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.

Zain60 wrote:
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.

It's extremely simple once boiled down.
DoM: Every unit I can measure to is affected, no LOS requirements or anything else to get in the way
Transport: You can measure to embarked units, here's how you do it

The DoM, quite simply, just works in this situation.
I'm really just curious where the support for your claims that it doesn't, or that vehicles provide some sort of protection against it that isn't spelled out in the rules, come from. The fact that you 'can't find an allowance' for it in the rules, to me, shows that you're not following the RAW arguments spelled out in the thread correctly. The fact that you can't find a disallowance for the action while arguing that an allowance is required particularly confuses me, what exactly is the allowance supposed to be overriding?

I have heard the GW FAQ & Errata for Tyranids might be released this week. Hopefully it will put an end to this debate once and for all. As it stands now I think we will be seeing the DoM in many Nidz army at chit0wn later this month.

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.

Except that isnt a rules basis, this is a "in my opinion" basis - you can tell it is not a rules basis as you have neither refuted the rules given to allow, or given citations and quotes (with page numbers) to show the contrary position has support.

Frankly, your position is baseless, you just dont *want* it to work.

The "it works" side has rules to state it works, you now MUST find a *rule*, not an opinion, to show it doesnt work. Stating it is "ambiguous" when it is not, as has been shown repeatedly not to be ambiguous at all, is not a rules argument.

Okay... big deep breath. You are wrong, this is not only because you can not provide credence to your claim beyond 'I don't like it' there are no rules against things effecting embarked units, there are sets of guidelines for see if they can. The guidelines by which DoM operate are compatible with units while their embarked.

Now from a (more) rational view-point.

You say you have re-read and your opinion has not change, could you please display why with referance to the rules? Maybe even some quotes and your reasoning? Again, you are tellin gus we are wrong while we provide reason and examples for our case. While you say no no no it doesn't do that for.... no reason...

Thirdly, I was not saying my interpretation was better than yours I was asking about 'qualifications’ which yours was ‘even embarked’ where mine was ‘all’ I wanted to know why you felt that all was not encompassing of embarked units?

Zain60 wrote:
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.
Zain~

Dude, if you did not feel this way before then you should really have a look at your stance on many things, not because your necessarily incorrect but because this misconception could easily be repeated in many things, and one can’t argue from a position of strength when errors such as this persist in one’s understanding.

The core problem seems to be that many people at our LFGS are automatically treating spirit leach as a psychic ability. As such, the natural reaction is to not allow it to affect units inside transports.

It appears that GW is trying to not have any passive psychic powers anymore tho. In the tyranid codex they have a list of regular active psychic powers and then dont call most of the other powers/ abilities psychic ... altho they do sort of call a few of them psychic. One of them is even titled: Psychic strength. Hence the problem, GW is being wishy-washy again. Its probably because they dont want to call Shadow in the warp a psychic ability.


There is also some resistance to how the INAT faq appears to be going. Explaining this circle raises arguements: Spirit leach affects units inside a vehicle and the units hit can take a cover save. People raise the (not unnatural) question as to why there is a save, Since the only rule allowing a save would seem to be derived from the rule giving saves to units hit with a psychic shooting attack this implies spirit leach is being considered a psychic ability. And if spirit leach is psychic then it cant affect the embarked unit.


So by RAW the unit should either be affected and not get a cover save, or else the unit should not be affected.

Trying to explain this other combination boils down to having to stand on the "because they did it that way, there isnt a rule" concept.


Sliggoth

Being dismissive of erred arguments is not bad. 2 + 2 does not ever nor under any interpretation nor anyone's opinion ever = 17... if someone makes an argument with the conclusion that it does equal 17 I will dismiss it similar to how I am dismissing your opinion, interpretation and argument.

Zain60 wrote: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 -

Wrong, I disagree with each step of your argument, your premises are invalid, your assumptions are invalid, your conclusions are invalid. Your misinterpretation of the rule book and your lack of knowledge of logic does in fact make you wrong.

Please help me, I am quite confused, since when are we not allowed to tell someone when he or she is in error?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Zain60 wrote: 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

Earlier I was being facetious, now I'm being serious; this is a place where I lack: I dont have a wide bulk of knowledge. I know very few armys well, are there any abilities (other than SL) that read: "All ---UNITS--- within X inches are affected"? Please point some out, I know someone pointed out Boon of Mutation but that is in fact not analogous (it says models). My understanding was that nothing else said units and everything else that was similar to SL all stated "Models" in range.

My understanding is that this is the first directly harmful abilty that specifies "unit" that isnt also a psychic power - as psychic powers are already stopped from working on embarked units. Hence the arguments, everything else was specifically stopped.

You are all correct. I have no problem with dismissal, just people who seem to take pleasure in treating people
poorly on moral high ground.

I have a philosophical disagreement on the nature of the ruling. I have PM'd a couple of you and talked about it. I didn't realize that after 6 pages that all of the
arguments were given and accepted as law. If that was the case I would not have bothered posting as I now realize was viewed as trolling. I was bored
at work, thought there was still a debate there so talked about it. There is not a new rule I can or will bring up because there isn't one which I know.

