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.

don_mondo wrote:Actually, I bolded two words. First word "embarked", second word "models". Put them together and what have you got (wasn't that a Disney song?), you've got a INAT ruling talking about "embarked models", but wait, I thought the models weren't embarked, only the unit was embarked................... Because the models aren't on the table? Sorry, one or the other, one or the other.

Models can be embarked, and are referred to in the rulebook as such (on page 67 for example). The fact that they aren't on the table does not change their embarked status.
You're being quite pedantic at this point, and this sidetracking red-herring approach isn't helping your argument at all.

don_mondo wrote:
And those rules are?

The rules on measuring to units embarked in a transport, on page 66, the entire basis for the ruling and RAW that you are ignoring.

Darkness wrote:I agree with Don Mondo here.

Yak, your explaination seems self defeating, as Mondo has pointed out, how can SL work but nothing else? It looks like a double standard and a poor ruling for the INAT FAQ.

I don't know what to tell you...the argument is logically valid. If a rule asks for range to be measured to specific models then it is impossible to do so with embarked models, but if the rule only asks for range to a unit then you follow the printed rule and measure range to the transport vehicle's hull. I'll be the first in line to agree that this ruling can create some odd situations that will have to be dealt with on a case by case basis, but I want point out that, regardless of what you may believe, there is no easy ruling to make here...either way would be considered 'poor' by a whole lot of players even if they don't even realize the real problem behind the issue.

Most people think that 'Spirit Leech' is the problem, but the reality is that 'Spirit Leech' is simply a symptom of a much bigger problem that GW has failed to properly address since releasing the 5th edition rulebook and with each codex they continue to exacerbate the problem without ever giving us guidance on what we're supposed to be doing.


The real issue is that nothing in the rulebook says that embarked units are immune to anything. That's just not in there. It doesn't say they're immune to shooting attacks, it doesn't say they're immune to psychic powers, it doesn't say anything.

The only thing it does say is (pg 66): "If the players need to measure a range involving the embarked unit (except for its shooting), this range is measured to or from the vehicle's hull."

Since the general rules in the game allow you affect units, and that embarked rule tells us to measure range to the embarked unit to the hull of its transport vehicle that's all the instruction in the game that the rules give us to work with.

Obviously normal shooting is out, since we can't draw line of sight to the embarked models (the rules tell us to remove the models from the table).


Barrage weapons can technically affect the unit, but once you try to place the blast marker over the vehicle you discover that none of the embarked models are under the blast, so we're safe there.


But with weapons that don't require line of sight but don't use a blast...now we have a problem. By the rules, these weapons (such as Tau Smart Missiles & Tyranid Impaler Cannons) should be able to shoot at the embarked unit. But this falls into the absurdity category, right? I mean, you ask the average gamer, can I fire my Tau Smart Missile through the walls of your tank at the guys inside and everyone can agree that this would be nuts, so nobody does it.


Psychic powers should work on embarked units and there are a whole lot of kooky effects that can happen from that, so GW puts a band-aid over a gaping wound and says in their rulebook FAQ that embarked units can't be affected by psychic powers unless the psyker is also on board. Cool, that's taken care of.


Now there is just those pesky general special rules and wacky effects to deal with. Tau Ethereals dying (among other things) can theoretically cause embarked units to take morale checks and potentially fall back. But the disembarking rules only allow disembarking in the movement phase and besides, 'falling back' isn't the same as disembarking, so if the unit falls back is it destroyed? Or are embarked units immune to morale? Or do they fall back out of their transport when required? Who knows? Certainly not anyone definitively.


When we come to things like vehicle explosions we walk right into another landmine, as GW has been incredibly sloppy with defining how things that cause hits/wounds outside of the normal shooting or assault rules are actually resolved. Although everyone plays that a hit always equals a wound which always equals an armor/invulnerable save (unless specified otherwise) which potentially results in unsaved wounds which result in casualties...none of this is covered fully in the rules outside of the shooting rules, an area which things like an exploding vehicle are.

