yakface wrote:Well, by the RAW Spirit Leech causes wounds to a unit and the rules don't tell us what to do with wounds that are caused to a unit outside of the normal process of shooting or assault.
So if we can make the leap to use the shooting casualty wounds to resolve Spirit Leech wounds against a unit it doesn't seem like such a bizarre compromise in the case of Spirit Leech to replace "firer" with "freaky creature causing magic wounds on enemy units" when it comes to determining if a unit being affected gets a cover save or not in the rules for cover saves.
Or if someone wants to be a stickler about playing with the 'RAW' in this case then Spirit Leech causes wounds on enemy units and...
...nothing happens to the units, as there are no rules for what to do with these wounds.
Up until this point Yak I've read everything you have said on this thread and been in complete agreement. I would like to identify two relevant points: 1) If the paradox that you describe actually exists then I think there would be a better way to resolve this apparent paradox, to be described below; 2) if there is in fact no paradox and it only appears to be a paradox, then we ought to play as if there is no paradox and follow the rules as written.
Preface: How I prefer to look at rules in order to understand them more clearly is to think of them as the lines of a program. I know this doesn't work for everyone, but this is how I see them. When there is a sufficiently devastating error in the code the program fails or does not compute properly and has an unexpected result.
1) If the paradox does exist then we need to deal with it properly. The first step in dealing with a paradox is to identify exactly what that paradox is. What I see as your proposed paradox is that Spirit Leech is an ability which mirrors every step of the rules the same as many other abilities but then instead of looking at a model in range to wound it looks for a unit in range to wound and every other ability which could act as a precedent to help us understand how to resolve these wounds requires the wound-recipient be in line of sight or otherwise receive a cover save. Since this ability commits wounds on every non-vehicle enemy unit in range it would appear that these units would not receive cover saves irrespective of traditional line of sight rules, however, every ability which is a close cousin of this ability all grant cover saves; since this ability cannot both grant cover saves and not grant cover saves, it is unresolvable and we must make a leap to the closest reasonable resolution.
You have identified that the 'closest reasonable resolution' is to grant them a cover save and call it a day; I think that it would be more reasonable to abide by the principle that adding conditions to the existing codex entry requires a large burden of proof and simply resolving the entry 'as is' to its closest logical resolution ought to be the default step. Thus, if you think that a paradox does exist, you ought to use the default reading of the relevant rules instead of creating and adding conditions.
2) I, however, would like to posit that there is no paradox. I see this as only a suspected paradox and that a closer analysis of the word, "every" clears the air. In the
DoM codex entry it states: "every... unit within 6 inches". The universal quantifier used here quite clearly states that "all units that pass certain conditions take wounds". If the unit passes the following conditions, it receives x number of wounds:
a) Within 6 inches
b) Non-Vehicular (
id est, actually have the 'wound' characteristic) unit
c) Failed
3d6 Leadership test
d) Enemy to the
DoM's controller
Since the "all" quantifier was used, we would have to see that no cover save applies as there is no sufficient condition to require
LoS in order to resolve this ability and this is not an exception or hole in the rules but instead is simply a rule unto itself and we must abide by this rule's 4 conditions when attempting to resolve the wounds. If the entry stated: "All units within line of sight" then I think it would be clear that they would receive a cover save, if it had some other verbiage that implied that line of sight was needed then I would concede, I, however, do not see such verbiage.
