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.

Do not blame me for your terribly vague and imprecise--no, sorry, simply flat-out incorrect--wordings. You have repeatedly claimed things like "The area of effect is everywhere that has line of sight to the Harlies since every unit that has LOS to them is effected by it." If this were the case, you would be able to test to nullify it without even declaring any intention to shoot at the Harlies. I hope the importance of this distinction isn't lost on you.

The Area of effect for the veil of tears is on the harlequin unit. The veil only works on the harlies themselves. If the harlies are surrounding another unit they do not benefit from the rule it has not area of effect other than on the harlie model itself. If you melt down a sister model and a harlie and fuse them together and claim it is still a harlie then the sister will be in the area of effect. This is the same as the conceal power for warlocks which also cannot be neutralized as it is on the unit with the warlock not the sisters.

Sisters can't neutralize the grey knight shroud, sisters can't stop any model from using a psychic power on themselves.

I stand by my comments early on and a note again on previous GT's that they did not allow this. I don't see why it would be allowed regardless of how much you argue this now.

The most effective way to win an argument is to deny the logic your opponent uses. Every eldar player will deny that the power is cast on the sisters and refute your basic argument.

tC is also right in the above post and it applies to all powers such as a SM Librarian re-rolling all to hit and to wound. Is this able to be nullified by the sisters? No because it is on the librarian not the sisters even if he is pounding the crap out of the sisters with it. Doom is an Eldar power that could be neutralized.

Worry about being able to stop the lash or something else that has a target not the powers that have no target or a target that is the caster.

Here are my questions about this sister ability and warlock abilities could it stop the destructor warlock power? Stopping the heavy flamer is really strong. It seems to me that it could but I haven't ever run into someone wanting to do this in game. I would certainly allow it.

Orion

Posted By tegeus-Cromis on 09/27/2007 6:36 AM
Do not blame me for your terribly vague and imprecise--no, sorry, simply flat-out incorrect--wordings. You have repeatedly claimed things like "The area of effect is everywhere that has line of sight to the Harlies since every unit that has LOS to them is effected by it." If this were the case, you would be able to test to nullify it without even declaring any intention to shoot at the Harlies. I hope the importance of this distinction isn't lost on you.

I'm not blaming you for anything that I did or said- I still stand by what I said.  However, you childishly refuse to accept that not everyone repeats obvious conditions in every one of their posts, even after repeatedly clarifying it (just for you).  If everyone were to repeat the condition that a SoB unit must wish to shoot at Harlies in every post on this thread and do likewise for every easily understood condition in every other other post on this forum, then Jon would have to buy new servers to store all the redundant crap that you apparently insist on.  Everyone  understands we are talking about a unit that wishes to shoot at the Harlies, but we don't keep repeating that condition ad nauseum in every post.  Where you get the idea that I don't see the distinction is beyond me since I have mentioned that I do several times-  I just don't repeat redundant/accepted information as you would like.

You are the one who seems to think I don't see the distinction when in fact I have seen it (and repeatedly mentioned it) all along. You are reading things into my posts that just aren't there and blatantly ignoring parts of my posts that are there.  I find it hard to take you seriously when you accuse me of something (not seeing the distinction) which I have repeatedly stated that I understand and accept as a part of my argument. Get a clue and actually read my posts.

Posted By Orion_44 on 09/27/2007 8:26 AM

I stand by my comments early on and a note again on previous GT's that they did not allow this. I don't see why it would be allowed regardless of how much you argue this now.

The most effective way to win an argument is to deny the logic your opponent uses. Every eldar player will deny that the power is cast on the sisters and refute your basic argument.

tC is also right in the above post and it applies to all powers such as a SM Librarian re-rolling all to hit and to wound. Is this able to be nullified by the sisters? No because it is on the librarian not the sisters even if he is pounding the crap out of the sisters with it. Doom is an Eldar power that could be neutralized.

I am happy for the GT judge that he is comfortable in the error of his ruling- he is human too after all.  But RAW doesn't support him.  RAW supports what I have been saying all along.