Which is exactly why when we come to something like cover saves and casualty removal from an exploding vehicle, the arguments begin. Do units affected get a cover save as the only full casualty rules (the shooting rules) seem to specify? If so, what counts as the 'firer' for checking line of sight for cover saves? And can any model from the affected unit be removed as a casualty as the shooting casualty rules say, or only the models within range? If you play that the individual models are individually affected by the blast by what basis is this derived? There are no general rules covering individual models being assigned a hit, converting this to a wound, taking saves (and which one allowed?) and then removing that model as a casualty if it suffers enough wounds to do so. These are all issues just not covered by the rules which is why you find different players trying to play these situations entirely differently without realizing the reason they're having the issue is because a giant chunk of rules is essentially missing from the game (general rules on how to resolve damage that occurs outside of the shooting/assault processes).

Now coming back around to embarked models vs. exploding vehicles, we're into the same absurdity defense territory that barrage weapons fall into. You ask anyone and they'll plainly tell you that it would be stupid for an exploding vehicle to affect embarked models so they're just not going to play that way...so regardless of whether you bust out the minutiae of the actual models being impossible to measure range to or not, the whole issue is a moot point in real life and would only be brought up online as a form of argument.


All of which brings us back to Spirit Leech. Here you have a non-shooting attack/non-psychic power that inflicts wounds onto units within range. By all accounts the rules tell us this power should affect embarked units as they is nothing preventing them from being affected by it, and the embarked rules tells us how to measure range to the embarked unit.

But the problem is, here we don't have the absurdity defense. You ask your average gamer whether Spirit Leech should affect embarked units and you'll get half saying it should and half saying it shouldn't...because there is nothing nutty (within the context of the 40k universe) about the idea of life-energy being sucked out of your body from through a wall. And thus we have the issue with no easy solution.


In reality, I think GW should probably just go full bore and say that embarked units cannot be affected by anything unless the rule specifically says it affects embarked units...they basically did so with psychic powers, so it shouldn't be too big a stretch to apply that same rules change to all strange effects.

I'm not sure exactly what that rule on page 66 allowing range to be measured TO the embarked unit is for...perhaps just to fit with their ruling on measuring range at the end of the game for embarked scoring units from an objective, who knows? What I do know is that in general the amount of things that can successfully affect embarked units without causing a stink is small compared to the number of things that should be able to affect the embarked unit that do cause a stink amongst many gamers.

By that yardstick, the right answer seems to point to GW simply making embarked units completely immune, but then that leaves the door open for making embarked armies even that much more dangerous as psykers, for example, can sit inside their vehicles shooting psychic attacks out of fire points without worrying about special rules that prevent them from casting powers...an idea that seems unfair and pretty dumb to most people.


So where does that leave us? The INAT FAQ has always put a premium on trying to create rulings that follow the way most people naturally play, so as to create as few arguments as possible at the tournament. Obviously this is a goal that isn't always easy to quantify and for the really hard split issues, we often have to just try to use our best judgement and then see how it plays. Sometimes that means we come back for the next update and say, 'yeah I think we got that one wrong'.

This was especially tough with the Tyranid codex which came out relatively close to Adepticon and we needed to put out a near final version ASAP to give people as much time as possible to prepare for the tourney. That meant we had a slightly abbreviated time to make our rulings, we couldn't spend as much time trying to find out how people were reading and playing the new codex as much as we normally do.

But when we sat down and looked at Spirit Leech, most of us agreed that if you read the rule as written and then you read the embarked passenger rules most people's natural inclination would be to say: 'yeah, I think it affects the unit in the vehicle.'

The only real reason to go ahead and rule against Spirit Leech affecting embarked units IMHO, is from the perspective of game simplicity. Once you allow Spirit Leech to affect vehicles you have to go over whether the embarked unit gets a cover save, whether it can go to ground and/or fall back and all the nuances that would come with saying yes to falling back and/or going to ground when embarked. In other words, you have to make up some rules in order to follow the rules for affecting embarked units.

On the other hand, you can simply rule that Spirit Leech cannot affect embarked models, which by all accounts appears to be a flat-out rules change, but its effect is to have a much simpler set of consequences to deal with.

I think either way you rule you anger a whole lot people who tend to only think about the immediate issue at hand without considering the wave of other crap involved in this issue.

Although we've ruled that shooting can't affect embarked units (easy absurdity ruling) and that embarked units can't fall back out of vehicles (based on the vast majority of players seem to play that way from all our experiences) when it comes to Spirit Leech it isn't easy. We did have some members pushing for the overall 'simpler' ruling of saying Leech doesn't affect embarked units, but at the end of the day we all think that with most people who pick up the codex, read the rules and then their sneaky buddy says: 'Hey, can Spirit Leech affect embarked units?' After looking over the rules for a reason why not, they'd say 'yeah, I think it does'.


