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.

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.