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.

No, no, people are arguing that zero isn't a measurable value and that something which is at no distance isn't at any distance. Its either measurable, and wholly within applies, or its not measurable, and things that are base to base (and thus zero distance) break.

You don't get to have this both ways.

To address measuring, within and wholly within never ask you to measure to or between anything (similar to how we can measure while moving a model without reference to a second model given the how-to-measure-rules, GW rules contradict themselves). It's just "are you not outside range". The first "how to measure" blurb isn't relevant.

 Nate668 wrote:
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!

I'm not going even going to read your arguments, as we know that units like chapter masters and psykers can use abilities with a range on themselves. Therefore a model can measure to itself, and the distance is 0", and no matter what you pull out of your superior understanding of the English language changes that. Hint: If math and logic disagree with you, a less accurate science is never going to prove your right.

Stop trying to win an argument just for the sake of winning.

@ nate668
Quoting your text then responding

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.

* this argument is blatantly False there are numerous instances within the game when models are required to do so. Auras psychic powers and litanies being exampled you can't say you can't do it when other areas of rules require you to do so and claiming that you can't breaks the game because none of these function.

- Undefined/nothing is not "any distance," and so does not meet the requirements of WITHIN AND WHOLLY WITHIN.

* this argument is blatantly false within and wholey within are defined terms there are numerous instances within the game when models are required to do so. Auras psychic powers and litanies being exampled you can't say you can't do it when other areas of rules require you to do so. And claiming that you can't breaks the game. Wholey within is a 1 or 0 - either you are wholey within or you are not. You are within 3" or you are not.

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.

* this statement is blatantly false there is no requirement to explicitly state something is an aura
Something is an aura if it meets the definition
This does
The psychic power creates an aura without being one in the same way as nullzone does or psychic fortress which are tagged


- 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"

* engagement range has nothing to do with the question and has no impact on the answer

- 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).

*Nothing and 0" are irrelevant to the question the question is are you within 3" of an aura the answer is yes a part of its base is within 3"of another part of its base

None of these are valid rules arguments we have three blatantly false statements and two irrelevant points.

The opposing argument is RAW this is an aura because it meets the definition being an aura according to the rules and it is clearly stated that auras effect the unit with the aura according to the rules.

and even if it were not an aura it would still effect a unit because we have precedent on how measuring works in 40k e.g. in auras

So on the one side we have 3 false claims and two irrelevant points and on the other we have two solid rules based arguments.

I dunno guys, one side is quoting rules to prove their point and the other is just saying "This is blatantly false!" without providing evidence (or even reading the argument!). I don't think you guys are very good at this...

It's almost like the whole argument comes down to 'a thing has a measurable distance to itself and that distance is 0"' vs "a thing can't have a distance to itself"

Could it be that it depends on how you choose to interpret the word "distance," and that maybe both are acceptable answers?

Except that within and wholly within doesn't care? It asks if you are not outside the maximum range. It doesn't ask if you are outside the maximum range and also in a deadzone where we debate the meaning of 0. It doesn't ask if the unit is outside the maximum range and also is itself. It doesn't ask if the ability is an aura. It doesn't ask you to measure between two models.

It just asks, "is this unit outside the maximum range?".

And the answer is no.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Nate668 wrote:
I dunno guys, one side is quoting rules to prove their point and the other is just saying "This is blatantly false!" without providing evidence (or even reading the argument!). I don't think you guys are very good at this...

It's almost like the whole argument comes down to 'a thing has a measurable distance to itself and that distance is 0"' vs "a thing can't have a distance to itself"

Could it be that it depends on how you choose to interpret the word "distance," and that maybe both are acceptable answers?

Yes one side has quoted clear rules such as the definition of aura.

And one side has made blatantly false statements which contradict the rules with zero relevant quotes to support there position. Their is nothing to challenge in a false statement other than to state that its false its not evidence of anything. (Although I did try and explain why its false but no reason you would address any of that because you can't.

Arguments about zero are irrelevant so equally not worth challenging

the only relevant question is are you within 3"

"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."

The base is not more than 3" away from the base therefore it applies

 Nate668 wrote:
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!

Well done gents, consider that hill died upon. What would you like on your tombstones?

"Nate668 finally admitted he had produced zero evidence to support his argument" would be a nice quote

Followed up with

"Therefore 2MW on the target and 1 on everything else within 3" so it's clear to anyone reading the thread".

Might I suggest an amendment to "Nate668 finally admitted that he had produced zero evidence that I, U02dah4 am able to understand?"

 Nate668 wrote:
Well done gents, consider that hill died upon. What would you like on your tombstones?

I'd like "Nate668 can't differentiate between a rule thats asks if you're outside of a range and is inclusive and their own rule that tries to determine if a unit is measured inside that range and exclusive"

 Nate668 wrote:
Might I suggest an amendment to "Nate668 finally admitted that he had produced zero evidence that I, U02dah4 am able to understand?"

Considered / rejected I understand your evidence-its not evidence- that's why in this case I say the answer is clear. no opposing rules quotes or evidence relevant to the question have been provided. Where as in other threads such as the adjacent fight first thread I acknowledge ambiguity and interpretation are relevant.

PoorGravitasHandling wrote:

 Nate668 wrote:
Well done gents, consider that hill died upon. What would you like on your tombstones?

I'd like "Nate668 can't differentiate between a rule thats asks if you're outside of a range and is inclusive and their own rule that tries to determine if a unit is measured inside that range and exclusive"

Sorry, we're all out of that one. I can do "Nothing is something, and it's measured in inches, damn it!"