Hopefully GW will take the bulls by the horn and change the rules saying that Spirit Leech cannot affect embarked units in their FAQ. If not, we'll definitely come back and revisit this ruling after Adepticon and see if we think we blew it or not.


And I wrote all this because I don't think there is a 'good' or 'poor' ruling on this matter...only different shades of crap.






Automatically Appended Next Post:

Darkness wrote:
So a Necron Monoliths Flux arc doesnt work on embarked models as it says all unit with a model within 12"... As the model part makes it defunct, but if it simply said all units within 12" then it would work on embarked troops?

Njal's Lord of Tempest in game result of 7+ states "at the end of Njal's shooting phase, unengaged enemy units within 12" of Njal take D6 S8 hits with an AP of 5" so since models are not specified units in transports are hit?

P.S. The flux arc require line of sight to its targets as does Njal's Lord of Tempest (although that restriction is a little hard to find in Njal's rules).

yakface wrote:

But the problem is, here we don't have the absurdity defense.

In the opinion of a majority of the INAT council at least....................
Oh, I get the "fluff" behind it. But how many times have we heard on here that fluff ain't rules. Absurd or not, they are indeed similar situations. And that is the point I've been trying to make. We cannot make a rules decision based on "fluff"that it's a mind /soul stealing attack or whatever. It's a area of affect ability that causes wounds. That's the rule portion. So if we have previously decided that Game as Played determines that such non-shooting/non-psychic area of affect whatevers cannot damage models (unit) in a transport, then a sudden shift in that paradigm is going to raise questions. And yeah, I will agree about GW rules writing in general.

Anyways, thanks for the time and effort to explain your position. You are, as ever, a gentleman and a scholar.

Don is wrong. Gorkamorka and Yak are correct.

Actually, I bolded two words. First word "embarked", second word "models". Put them together and what have you got (wasn't that a Disney song?), you've got a INAT ruling talking about "embarked models", but wait, I thought the models weren't embarked, only the unit was embarked................... Because the models aren't on the table? Sorry, one or the other, one or the other.

And those rules are?

You had me sold for a while until I read the rationale behind Yak''s ruling...I guess I will accept SL affecting me until GW makes their own FAQ

Don is wrong. Gorkamorka and Yak are correct.

So constructive, as always

I think the points people are missing are:

The INAT ruling is consistent with Farseers in Wave Serpents being effected by Psychic hoods (or indeed other libbies in Razorbacks, Rhinos etc).

However what this argument is trying to equate is units=models for measuring. Hence from that conclusion should one of by Tac marines be in rapidfire range then the unit is in rapid fire range as unit=models therefore all the models are in rapidfire range. Which of course clearly isn't the case.

The reason the vehicle explodes can't effect the models is because you have no way of measuring to those models and therefore have no way of knowing how many models are effected. You know the unit is in range as pg 66 tells us that but not how many, if any, models are considered in range, hence they remain uneffected.

The way I have always played it, even with GW staff is it effects every model in range so it would only effect the other transport.

An excellent and informative post Yakface, however, I would like to highlight one thing I see as an issue with it.

yakface wrote:But with weapons that don't require line of sight but don't use a blast...now we have a problem. By the rules, these weapons (such as Tau Smart Missiles & Tyranid Impaler Cannons) should be able to shoot at the embarked unit. But this falls into the absurdity category, right? I mean, you ask the average gamer, can I fire my Tau Smart Missile through the walls of your tank at the guys inside and everyone can agree that this would be nuts, so nobody does it.

The rules actually prevent it, because to determine range to a target unit you "simply measure from each firer to the nearest visible model in the target unit".

Obviously if you have a LOS ignoring weapon, you could presumably ignore the "visible" caveat, but you still must measure to the nearest model to determine range, something you cannot do to an embarked unit.

AFAIK there are yet to be any non-los weapons with infinite range, but if GW create one it will open up a whole new kettle of fish with "infinite means everything is in range" vs "you can't determine they are in range if they are removed from the board, even at infinite range, they aren't on the board to be measured to, they are effectively infinite distance away".

edit: oops, discounted seeker missiles since they need a markerlight hit to fire, but just remembered the Tau Apocalypse Strategem where they can put a markerlight counter on every unit within 24" of a point. So Seeker Missiles in games of Apocalypse are the only place this is an issue.

yakface wrote:
3) Ergo, when a vehicle explodes, embarked models are never within the specified range (even though their unit technically is).

