC for such a debate, right?

But it's also worth noting that while the tone of Neorealist's arguments have been relatively consistent, the content of them has not. He began by asking for a specific rule (not a rules based argument) that allowed the OP's scenario to function.

This was (imo) reasonable since he had (what he thought at the time was) a specific rule saying it did not work.

specific rule saying it does not work >>> a rules based argument saying it might/should work

That is no longer the point of contention, and a rules based argument vs a rules based argument is more subjective.

Neorealist, please let me know if I have described your position incorrectly. If so, I apologize and am eager to hear it stated more clearly directly from you.

rigeld2 wrote:You are measuring the range of a KFF from the hull.
What is the range of a KFF? 6"
What must the KFF be measured to? The Mek. The FAQ allows you to measure to the hull instead.

I've already indicated why the above is incorrect, please refer to my prior posts on the topic regarding the KFF. Given it's not included in the original OP and is only tangically relevent to our discussion, this will be the last post i type regarding KFFs interaction with transports; since we've wandered away from discussing Obryon and Zahndrekh a bit here.

To Sum: there is no rule explicitly allowing one to measure range to Zahndrekh specifically if he is embarked on a Transport, and therefore you cannot do it. This is my stance.

 Neorealist wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:You are measuring the range of a KFF from the hull.
What is the range of a KFF? 6"
What must the KFF be measured to? The Mek. The FAQ allows you to measure to the hull instead.

I've already indicated why the above is incorrect, please refer to my prior posts on the topic regarding the KFF. Given it's not included in the original OP and is only tangically relevent to our discussion, this will be the last post i type regarding KFFs interaction with transports; since we've wandered away from discussing Obryon and Zahndrekh a bit here.

To Sum: there is no rule explicitly allowing one to measure range to Zahndrekh specifically if he is embarked on a Transport, and therefore you cannot do it. This is my stance.

It's not a tangent at all.
To measure range for the KFF you're measuring to the embarked model.
To measure range for Zahndrekh you measure range to the embarked model.

 Neorealist wrote:
To Sum: there is no rule explicitly allowing one to measure range to Zahndrekh specifically if he is embarked on a Transport, and therefore you cannot do it. This is my stance.

To this I would say that there is no Zahndrekh in RAW game terms other that the Zahndrekh model and the Zahndrekh unit, either himself alone, or joined unit(s).

Zahndrekh exists in fluff and I love the guy. He is actually my favorite Necron back story.

As far as game rules, they start on p2 with "Models and Units" From a rules point of view there are Models and Units, not guys with fun back stories.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
oh, and I agree, the KFF is incredibly relevant.

Whereas in my opinion page 78 states that you can, because we are measuring a range to or from an embarked unit.

The only sliver of ambiguity was regarding measuring to an embarked model vs an embarked unit was dispelled with the FAQ ruling on the KFF, which makes absolutely clear that the same rule applies when we're talking about a particular member of an embarked unit.

The same rules work the same way for Fortune, Guide, Doom, the Kustom Force Field, Obyron's Ghostwalk Mantle in conjunction with The Varguard's duty, a GK Dread's Reinforced Aegis while it's embarked in a Stormraven, a Lord Commissar's Aura of Discipline, IG Command Radius (which the IG codex again speicifies is measured from the Chimera's hull if the officer is embarked), A Dark Angels or Space Marines Chapter Banner or Teleport Homer in a Rhino, Null Zone, a BA Blood Chalice, a Crucible of Malediction in a Raider or Venom, Straken's Cold Steel & Courage rule, a Space Wolf Runic Weapon in a transport, Ragnar Blackmane's War Howl, etc., etc. ad infinitum ad nauseum.

Indeed, it is not in the slightest tangentially related, it is directly related

You are told that, in order to measure the range of wargear (which you HAVE to measure to the model, as you have no other means to measure; Neo if you disagree please provide some real rules) you measure to the hull

Measuring to wargear is equivalent to measuring to the model. Both must be done to the hull of the vehicle

The rules are pretty clear here.

*sigh* alrighty. I suppose I should be asking the following question then:

The Faq entry for the KFF indicates that it is for wargear with an AoE. Even if you are able to determine range to a specific embarked model carrying it (note: i'm not saying you can, i'm just tired of arguing about the KFF) how does that in turn indicate you are able to determine range to an embarked model that is 'not' carrying any wargear that would provide such an effect?

In the scenario presented by the OP the question was wether or not Obyron can teleport without error if within 6" of a nightscythe carrying Zahndrekh. Zandrekh does not have any relevent wargear that would provide the 'homing' effect, and neither does Obyron for that matter. The ability is provided by one of Obyrons' special rules.

It still comes back to page 78. "If the players need to measure a range involving the embarked unit" you measure to and from the hull.

The KFF ruling and the IG Chimera rules for command radius are two examples where GW makes explicit that the same applies to a single model within that transport.

Because the fact that its wargear isn't the point - the point is that you're given permission to measure to the hull of the transport instead of the model.

 Mannahnin wrote:
It still comes back to page 78. "If the players need to measure a range involving the embarked unit" you measure to and from the hull.

I think it bears emphasis that "involving the embarked unit" is a particularly broad statement. It covers this situation as well as many others.

The NO position seems to be arguing that this broad statement does not cover the OP's question. I would disagree


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Any eldar players here? is there an equivalent ruling for Wraithsight?

That would seem to be a good parallel


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Q. If you have Wraithguards embarked in a Wave Serpent, do they
still have to make the Wraithsight roll? If yes, can a friendly psyker
within 6” of the vehicle prevent them from making this roll? (p46)
A. Yes, and yes. However, if they fail their Wraithsight roll and
the Wave Serpent is destroyed during that same player turn, all
of the Wraithguards are destroyed as well.