Of course Eldar players will deny that the VoT is not cast on the SoB because it is not.  The SoB are not targetted by the VoT either.  They are however, effected by it and thus, by definiton, are within its area of effect (now read the SoF rule vis-a-vis area of effect).  Once you accept this as fact, then you will see that the SoF applies to VoT. Can you refute that the SoB (who have LOS and wish to shoot the Harlies) are effected by VoT?  No you can't.  And if they are effected by it then that fact demands that they are within its area of effect (basic logic).

I never addressed any other psychic powers besides VoT.  Using a SM Libby's powers as justification for how VoT effects SoB is comparing apples to oranges.  Different special rules for different powers.  t-C's argument is immaterial to the point I was making about the SoF-VoT interaction.

You are simply wrong by RAW, RAI, and my grea aunt Bertha. Conceal, the shrouding, stormcaller, etc., all are not affected by the sister power.

When it comes down to it this board isn't going to have an effect on the way things are played at tourneys. If you convince the people in your area of this fine but if you want it to save you in real competition don't expect it.

Orion

Posted By Orion_44 on 09/27/2007 9:07 AM
You are simply wrong by RAW, RAI, and my grea aunt Bertha. Conceal, the shrouding, stormcaller, etc., all are not affected by the sister power.

But we are not talking about conceal, the shrouding, stormcaller, etc...  They all have their own special rules which I am not addressing in my posts.  I am addressing ONLY the VoT- SoF interaction.  And you can get your aunt Bertha to say anything you want, but it won't change the fact that RAW is on my side.  GW may come out at some point to save their pet Harlies and say 'no SoF doesn't work', but until then their RAW is on my side.

I will admit that if you claim a SOB unit (who wishes to shoot @ Harlies and has LOS to them) is not in VoT area of effect, then it would seem obvious that SoF does not have an effect.  But you would be wrong, because the SoB unit (with conditions noted) clearly is effected by VoT and thus within its area of effect.

I also never made any claim that this would "save me" in a tourney.  Tourney judges tend to have their own special take on rules (in my experience) and are not always iaw RAW. Just do a search on this site and others for complaints about judges making bad/wrong calls at tourneys and you will see what I mean.  The fact is I don't play SoB in tourneys so I wouldn't be too worried about the ruling on this one way or the other.

Beast, I honestly think your response is clouded by the fact that you obviously understand what you intended perfectly. I daresay if you ask someone else, he will tell you that your intentions were far from clear. I was correcting a misstatement, nothing more, and instead of an acknowledgement of an erroneous statement and a clarification, I got gratuitous snideness.

BTW:

Hyperbole any? All it would take is to add the phrase "and that wishes to shoot at the Harlies" to maybe half the posts that have been made on this thread. You've already wasted many times more words than that unproductively attempting to insult my intelligence.

Posted By tegeus-Cromis on 09/27/2007 9:30 AM
Beast, I honestly think your response is clouded by the fact that you obviously understand what you intended perfectly. I daresay if you ask someone else, he will tell you that your intentions were far from clear. I was correcting a misstatement, nothing more, and instead of an acknowledgement of an erroneous statement and a clarification, I got gratuitous snideness.

BTW:

If everyone were to repeat the condition that a SoB unit must wish to shoot at Harlies in every post on this thread and do likewise for every easily understood condition in every other other post on this forum, then Jon would have to buy new servers to store all the redundant crap that you apparently insist on.

Hyperbole any? All it would take is to add the phrase "and that wishes to shoot at the Harlies" to maybe half the posts that have been made on this thread. You've already wasted many times more words than that unproductively attempting to insult my intelligence.

You were not correcting a mis-statement because I didn't mis-type anything- occasionally people parenthetically leave out the obvious conditons of the topic that had been previously stated and understood.  But to satisfy you, should we all now also mention that we are talking about Warhammer 40K in every other post as well? (yes I'm being facetious)  The fact is that I actually did include the repetitive statement you apparently insist on in virtually all of my posts, yet you chose to ignore it.  Go back and look at my posts and you will see that you were wrong.  Why you apparently willfully ignored parts of my posts that you then accused me of not including is completely beyond me...