How is a unit, which is clearly defined by being comprised of several models, able to be in range and yet none of the models are? How is that "technically" true?
Is it like the Russian hockey team is comprised of 23 players, and none of them were in the game against Canada even though "technically" the Russian team was? Is it that type of "technically"?

Sorry Jon, I gotta call 'malarky' on that. "Technically" if one is there so is the other. It's the exact logic you are using to say that the unit is on the table while embarked. No, if a unit is there a model has to be there, as a unit is defined by the models it is comprised of, and you simply can't have one without the other. In your case, the model(s) being used to determine model(s) in the unit would be the vehicle model.

yakface wrote:
The real issue is that nothing in the rulebook says that embarked units are immune to anything. That's just not in there. It doesn't say they're immune to shooting attacks, it doesn't say they're immune to psychic powers, it doesn't say anything.

That's definitely part of it, but if I have clearly removed the models from the table, I have also removed the unit from the table. So either the unit, and therefor the models, are considered to be on the table while embarked or they aren't.

yakface wrote:
The only thing it does say is (pg 66): "If the players need to measure a range involving the embarked unit (except for its shooting), this range is measured to or from the vehicle's hull."

Yet again, if I am attempting to measure a range to a model in a unit, how am I not meeting the criteria "measure a range involving the embarked unit"? The models are a part of the unit, attempting to measure, or actually measuring, to or from them would be "involving the unit". You would then, "technically", be measuring a range that is involving the unit. Again it's the identical inference most players are using to support Spirit Leech working against embarked units.

yakface wrote:
And I wrote all this because I don't think there is a 'good' or 'poor' ruling on this matter...only different shades of crap.

I agree, though I will say there is a lot more "crap" in having a more complex ruling as is done in the INAT, ie creating rules for cover saves and morale that don't actually exist in the RAW.

yakface wrote:P.S. The flux arc require line of sight to its targets as does Njal's Lord of Tempest (although that restriction is a little hard to find in Njal's rules).

just stumbled on this thread and was about to post this same thing in response

Don,

There are many times in the various books that models and units are treated differently. Some rules affect models, some affect units.

Necron res orb measures to the unit
Necron WBB measures to the model
Exploding vehicles damage the unit inside
exploding vehicles damage the models outside

If the exploding rules said it "causes d6 wounds to every unit in range", then it would affect the unit in a transport. But it doesn't, it effects models.

The rules allow for determining if an embarked unit is in range, it does not allow for determining if an embarked model is in range.

Measure to a model, you've measured to the unit, and to measure to the unit, you must measure to a model.

Except this is not true for embarked units. to measure to the unit, you measure to the hull.
Why? I can give you a fluffy reason, but the rules reason is because that is what the rules say.

So if I'm shooting at a "unit", how many "models" have to be in range for me to be able to kill all of the models in the unit.......................?

If they are out of a vehicle, then at least 1 model. If they are in a transport, then you can't shoot at them, but you can affect the unit if the hull is in range.
And... this helps emphasize my point.
When shooting, you are shooting at the *unit*, not the models, so if any of the unit is in range, you can affect the entire unit; you don't need to measure to any models. Even if the only model in range could not be harmed by your guns, you can still kill the rest of the *unit*, because you are not shooting at that one model, but shooting at the unit.

Again, while units are made up of models, the rules treat them differently in many many places.
One of those places is when embarked, you can measure to a unit, you cannot measure to models.

coredump wrote:
Necron res orb measures to the unit
Necron WBB measures to the model
Exploding vehicles damage the unit inside
exploding vehicles damage the models outside

Necron Res orb... to measure to the unit are you not measuring to a model?
Exploding vehicles damage the unit inside... are the models not effected by the damage?

coredump wrote:

Measure to a model, you've measured to the unit, and to measure to the unit, you must measure to a model.

Except this is not true for embarked units. to measure to the unit, you measure to the hull.
Why? I can give you a fluffy reason, but the rules reason is because that is what the rules say.

So if I'm shooting at a "unit", how many "models" have to be in range for me to be able to kill all of the models in the unit.......................?