Good call! There's actually a ruling in the Eldar FAQ which demonstrates the same principle in regards to Wraithsight.

Eldar FAQ wrote:Q. If you have Wraithguards embarked in a Wave Serpent, do they still have to make the Wraithsight roll? If yes, can a friendly psyker within 6” of the vehicle prevent them from making this roll? (p46)
A. Yes, and yes. However, if they fail their Wraithsight roll and the Wave Serpent is destroyed during that same player turn, all of the Wraithguards are destroyed as well.

Edit: Ninja'd.

I'll have to agree; the eldar faq indicating wraithguard can check if a friendly psyker is within 6" while inside a transport has strong parallels to the situation we've been discussing.

They are both special abilities with a range of 6" and involve a transport. That said one is measuring 'from' a unit within a transport to a specific model outside on the table (wraithsight) and the other is trying to measure specifically 'to' a model within a transport that therefore has been removed from the table. (the vargards duty)

In truth the ruling would be closer in theme if you could measure 6" to an 'embarked' psyker from a wraithguard squad outside a transport as well. I'm not as familiar with the eldar codex and FAQ as i'd need to be to speak authoratively on it, so can anyone point out if there is a ruling allowing that too?

There is no explicit second ruling covering the exact same situation, but for the psyker embarked and the wraiths not. It would seem absurd for it not to work the same way.

Remember that GW frequently chooses/phrases the questions in the FAQs to provide additional information. In this case, using the situation of the Wraiths being embarked allowed them to simultaneously address the question of how/whether they can disembark if they've failed Wraithsight.

I don't know about that:

Wraithsight (and the FAQ ruling) allow you to determine range to a model that is located on the table. There is a physical psyker model to draw that range 'to' and the lack of a unit to draw that range 'from' is handily addressed by the 'Transport' rules that allows you to determine range to the hull of the vehicle in proxy of the unit inside.

The other situation has you trying to determine range 'from' a model on the table (Obyron) 'to' a specific model that is both not on the table at that moment 'and' that doesn't have a specific FAQ ruling or rule allowing you to determine range to the hull of it's transport in proxy of itself.

If there was an FAQ update or something which explicitly presents the reverse scenario it'd be a much stronger precident for allowing the above.

 Neorealist wrote:
I don't know about that

I'm not sure you will have much luck pressing the argument that while the FAQ shows A is within 6" of B, B is not necessarily within 6" of A.

I agree that in a perfect world, we would have explicit faqs covering every possible contingency. 40k is not a perfect world. It and it's rules are not fully illuminated - they are Grim Dark

It's not hard as that argument in basic logic is also known as a 'Logical Fallacy'.
I have some apples and oranges.

A = Apples.
B = Oranges.
C = Fruit.


A = C, but does C (only and specifically) = A? (the answer is 'no' as i also have oranges.) (or to make this more 40k applicable: many other kinds of scenarios not covered under the rules currently like the one we are discussing)

So what happens then if you have an IC that was chosen as your bloodswarm nanoscarab target and that IC is in a transport with another unit and I decide to deep strike my flayed ones within 6 inches of the vehicle?

Would you (neorealist) say that you couldn't benefit from that rule in that situation either?

 Neorealist wrote:
It's not hard as that argument in basic logic is also known as a 'Logical Fallacy'.
I have some apples and oranges.

A = Apples.
B = Oranges.
C = Fruit.


A = C, but does C (only and specifically) = A? (the answer is 'no' as i also have oranges.) (or to make this more 40k applicable: many other kinds of scenarios not covered under the rules currently like the one we are discussing)

Except we don't have 3 things, we have two. You're inventing that logical fallacy.

 Neorealist wrote:
It's not hard as that argument in basic logic is also known as a 'Logical Fallacy'.
I have some apples and oranges.

A = Apples.
B = Oranges.
C = Fruit.


A = C, but does C (only and specifically) = A? (the answer is 'no' as i also have oranges.) (or to make this more 40k applicable: many other kinds of scenarios not covered under the rules currently like the one we are discussing)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

I did not say A = C, B = C, thus A = B, nor would I in your apples and oranges strawman misrepresentation of my statement. I would much more likely use a Ven Diagram or argue Set theory.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Neorealist wrote:
It's not hard as that argument in basic logic is also known as a 'Logical Fallacy'.
I have some apples and oranges.

A = Apples.
B = Oranges.
C = Fruit.


A = C, but does C (only and specifically) = A? (the answer is 'no' as i also have oranges.) (or to make this more 40k applicable: many other kinds of scenarios not covered under the rules currently like the one we are discussing)

Except we don't have 3 things, we have two. You're inventing that logical fallacy.

Indeed. The excluded middle fallacy doesnt apply hwen you only have 2 things....

This debate has had many 'things'. I shall list some of them for you:

A) Wether or not Obyron can be said to be near enough to Zahndrekh for his ability to work
B) Wether or not a Kustom Force Field is precident enough to say the above is true.
C) Wether or not the ruling on Wraithguard is precident enough to say the above is true.
D) The definition of 'in play'
E) The definition of a 'unit' and a 'model' and how they differ.
F) The effects of the 'Transport' rules.

I was saying that just because wraithguard can draw range to a psyker on a battlefield does not necessarily mean that Obyron can draw range to Zahndrekh and to imply otherwise is to engage in a logical fallacy. Anyone have a specific issue with that apart from some sort of opinion that it is a 'straw man' or something equally non-contributory to the discussion at hand?