You didn't get gratuitous snide remarks... You got  sarcasm in return for your out-of-the-blue sarcasm.  Why should we have to add a completely redundant statement to even half the posts?  Is your memory so bad that you can't grasp and remember basic conditions of a rule or think back a few posts?  Or has your mouse finger been amputated so that you can no longer go back and re-read previous posts for yourself if you are somehow unclear on the basic conditions we are operating under?

I don't see that I have wasted any words on this.  I have responded to blatant and libellous attempts by you to misrepresent my words.  And when you weren't misrepresenting them, you were selectively editing my quotes and trying to put words in my mouth that were contradictory to what I actually said.  What bug crawled up your a$$- I have no idea.  But you don't seem to get the idea that I actually agree with you about the condition that a unit must wish to shoot at Harlies for the VoT to effect that unit- in fact I clarified that numerous times in my posts(just for you, since you seem to be the only guy who doesn't get that).  I really hope you see where you are in error so this can end.

But all this is so totally off the topic that it is ridiculous... 

My point remains that a SoB unit (who wishes to shoot @ Harlies and has LOS to them ) is effected by VoT.  Do you refute that? If not, then you therefore must, by defition, agree that they are within the VoT area of effect.  Since they are within this area of effect the SoF rule is applicable and the SoB can therefore attempt to nullify the power. 

It is not a difficult concept.  I can't possibly make it any more clear for you.  If you can't follow the basic English, logic and rule interaction involved then I really can't help you at all.  I haven't seen anyone yet who can refute the conditions and rule interactions I have stated.  All I have seen are statements like 'tourney judges did this or said that' and 'you are wrong because some other psychic power's rule doesn't work that way so this shouldn't either'.  I would like to see a logical, RAW-based counter to my argument based on the applicable rules involved.  If it was compelling and actually based on RAW, then I would totally go for it.  But so far that hasn't happened.

In tournies, judges will do what they do.  I have no problem with them or the way they make their decisions about rules.  They have to keep the games rolling and make on the spot decisions.  They aren't always right, and they sometimes rule counter to RAW but that is just the way it is.  But if they were to make the correct/RAW ruling then it would be exactly as I have argued. 

Beast--

--VoT does not affect an area. The game rules (not the fluff description) do not state an "area of effect." The words "Any unit wishing to target..." is not logically interpretable as an "area of effect." It is absurd to maintain the notion that an "area of effect" can essentially encompass the entire table.

--The SOB nullification ability works against powers that target them (I.E. Doombolt, Lash, Mind War, Eldricht Storm, etc etc) or include them in their effect. The VoT is a game mechanic, plain and simple. The Harlequins are not rolling dice against the SOBs, the SOBs are rolling dice against the Harlequins. To claim that the Harlequins are "affecting" the SOBs when the SOBs are triggering the power with their own action (targeting) is absurd and illogical to me.

--To further the point, you're essentially claiming that a power like "Conceal" or "Enhance" would be "affecting" the Sisters of Battle by making their shooting or assault less effective. On a very basic level, this is a false interpretation of the rules. The Sisters of Battle power clearly works when a psychic power directly effects them (causes them damage, targets them, forces morale/Ld checks). VoT, like the other Warlock powers, works indirectly.

So no; your Sisters of Battle, just like every army in the game, will not ever be able to ignore VoT with any direct-fire weapon or psychic power.

Well said synopsis of what we have all been trying to articulate.

Orion

Posted By ColonelEllios on 09/28/2007 11:51 AM

--The SOB nullification ability works against powers that target them (I.E. Doombolt, Lash, Mind War, Eldricht Storm, etc etc) or include them in their effect. The VoT is a game mechanic, plain and simple. The Harlequins are not rolling dice against the SOBs, the SOBs are rolling dice against the Harlequins. To claim that the Harlequins are "affecting" the SOBs when the SOBs are triggering the power with their own action (targeting) is absurd and illogical to me.

--To further the point, you're essentially claiming that a power like "Conceal" or "Enhance" would be "affecting" the Sisters of Battle by making their shooting or assault less effective. On a very basic level, this is a false interpretation of the rules. The Sisters of Battle power clearly works when a psychic power directly effects them (causes them damage, targets them, forces morale/Ld checks). VoT, like the other Warlock powers, works indirectly.