If they are out of a vehicle, then at least 1 model. If they are in a transport, then you can't shoot at them, but you can affect the unit if the hull is in range.
And... this helps emphasize my point.
When shooting, you are shooting at the *unit*, not the models, so if any of the unit is in range, you can affect the entire unit; you don't need to measure to any models. Even if the only model in range could not be harmed by your guns, you can still kill the rest of the *unit*, because you are not shooting at that one model, but shooting at the unit.

Again, while units are made up of models, the rules treat them differently in many many places.
One of those places is when embarked, you can measure to a unit, you cannot measure to models.

You are attempting to create a distinction in which "the unit" exists, but the "models" do not. You cannot have a unit without having a model, per BRB.

paidinfull wrote:

coredump wrote:
Again, while units are made up of models, the rules treat them differently in many many places.
One of those places is when embarked, you can measure to a unit, you cannot measure to models.

You are attempting to create a distinction in which "the unit" exists, but the "models" do not. You cannot have a unit without having a model, per BRB.

He's really not. There are no rules for handling a measurement to individual embarked models, only rules for handling measurements involving the unit. They are not the same thing. Measuring to a unit and measuring to a model are entirely different cases.

The unit can still exist and be measured to while the models are off the table and unmeasurable because the rules specifically allow that case.

What they don't specifically allow is a way to measure to each individual embarked model for individual measurement requirements, despite how much sense it makes to abstract each model to the hull because the unit is abstracted by it.

@gorkamorka
Set aside the embarked unit discussion, for a moment.

Can you provide me with an instance when you are measuring to a unit, that a model in that unit is not involved?

You will never, ever have an instance where you are measuring to a unit where a model in that unit is not involved.

"If the players need to measure a range involving the embarked unit (except for its shooting), this range is measured to or from the vehicle's hull."

If I need to measure to a model, that is a part of that unit, by measuring to the hull of the vehicle I have met the criteria provided above.

I need to measure a range to model A. Model A is a part of Unit B. By needing to measure a range to Model A, I am involving Unit B. Since I need to measure "a range" which is "involving the embarked unit", Unit B, by following the above rule on p66 I measure to the hull of the vehicle.

This is the exact same logic being used to SUPPORT Spirit Leech working against the embarked unit. No, your claim that the unit exists while the models off the table and unmeasurable is not supported per BRB and the BRB FAQ that points to the two coexisting.

Q. Must passengers fire at the same target that their vehicle is firing at?
A. No, they are a separate unit (albeit they are temporarily co-existing with the vehicle) and so
can fire at a different target.

Measuring to the vehicle model is measuring to the embarked unit and as the vehicle model and embarked models coexist, measuring to the vehicle model is legal for permitting shooting, explosions, Spirit Leech, and other absurdities.

paidinfull wrote:Can you provide me with an instance when you are measuring to a unit, that a model in that unit is not involved?

Yes, when measuring the distance for the Doom of Malan'tai's Spirit Leech.

paidinfull wrote:

coredump wrote:
Necron res orb measures to the unit
Necron WBB measures to the model
Exploding vehicles damage the unit inside
exploding vehicles damage the models outside

Necron Res orb... to measure to the unit are you not measuring to a model?
Exploding vehicles damage the unit inside... are the models not effected by the damage?

I'm not sure if you're being deliberately obtuse (i.e., Devil's Advocate), but I'll chime in anyway. Yes, when you measure to a unit you are indeed measuring to a model. What you're ignoring is that when you measure to a unit you typcially only measure once, and only to the closest model. The models that make up the unit are not measured to individually. Once you complete that measurement you have now measured to the unit. As opposed to being required to measure for 'all models' within X. In which case you must measure to each individual model. As Yak pointed out we have a general rule speaking to measuring embarked units.

paidinfull wrote:You are attempting to create a distinction in which "the unit" exists, but the "models" do not. You cannot have a unit without having a model, per BRB.

Obviously he's not. There really is a distinction, spelled out in the rules as to 'unit' and model'. Sure you can't have a unit without a model, and models make up a unit. The rules however make a distinction between measuring to a unit (not every model in said unit), and measuring to individual models.

-Yad

Is this really an arguement over the difference between a unit and a model?



a unit is comprized of models, a model is a member of a unit.

Although a model is a part of a unit, a set of 10 models may only be 1 unit, to claim that models=units is not accurate. otherwise abilities such as Njals lord of Tempests would give him D6 S8 hits on every single model in the unit of 30 ork boys within 12" of him.

see the difference now?

if not....