Again we're back to this.

 doctortom wrote:

 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.

Alex has a good point about, despite RAW having the unit take 2MW (unless Nurgle), that the rules are written poorly and suggest that GW's intent is only to have the target take 1 MW. It's worth talking about with your opponent before hand to see if he thinks the (perceived) RAI is for it to be 1 wound or 2 on the target unit, and make sure you're in agreement with your opponent about how you're playing the rule. A little discussion to avoid confusion (or worse) during the game doesn't do any harm.

This whole discussion seems to be more a RAW vs RA(perceived)I than a RAW vs RAW argument. Approaching this as a RAW vs RAW argument isn't going to solve things.

Let them get their last word in, and then can we lock this thread already?

He clearly can't but its not relevant

the only relevant question is are you within 3"

"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."

The base is not more than 3" away from the base therefore it applies

The position or absence of zero has no bearing on if zero is a bigger number than 3 is not

Also you can measure zero you measure zero by measuring the inverse is what I have measured different from 0 yes then it's not 0


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 doctortom wrote:
Again we're back to this.

 doctortom wrote:

 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.

Alex has a good point about, despite RAW having the unit take 2MW (unless Nurgle), that the rules are written poorly and suggest that GW's intent is only to have the target take 1 MW. It's worth talking about with your opponent before hand to see if he thinks the (perceived) RAI is for it to be 1 wound or 2 on the target unit, and make sure you're in agreement with your opponent about how you're playing the rule. A little discussion to avoid confusion (or worse) during the game doesn't do any harm.

This whole discussion seems to be more a RAW vs RA(perceived)I than a RAW vs RAW argument. Approaching this as a RAW vs RAW argument isn't going to solve things.

That is not a good point the convention is that you follow RAW unless it breaks the game then you go to RAI and look at intention. The game isn't broken here so RAI is irrelevant and as conceded RAW is 2. So any argument predicated on RAI in this case is wrong. Unless you can show the RAW is broken and neither side has contested that.

I mean by that argument RAI tac marines need an extra attack grey knights need an extra wound imperial knights melta weapons need to change to match other melta weapons. I mean how many dozens of other rules do we change because we arbitrarily don't like the wording

We stick to RAW and one side has no case

U02dah4 wrote:

 doctortom wrote:
Again we're back to this.

 doctortom wrote:

 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.

Alex has a good point about, despite RAW having the unit take 2MW (unless Nurgle), that the rules are written poorly and suggest that GW's intent is only to have the target take 1 MW. It's worth talking about with your opponent before hand to see if he thinks the (perceived) RAI is for it to be 1 wound or 2 on the target unit, and make sure you're in agreement with your opponent about how you're playing the rule. A little discussion to avoid confusion (or worse) during the game doesn't do any harm.

This whole discussion seems to be more a RAW vs RA(perceived)I than a RAW vs RAW argument. Approaching this as a RAW vs RAW argument isn't going to solve things.

That is not a good point the convention is that you follow RAW unless it breaks the game then you go to RAI and look at intention. The game isn't broken here so RAI is irrelevant and as conceded RAW is 2. So any argument predicated on RAI in this case is wrong. Unless you can show the RAW is broken and neither side has contested that.

I mean by that argument RAI tac marines need an extra attack grey knights need an extra wound imperial knights melta weapons need to change to match other melta weapons. I mean how many dozens of other rules do we change because we arbitrarily don't like the wording

We stick to RAW and one side has no case

So you played it that assault weapons couldn't fire when advancing because it was RAW? Or that 4th edition terminators didn't have terminator armor because it wasn't listed? Or a myriad of rules that BCB had on his list, not all were game breakers but most were "stupid RAW"

If there's something where RAI looks like it differs from RAW it is always appropriate to ask about it. You might stick with the RAW, but it's always good to have discussed it.

the 8th Ed assault weapons rule broke the game as it did not allow assault weapons to fire due to a conflict between two separate rules as I said you follow RAW unless RAW is broken then go to RAI. It was valid in that instance to go to RAI

It was an exceptional case and It was also crystal clear what the intention was

In this instance RAW is clear RAI is unknown it is a very different situation

Your perfectly entitled to think about it but your thoughts are not relevant to the rules question. We cannot know intention. It reads like it should be 2w to me because that's what it says if they wanted it to be 1w they would have ignored the 1st bullet point. Intention is not usually clear unless GW state in an FAQ we can only guess and whenever anyone guess someone can guess something different.

We can however say what the RAW is so if the RAW is clear we ignore RAI whatever we think of it

I didn't play in 4th so cannot comment to the terminator question but it's not relevant to this one as its a 4th Ed answer

 Nate668 wrote:

PoorGravitasHandling wrote:

 Nate668 wrote:
Well done gents, consider that hill died upon. What would you like on your tombstones?

I'd like "Nate668 can't differentiate between a rule thats asks if you're outside of a range and is inclusive and their own rule that tries to determine if a unit is measured inside that range and exclusive"

Sorry, we're all out of that one. I can do "Nothing is something, and it's measured in inches, damn it!"

And if the rule said "if in range" like you want it to instead of "not out of range" like it does this would be an irritating roadblock.

Doctor - we have a good handle on intent. Other similar two part effects have "other" units. This doesn't.

There isn't any obvious intent to say they meant it not to be 2mw.