My 'argument' was based on what is called on dakka 'the way it's played' rather than 'rules as written' which I wasn't clearly distinguishing. I apologize to anyone
who thought I was trolling and that was very much not the intent. I concede that based on the 'rules as written' the debate on the issue is done. I disagree
with the ruling because of what Slig said above - which I was unable to say in the same way at the time.

It seems my attempt to resolve the issue in PM's was unsuccessful, I am sorry for that.

Take care,
Zain~

nosferatu1001 wrote:My understanding is that this is the first directly harmful abilty that specifies "unit" that isnt also a psychic power - as psychic powers are already stopped from working on embarked units. Hence the arguments, everything else was specifically stopped.

Oh, where is it stated that all psychic powers are stopped from working on embarked units?

visavismeyou wrote:Oh, where is it stated that all psychic powers are stopped from working on embarked units?

The Rulebook FAQ

Zain60 wrote: I concede that based on the 'rules as written' the debate on the issue is done.

I commend you on this, I do have a question and a point to make about "Rules as played" though. While I understand that this game comes with a community, and I also appreciate it and enjoy it, I do take objection to relying on something as arbitrary, capricious and subjective as "Rules as played". Second, my question is, shouldn't "rules as played" and "rules as written" coalesce over time? After people casually play a new edition for a while, shouldn't the vast majority of the community come to understand and play the rules as written?

Off topic i'm sure, anyway, toodles.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gwar! wrote:

visavismeyou wrote:Oh, where is it stated that all psychic powers are stopped from working on embarked units?

The Rulebook FAQ

\

can you please link this to me? also is there a central repository where all FAQ's are held? Please link.

visavismeyou wrote:

Zain60 wrote: I concede that based on the 'rules as written' the debate on the issue is done.

I commend you on this, I do have a question and a point to make about "Rules as played" though. While I understand that this game comes with a community, and I also appreciate it and enjoy it, I do take objection to relying on something as arbitrary, capricious and subjective as "Rules as played". Second, my question is, shouldn't "rules as played" and "rules as written" coalesce over time? After people casually play a new edition for a while, shouldn't the vast majority of the community come to understand and play the rules as written?

Off topic i'm sure, anyway, toodles.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gwar! wrote:

visavismeyou wrote:Oh, where is it stated that all psychic powers are stopped from working on embarked units?

The Rulebook FAQ

\

can you please link this to me? also is there a central repository where all FAQ's are held? Please link.

http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/content/article.jsp?aId=3000006

then click next at the bottom right. That's all the FAQ's on the official website.

Also, in answer to your question: Yes, they should coalesce. I don't think rules as played is capricious or arbitrary as long as there is .. let's say.. inconsistencies in the way GW handles certain rules. I think this is one of the only, if not THE only issue I have with rules as played vs rules as written. Despite this thread, I'm fairly 'official ruling + RaW' oriented as a player. I don't argue with anyone over RaP unless there is obvious ambiguity that hasn't been specifically addressed. If there is a disagreement we can't solve and no judge has an answer to we just roll a 4+ or concede a reasonable point so good sportsmanship is acheived. Arguing is what forums are for. So RaW is done here as we've discussed.

The psychic attack thing as was pointed out above my last post is the main crux of that inconsistency. If this came up in a game I would obviously accept the community's ruling and take my cover saves. I just think that whole cover save thing shows the inconsistency in handling vehicle passengers as talked about above. This doesn't fit the bill as a PSA until we treat it like one I guess.

Zain60 wrote:
http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/content/article.jsp?aId=3000006

then click next at the bottom right. That's all the FAQ's on the official website.

thank you very much!

This is addressed to an earlier post made by Yakface

You mentioned that normal shooting attacks cannot attack units embarked in transports due to no LOS.
What about Tau SMS that don't require LOS? Distance is simply measured to the hull of the vehicle, and voila! You've broken the system.

Che-Vito wrote:This is addressed to an earlier post made by Yakface

You mentioned that normal shooting attacks cannot attack units embarked in transports due to no LOS.
What about Tau SMS that don't require LOS? Distance is simply measured to the hull of the vehicle, and voila! You've broken the system.

I believe part of the shooting rules requires you to measure to the nearest model in the unit you are shooting. Since there is no model you can't measure distance to a unit for shooting purposes. This also prevents the Tyranid Hive Guard from shooting at embarked units.

Burger Rage wrote:

Che-Vito wrote:This is addressed to an earlier post made by Yakface

You mentioned that normal shooting attacks cannot attack units embarked in transports due to no LOS.
What about Tau SMS that don't require LOS? Distance is simply measured to the hull of the vehicle, and voila! You've broken the system.

I believe part of the shooting rules requires you to measure to the nearest model in the unit you are shooting. Since there is no model you can't measure distance to a unit for shooting purposes. This also prevents the Tyranid Hive Guard from shooting at embarked units.

This.

Shooting requires you to check LoS (which you can skip) and then measure range to a model in the target unit (which you can't).