So no; your Sisters of Battle, just like every army in the game, will not ever be able to ignore VoT with any direct-fire weapon or psychic power.

Thank you for making my point for me (see the first part that I highlighted from your quote).  VoT effects the SOB (who wish to shoot the Harlies).  Period.  Yes, VoT is a rule with game mechanics inherent to it. So is SoF.  Their interaction is mutually inclusive and permissive as they relate to each other.  You say in one sentence that the SoF works against powers that include the SOB in their effect (which is correct) and then turn around and say that they then cannot use their power because the SOB wish to target the Harlies...  This is the only absurd premise I see.  Who cares why or how the VoT is 'triggered'?  It is in effect and it effects the SOB (causing them to make a roll for sight distance) so their rule then allows them to try to nullify it.  What is confusing about that?

I have never said conceal, enhance, etc effect the SOB.  They don't... they effect the Eldar unit they are cast upon.  They give the Eldar unit better abilities (cover saves, etc) not the SOB.  Don't put words into my mouth...

The second highlight furthers my point.  The VoT forces the SOB to make a sight distance roll if they wish to target the Harlies.  Again, thank you for enhancing my argument.  You still haven't made a rules-based argument (with quotes) to show that I am wrong.  To the contrary, your own justifications reinforce my argument.

The key phrases being referenced are as follows (I include Conceal because it operates in exactly the same way); actual RAW stipulations are highlighted in red:

P.28, Eldar Codex:
    Conceal: The warlock clouds the minds of the enemy, creating a shifting psychic mist that conceals his unit. The Warlock's whole squad receives a 5+ cover save.
P. 49, Eldar Codex
     Veil of Tears: ...follows the same rules as Warlock powers... The Shadowseer uses her powers to confuse and terrify her foe. Any enemy unit wishing to target the Shadowseer or the unit she is with must roll 2d6x2...for spotting distance.

   So, as you see, my point remains valid and you choose to remain ignorant thereof. Asserting that "spotting distance" somehow "targets" the squad targeting the Harlies is absurd. Asserting that "spotting distance" is somehow an "effect" that triggers SoF is also absurd. Comparing Conceal with Veil of Tears is a useful comparison because, according to your reading of the rules Beast, they should operate in exactly the same way. To provide counter-points, entirely backed by the RULES and not the FLUFF as you would have it:

1. Veil of Tears does not target. Indeed, by RAW, it does not "effect," either. Any unit wishing to target the VoT squad *MUST* roll 2d6x2. Period. I don't see the words "is affected by," "is targeted," "targets," "effect," "hits," "causes," "suffers," or ANYTHING ELSE indicating that VoT triggers SoF.  Every and any enemy unit wishing to target the VoT squad MUST roll...there is no other option.

2. The words "Any enemy unit" tell us that this rule is ubiquitous. This power does not single out a target, it does not "effect" a particular unit. It's an effect that is *always on* and any unit wishing to target the VoT squad MUST pass a 2d6x2 sight check. Period. There is no more written than there is on the page, so stop scribbling in nonsense in the margins .

3. You're basing your reading of these rules on Fluff Text. It is text included by the codex authors to enrich the book, and (presumably) keep it from being a few pages of boring, black-and-white, bullet-point-form rules. This is a hobby game, after all! You also see, in reading the Fluff Text, that the argument you are applying for VoT MUST also apply to Conceal. Good luck getting people to agree with you on *that* one...

4. VoT works *exactly* like the other Warlock powers. You wouldn't assume that "Conceal" is nullified by SoF, and therefore VoT must work in exactly the same way and must therefore also ignore SoF.

5. The SoF ability's wording of "included in effect," in my interpretation, applies to powers that actually have an "effect" in which SoF models can be included. This applies to things like Fury, Fear, Eldricht Storm, Holocaust, Doom, Wind of Chaos, and anything that targets in any way. Veil of Tears is an "effect" only in the grammatical (not RAW) sense.