@Yak, that was very well written and explained I appreciate it alot.

One more question. Since the INAT FAQ is filled with rules changes, why not this one?

paidinfull wrote:@gorkamorka
Set aside the embarked unit discussion, for a moment.

Can you provide me with an instance when you are measuring to a unit, that a model in that unit is not involved?

Does it really come as a surprise that if you ignore something which provides you with a way to measure to a unit even if said unit's models aren't on the table, it's hard to find places where you can measure to a unit and not measure to a model?

You are basically saying "set aside the fact that the sky is blue, now tell me what colour the sky is?"

Clearly none of the people who are claiming that unit = model are going to have their mind changed, because they are blatantly ignoring the fact that there is a rule that lets you measure to a unit without measuring to a model in that unit in a specific instance, and claiming you can't measure to a unit without measuring to a model.

Darkness wrote:@Yak, that was very well written and explained I appreciate it alot.

One more question. Since the INAT FAQ is filled with rules changes, why not this one?

I think I answered that exact question in my...uh...treatise (sorry about that) above.


Essentially we felt that in this particular case more people would read the rules for Spirit Leech and embarked units and naturally think...yes, the rules allow me to do this than the other way around.


And I do believe that no matter which way we ruled on this topic, there would have been a horde of vocal gamers opposed to it. Its really a lose-lose situation.

@drunkenspleen
It's not like your example at all. You are claiming that you are measuring to a unit without ever measuring to a model which is completely wrong. There has to be a model in order for the unit to exist in the context you are describing.

Did you even read my post?
Q. Must passengers fire at the same target that their vehicle is firing at?
A. No, they are a separate unit (albeit they are temporarily co-existing with the vehicle) and so
can fire at a different target.

The vehicle MODEL represents every model in the unit, as they are "coexisting". If the rationale to have the unit be effected via Spirit Leech is that the unit is there, a model representing the unit has to be there. In this case, the vehicle MODEL.

@Demogerg please read my post. I never said this was an argument over the difference of a unit and a model.

paidinfull wrote:@drunkenspleen
It's not like your example at all. You are claiming that you are measuring to a unit without ever measuring to a model which is completely wrong. There has to be a model in order for the unit to exist in the context you are describing.

Did you even read my post?
Q. Must passengers fire at the same target that their vehicle is firing at?
A. No, they are a separate unit (albeit they are temporarily co-existing with the vehicle) and so
can fire at a different target.

The vehicle MODEL represents every model in the unit, as they are "coexisting". If the rationale to have the unit be effected via Spirit Leech is that the unit is there, a model representing the unit has to be there. In this case, the vehicle MODEL.

Epic Fail @Demogerg for not reading my post. I never said this was an argument over the difference of a unit and a model.

Exactly, we are finally seeing eye to eye. The vehicle model is the model representing the unit in this case, and MODELS in range are effected, the fact that the vehicle is representing the unit makes no difference, because the other models in the unit are out of range.

But somehow because you continue to debate I get the feeling, despite hitting the nail perfectly on the head, you still aren't seeing why you can measure to an embarked unit but not to the models that make up that embarked unit.

The reason I gave my example (which you claim is an inaccurate representation of the situation) is because, you couldn't measure to a unit without measuring to atleast 1 model, except for when given another method for doing so, like in the vehicle rules. It just so happens, that Transports are the only thing given this exception. So you are dismissing the one thing relevant to the debate in trying to prove your point, which is, there is a special rule for measuring to embarked units, but not to embarked models.

Do you think it's equally ridiculous that drop pods can avoid deep strike mishaps but teleporting terminators can't? Because that's the same situation, one of those things has a special rule allowing for it to work a certain way, the other does not. The insistance that, just because the standard way to measure to a unit is to measure to a model, any time you measure to a unit you can determine models are in range, is patently untrue. Maybe we should be ignoring the fact that for shooting a vehicle's weapons we measure from the gun's instead of just the hull, because it says for all measurements involving vehicles to use the hull, who cares that firing is given a special exception to that rule which allows, and even forces, you to do it differently.

yakface wrote:

Darkness wrote:@Yak, that was very well written and explained I appreciate it alot.

One more question. Since the INAT FAQ is filled with rules changes, why not this one?

I think I answered that exact question in my...uh...treatise (sorry about that) above.