The vehicle rules allow measurement to a unit, not models in that unit.

forkbanger wrote:

Burger Rage wrote:

Che-Vito wrote:This is addressed to an earlier post made by Yakface

You mentioned that normal shooting attacks cannot attack units embarked in transports due to no LOS.
What about Tau SMS that don't require LOS? Distance is simply measured to the hull of the vehicle, and voila! You've broken the system.

I believe part of the shooting rules requires you to measure to the nearest model in the unit you are shooting. Since there is no model you can't measure distance to a unit for shooting purposes. This also prevents the Tyranid Hive Guard from shooting at embarked units.

This.

Shooting requires you to check LoS (which you can skip) and then measure range to a model in the target unit (which you can't).

The vehicle rules allow measurement to a unit, not models in that unit.

If the entire transport filled with models is within range (which is 24"), then the entire unit is in range of the SMS.
This is in-line with what Yakface has presented, naturally a bit ridic.

But that is the misconception people keep falling into.

The transport is not filled with models, they are removed from play. A transport is a unit which can count as containing another unit - not models.

Che-Vito - NO, that is NOT what Yaface has said. You have entirely misunderstood.

If you are embarked on a transport you cannot measure to any model, as you have no way to do it, and no allowance to measure to the hull as you do when finding out if the *unit* is in range. Hence no shooting attack can work, as all require you to find out where a model in the unit is - not the unit itself but a model within it.

You can measure to the unit, as you are allowed to - by measuring to the hull.

when you are embarked measuring to the unit /= measuring to a model.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Che-Vito - NO, that is NOT what Yaface has said. You have entirely misunderstood.

If you are embarked on a transport you cannot measure to any model, as you have no way to do it, and no allowance to measure to the hull as you do when finding out if the *unit* is in range. Hence no shooting attack can work, as all require you to find out where a model in the unit is - not the unit itself but a model within it.

You can measure to the unit, as you are allowed to - by measuring to the hull.

when you are embarked measuring to the unit /= measuring to a model.

Yea. The ruling on DoM had nothing to do with measuring to models a la shooting. It was measuring to a unit as distinguished in the codex description of the Spirit Leech ability itself.

The only shooting rules being implemented here are cover saves for embarked troops affected by Spirit Leech in the INAT FAQ +TYR portion.

...and technically cover saves require a "firing" model (despite the fluff indicating debris etc should grant cover) which is where the ruling doesnt follow the rules, but Yakface has been consistent in this - if it is majorly played that people give cover saves (for example from an exploding vehicle) then they rule to grant them. It "feels" right that a big hunk of metal may interfere with DoM.

I'm curious, from a rules-as-played perspective on the +TYR ruling in INAT. Are people also giving saves to wounds taken in the following vein?
EDIT: cover saves is what I mean.


___X <--Doom
|___| <--Tank
xxx <--Squad completely out of view

I'm pretty sure we're just beating our heads into the proverbial wall until the Nid FAQ comes out, and explains it all to us...

Quixote wrote:I'm pretty sure we're just beating our heads into the proverbial wall until the Nid FAQ comes out, and explains it all to us...

At which point people like me will (quite correctly) point out the FAQ's are not worth the e-paper they are printed on and that it requires an Errata.

Granted, if it DOES get an Errata, I will be shocked and surprised.

Gwar! wrote:

Quixote wrote:I'm pretty sure we're just beating our heads into the proverbial wall until the Nid FAQ comes out, and explains it all to us...

At which point people like me will (quite correctly) point out the FAQ's are not worth the e-paper they are printed on and that it requires an Errata.

Granted, if it DOES get an Errata, I will be shocked and surprised.

And if the FAQ agrees with your FAQ you will use it as "official proof" that you were right all along. Kinda convenient Gwar that the GW FAQ are only valid when they agree with you.

I dont think he would leverage it at official proof, he would just verify with his opponent that they are using his faq for rules questions, and perhaps mention that GW plagerized his FAQ for their own.

Yea... so if anyone can answer on how they're playing the above scenario I would appreciate it.

Again so you don't have to scroll =p

___X <--Doom
|___| <--Tank
xxx <--Squad completely out of view

Squad get a cover sv against SL?

Zain~

RAW I would say no, SL is not a shooting attack, and IMO by RAW you can only claim cover saves vs shooting.

HWIPI Sure, take a cover save, its a game, and if im playing doom its probly not a competitve one in a tournament where it makes any difference.

Zain60 wrote:Yea... so if anyone can answer on how they're playing the above scenario I would appreciate it.

Again so you don't have to scroll =p

___X <--Doom
|___| <--Tank
xxx <--Squad completely out of view

Squad get a cover sv against SL?

Zain~

Per our PMs Zain, you already know my response, but I'll just respond for its own sake. As I understand it, if the squad is within 6 inches of the DoM then RAW dictates they take wounds with no cover saves.

HWIPI: If it was my DoM and my opponent flips out, I'd yield and give a 4+ cover save, but I would make sure to explain that the there is no precedence in the RAW to justify that save; since I dont own a single tyranid model, if my opponent egg drops a DoM next to my LRC I would play it with no cover save.

Thanks guys, appreciate it.