Like usual, you're wrong Craig...Veil definitely affects any unit that wishes to target the Harlies. Sisters get thier 5+.

That may be the way you wish to play Skyth (and the way it may be played locally), but it's not what the rules say. Please don't start making random "because I said so" assertions in this thread, too. This is YMDC, and only RAW prevails. RAW, properly applied, solves 95% of the ambiguity problems in the rules. If you're not going to reference rules and lay out your argument in any productive manner Skyth, expect to be wholly and heartily ignored.

Look at it this way: The SOB unit in question is, in an abstract sense, affecting themselves by "wishing" to target the Harlequins. The Harlequins have no say whatsoever in the matter, and can't choose whether or not to use their power. It's not as if the Eldar player has to say "I choose that SOB unit to be afected by VoT this round." The rules don't say "unit ______'s shooting is affected by VOT." They say you roll. The psychic powers I mentioned above that *do* target and *are* affected by FoS clearly describe an effect, area, or target that in every case includes "choosing" of some sort by the owning player. The distinction is crystal clear.

Posted By ColonelEllios on 09/29/2007 7:44 AM
The key phrases being referenced are as follows (I include Conceal because it operates in exactly the same way); actual RAW stipulations are highlighted in red:

P.28, Eldar Codex:
    Conceal: The warlock clouds the minds of the enemy, creating a shifting psychic mist that conceals his unit. The Warlock's whole squad receives a 5+ cover save.
P. 49, Eldar Codex
     Veil of Tears: ...follows the same rules as Warlock powers... The Shadowseer uses her powers to confuse and terrify her foe. Any enemy unit wishing to target the Shadowseer or the unit she is with must roll 2d6x2...for spotting distance.

1. Veil of Tears does not target. Indeed, by RAW, it does not "effect," either. Any unit wishing to target the VoT squad *MUST* roll 2d6x2.

First of all you can't use one psychic power's rule to justify or refute another power's rule.  Doing so only undermines your credibility.

As you highlighted in red, VoT causes the SoB to perform an action (roll 2D6x2 for spotting).  This only further proves that the SoB are effected by the VoT.  This is undisputed (at least by rational people).  So there is no logical way (and no way within RAW) that you can then say that SoF does not apply when ALL NECESSARY CONDITIONS for SoF are met.

The similarity between the two rules you cited is the fluff parts of the two rules.  Fluff does not define a rule.  The game mechanics of each of the rules you qouted are completely and utterly different.  It couldn't be a clearer case of apples to oranges.

In your point #1. you propose that "by RAW" it does not effect anything either.  How do you support this? You can't because it is a false premise...   Do the SoB have to perform an action due to VoT?  Yes they certainly do as you so nicely pointed out.  Once again, you make my case for me.

Posted By ColonelEllios on 09/29/2007 7:56 AM
Look at it this way: The SOB unit in question is, in an abstract sense, affecting themselves by "wishing" to target the Harlequins. The Harlequins have no say whatsoever in the matter, and can't choose whether or not to use their power.

OMFG!  Dude, seriously, read what you just wrote...  The SOB are affecting themselves???  Harlies have no say in whether they use their power???  WFT over?  Are you guys for real?  You are grasping at straws here...  VoT is what is affecting their ability to see the Harlies...  VoT is the Harlie's power not the SoB!!!  Where do you get these notions?  Was your Eldar codex printed on Pluto or something??

Way to try and deduct meaning without context Beast. I suggest you avoid putting words in other's mouths, it undermines your credibility. (key snobby tone as well) I stated "abstract sense" for a reason. You obviously wasted no energy comprehending the entirety of what I wrote.

Posted By ColonelEllios on 09/29/2007 7:56 AM
It's not as if the Eldar player has to say "I choose that SOB unit to be afected by VoT this round." The rules don't say "unit ______'s shooting is affected by VOT." They say you roll. The psychic powers I mentioned above that *do* target and *are* affected by FoS clearly describe an effect, area, or target that in every case includes "choosing" of some sort by the owning player. The distinction is crystal clear.

The important distinction is between passive and active powers. Comparing Conceal to VoT is NOT comparing apples to oranges...the VoT RULES *tell you* to reference THE REST OF THE WARLOCK POWERS' RULES.

VoT is not "activated." There is no antagonistic action taken by the Eldar player; he is not targeting, choosing, activating, etc. If the SOBs want to shoot Harlies, they roll spotting distance. Or they can ignore the Harlies. The mere fact that they can choose to ignore the harlequins lends credence to the idea that FoS has no effect on the ability.

The VoT rules tell you that they work as all other Warlock powers work. For you to assert that drawing conclusions based on the similarities between the two rules is like comparing apples to oranges is complete idiocy.

No...VoT affects an enemy unit, Conceal affects the Eldar unit. Apples and oranges.

I would refer you to your sig...You might want to heed it's advice.

Actually, doing so increases the credibility; especially when the referenced power is worded in the same way in terms of structure. Conceal: Fluff descriptive, game mechanic (5+ cover save). VoT: Fluff descriptive, game mechanic (2D6x2 spotting distance). The only basis to claim it affects the SoB unit is because you are the one rolling the dice for spotting distance due to VoT, whereas I roll Cover saves for Conceal.

Because you roll the dice for the game mechanic of spotting does not mean your unit is affected any more than me rolling my unit's Cover saves. Both affect the efficacy of your shooting.




This is the key part of the argument, for both sides; ergo not so absurd a premise to examine. To keep it simple, we're stating that 'targetting' and 'included in their area of effect' are both active requirements. My unit targets the SoB (ie. Mind War) or are included in the area of effect (ie. flamer template for Destructor, ordnance template for Holocaust). Defined AoE that all players can agree on because, quite simply, RAW says it is so.

To claim the passive 'activation' of the power somehow targets the SoB unit means the AoE for VoT is effectively LOS. You target the Harlies, you are affected. By extension, if you wish to ignore them for target priority tests, technically you are also affected and must roll a 5+. Extended further, each other SoB unit in LOS is thereby affected, because your AoE is driven by LOS.

The problem is driven by the terminology 'area of effect.' I don't have the rulebook handy, but I challenge someone to find the definition provided for.

At least in the more restrictive form (and by RAW, in my opinion), the limited AoE is defined specifically by the rule (range, targeting restrictions, templates) for active use of the power. Passive effects by Conceal, VoT (and the Tyranid power The Horror for that matter), do not target units and do not have an 'Area of Effect' defined. Hence, SoF does not apply.



I didn't bother quoting the whole thing. Simply un-called for. Enough said.

;francois

Posted By skyth on 09/29/2007 1:06 PM
No...VoT affects an enemy unit, Conceal affects the Eldar unit. Apples and oranges.

Your capacity for irrelevancies is unmatched by any other.

Does it mean nothing to you naysayers that in every SINGLE case other than VoT, powers which actively affect the SOBs are subject to FoS, and in every single case where powers passively affect the SOBs that FoS is not applicable?

There is nothing wrong with drawing upon other, clearer rules to gain a sense of context regarding the vocabulary used in a rule such as FoS.

RAW does not work, *ever,* if you apply it to every rule in isolation of all others.

Can you explain that again in english?

Posted By f.desrochers on 09/29/2007 1:23 PM

Beast wrote:

OMFG! Dude, seriously, read what you just wrote... The SOB are affecting themselves??? Harlies have no say in whether they use their power??? WFT over? Are you guys for real?

I didn't bother quoting the whole thing. Simply un-called for. Enough said.

;francois

I what way do you feel that is uncalled for?  He made an incredibly outlandinsh statement that was completely and clearly unsupported by the RAW.  (although he then tried to go on and justify it with a lot of circular logic).  Claiming that the SoB effect themselves with the enemy's spychic power?  You don't see that as incredibly funny and totally grasping at straws?  I did, thus my incredulous response...

A statement  to the effect that the SoB are affecting themselves (as if the VoT were their power or something)  is so completely unsupported by the rules that it is asinine to even attempt to defend it.  My incredulity may have come across in a negative way.  If that is the case then I certainly apologize to the Colonel if feathers were ruffled.  But as far as YMDC goes, that was a pretty tame response.  If it really bothered you (and you weren't even the object of the response), then perhaps a few more layers of skin might be in order...

As for your other comments, I respect your opinion, and appreciate your effort in proposing them, but they have all been addressed before in this thread, so I am not going to continue arguing those particular ones back and forth ad nauseum.  They are simply unsupported by the RAW.  If you can't see that yet, then you likely never will.  But if you have any new argument for why you think the SoB can't use SoF vis-a-vis the VoT, then I am all ears.

Posted By ColonelEllios on 09/30/2007 4:26 AM

Posted By skyth on 09/29/2007 1:06 PM
No...VoT affects an enemy unit, Conceal affects the Eldar unit. Apples and oranges.

Your capacity for irrelevancies is unmatched by any other.

Does it mean nothing to you naysayers that in every SINGLE case other than VoT, powers which actively affect the SOBs are subject to FoS, and in every single case where powers passively affect the SOBs that FoS is not applicable?

There is nothing wrong with drawing upon other, clearer rules to gain a sense of context regarding the vocabulary used in a rule such as FoS.

RAW does not work, *ever,* if you apply it to every rule in isolation of all others.

I think I see now...  You actually don't see the problem with comparing  powers like Conceal, Doom, the Horror, FotA, etc, etc with each other.  You simply can't use one of these powers to justify any argument about another.  Would you use the rules for a bolter to justify the game mechanics of an Ork Burna?  No you wouldn't but that is essentially what you want us to do in this thread.

Is there a section in the BGB about active and passive psychic powers?  Does the BGB or the codex make ANY distinction about active and passive powers?  No it doesn't.  The power is a psychic power.  Period. 

A psychic power's Codex entry describes how it works (and any deviations from the BGB general rules about psychic powers).  If the justification for your argument comes from some other source (other Army codex, other psychic power entry, etc...) then you are comparing apples to oranges and your argument is therefore irretrievably flawed.

Why should we when there is no problem? In fact, use of other psychic powers for demonstration, Conceal and The Horror specifically but among others, negates your definition/arguement.



Quite exactly the opposite in fact. Read the descriptive and mechanic for Conceal; only difference with VoT is I am rolling the dice. Read the descriptive and mechanic for The Horror; much like VoT the opponent rolls the dice but they are not affected in a way you can accurately state other than LOS. In other powers it is specified: range/template, RoF, S and Ap, thusly providing an Area of Effect that SoF can definitively counter (ie. SoB character leading a unit of Storm Troopers hit by Doom, she would provide a 5+ roll to negate). VoT *is* a psychic power: provide for an Area of Effect it does not.



Neither is there a reference for Area of Effect. Your loose interpretation opens up too many open-ended questions. A defined AoE, as illustrated above and several times before, closes the discussion.



Actually it is down to comparing apples to apples. Incidentally, where is the source of your justification that the SoB unit is affected other than the fact that the game mechanic asks the opposing player to make the roll? Certainly not the fluff descriptive..... Opposing players roll their own spotting distances, armour saves and the like. Simply because the game mechanic in use is the opponent's prerogative to roll is no basis to define it as an Area of Effect.

;francois

Posted By Beast on 10/01/2007 7:35 AM

Posted By ColonelEllios on 09/30/2007 4:26 AM

Posted By skyth on 09/29/2007 1:06 PM
No...VoT affects an enemy unit, Conceal affects the Eldar unit. Apples and oranges.

Your capacity for irrelevancies is unmatched by any other.

Does it mean nothing to you naysayers that in every SINGLE case other than VoT, powers which actively affect the SOBs are subject to FoS, and in every single case where powers passively affect the SOBs that FoS is not applicable?

There is nothing wrong with drawing upon other, clearer rules to gain a sense of context regarding the vocabulary used in a rule such as FoS.

RAW does not work, *ever,* if you apply it to every rule in isolation of all others.

I think I see now...  You actually don't see the problem with comparing  powers like Conceal, Doom, the Horror, FotA, etc, etc with each other.  You simply can't use one of these powers to justify any argument about another.  Would you use the rules for a bolter to justify the game mechanics of an Ork Burna?  No you wouldn't but that is essentially what you want us to do in this thread.

Is there a section in the BGB about active and passive psychic powers?  Does the BGB or the codex make ANY distinction about active and passive powers?  No it doesn't.  The power is a psychic power.  Period. 

A psychic power's Codex entry describes how it works (and any deviations from the BGB general rules about psychic powers).  If the justification for your argument comes from some other source (other Army codex, other psychic power entry, etc...) then you are comparing apples to oranges and your argument is therefore irretrievably flawed.

You obviously have no idea how to apply RAW.

You obviously have committed a complete failure to actually READ the rules as well.

The Veil of Tears psychic power tells you to reference the rules for the OTHER warlock powers!

That alone shows and proves how asinine your assertions have been.

Posted By f.desrochers on 10/01/2007 9:16 AM

Is there a section in the BGB about active and passive psychic powers?

Neither is there a reference for Area of Effect. Your loose interpretation opens up too many open-ended questions. A defined AoE, as illustrated above and several times before, closes the discussion.

If the justification for your argument comes from some other source (other Army codex, other psychic power entry, etc...) then you are comparing apples to oranges and your argument is therefore irretrievably flawed.

Actually it is down to comparing apples to apples. Incidentally, where is the source of your justification that the SoB unit is affected other than the fact that the game mechanic asks the opposing player to make the roll? Certainly not the fluff descriptive.....

First highlight:  My interpretation is not loose.  In fact it is air-tight.  Yours is the flawed one.  You have admitted the SoB are effected by VoT.  Now go and read the SoF rule (with the fact that the SoB are effected by the VoT in the front of your mind).
Second highlight:  What other justification could possibly be needed?!  :| The specific rule for VoT tells the SoB unit to make the roll thus proving they are affected.  It is the VoT RAW (the game mechanic part NOT the fluff part)...  Once again you just proved my point... 

Posted By ColonelEllios on 10/01/2007 10:42 AM

The Veil of Tears psychic power tells you to reference the rules for the OTHER warlock powers!

That alone shows and proves how asinine your assertions have been.

Would you care to provide a quote (w/ page number) that tells us to substitute another Eldar psychic power rule when the VoT effects the SoB?  The fact is that the VoT psychic power (rule as written) causes an effect on the SoB.  The SoF rule specifically allows the SoB to attempt to nullify it.

You can gnash your teeth all you want, but there is just no getting around the RAW here.

Where is the RAW for area of effect? I believe you are applying common sense and not using a definition of AoE from the BGB.

I also believe that this thread is petering down due to the fact that it appears to have devolved to a
Beast: Nuh uh, I'm right slow (same argument no change)
P2:You're the slow, slow (no real argument just reiterating what others have said)
Beast: Nuh uh...(loop back to the first line)

The specific rule for VoT tells the SoB unit to make the roll thus proving they are affected.  It is the VoT RAW (the game mechanic part NOT the fluff part)...  Once again you just proved my point... 

Have you READ the rule for Veil of Tears? The SOBs *wish* to target the Harlequins. Veil of Tears comes into play, and the SOBs roll 2d6 for spotting distance. That is their spotting distance, in inches.

This could also go:

The SOBs do not *wish* to target the Harlequins. Veil of Tears is irrelevant. Continue play.

You can't "ignore" Fear. You can't "ignore" Fury. You can't "ignore" Lash of Torment. You can ignore Veil of Tears. This distinction means nothing to you?

VoT "affects" the SOB to the same extent Conceal does.

Prove otherwise, Beast.

Posted By Orion_44 on 10/01/2007 1:21 PM
Where is the RAW for area of effect? I believe you are applying common sense and not using a definition of AoE from the BGB.

I also believe that this thread is petering down due to the fact that it appears to have devolved to a
Beast: Nuh uh, I'm right slow (same argument no change)
P2:You're the slow, slow (no real argument just reiterating what others have said)
Beast: Nuh uh...(loop back to the first line)

Funny.   But you are right in the respect that it is getting boring arguing with a few people who can't or won't see through their own desires to the RAW of the situation.