Essentially we felt that in this particular case more people would read the rules for Spirit Leech and embarked units and naturally think...yes, the rules allow me to do this than the other way around.


And I do believe that no matter which way we ruled on this topic, there would have been a horde of vocal gamers opposed to it. Its really a lose-lose situation.

As you mentioned though, does not ruling the way INAT did in regard to DoM cause more problems? I mean as ruled by the INAT, no one would have to call over a judge to determine if Leech works on a unit embarked, however they will have to call over a judge for the number of other reasons you listed that now arise. Whereas if the INAT ruled that DoM did not affect embarked units, you avoid opening the proverbial can'o'worms for the other issues you mentioned.

Seems like a ruling to please the masses, but breaks the game.

Brother Ramses wrote:
As you mentioned though, does not ruling the way INAT did in regard to DoM cause more problems? I mean as ruled by the INAT, no one would have to call over a judge to determine if Leech works on a unit embarked, however they will have to call over a judge for the number of other reasons you listed that now arise. Whereas if the INAT ruled that DoM did not affect embarked units, you avoid opening the proverbial can'o'worms for the other issues you mentioned.

Seems like a ruling to please the masses, but breaks the game.

Most of the issues already exist in the game anyway. 'Gets Hot!' for example can wound a unit inside a vehicle and bring almost all of the same issues to the table.

Gorkamorka wrote:

Brother Ramses wrote:
As you mentioned though, does not ruling the way INAT did in regard to DoM cause more problems? I mean as ruled by the INAT, no one would have to call over a judge to determine if Leech works on a unit embarked, however they will have to call over a judge for the number of other reasons you listed that now arise. Whereas if the INAT ruled that DoM did not affect embarked units, you avoid opening the proverbial can'o'worms for the other issues you mentioned.

Seems like a ruling to please the masses, but breaks the game.

Most of the issues already exist in the game anyway. 'Gets Hot!' for example can wound a unit inside a vehicle and bring almost all of the same issues to the table.

So issues already existing seems like a good reason to introduce more?

Brother Ramses wrote:So issues already existing seems like a good reason to introduce more?

It's a Good Reason to allow it, since it already happens, rather than disallow it.

Drunkspleen wrote:Exactly, we are finally seeing eye to eye. The vehicle model is the model representing the unit in this case, and MODELS in range are effected, the fact that the vehicle is representing the unit makes no difference, because the other models in the unit are out of range.

Seems to me you misunderstand how "representing" works. A plastic space marine model represents an imaginary warrior. If something effects the plastic space marine model it is effecting the imaginary warrior. The argument is clear that if you are using the vehicle model to represent the unit you are also using the vehicle model to represent every model by inference.

You've completely missed my point.

Gwar! wrote:It's a Good Reason to allow it, since it already happens, rather than disallow it.

And yet GW FAQ's consistently use the phrase "simple", for example "For simplicity sake". Creating arbitrary rules that don't exist and using multiple rules to create a complex scenario that is not "simple".

FlingitNow wrote:However what this argument is trying to equate is units=models for measuring. Hence from that conclusion should one of by Tac marines be in rapidfire range then the unit is in rapid fire range as unit=models therefore all the models are in rapidfire range. Which of course clearly isn't the case.

Uhh...

What? It plays out that all the models are in effective range, as you can wound and kill more than just the one model in range.

FlingitNow wrote:The reason the vehicle explodes can't effect the models is because you have no way of measuring to those models and therefore have no way of knowing how many models are effected. You know the unit is in range as pg 66 tells us that but not how many, if any, models are considered in range, hence they remain uneffected.

Correct. Only models within the range of the explosion are hit automatically by the explosion, not the entire unit.

I can see the op's point, but it doesn't shake down with the vehicle explosion rules.

imweasel wrote:Correct. Only models within the range of the explosion are hit automatically by the explosion, not the entire unit.

I can see the op's point, but it doesn't shake down with the vehicle explosion rules.

If a model represents a whole unit, at the same time it is representing each model in the unit.

Unit A is comprised of 6 Models. Model B represents unit A. If something effects Model B, all 6 models are effected.
This is the same principle behind Epic and swarm bases with wounds... not sure why this is still confusing...

paidinfull wrote:If a model represents a whole unit, at the same time it is representing each model in the unit.

No. Just because I can wound other models that are not in 'rapid fire' range, as one example that was given, it doesn't mean the whole unit is in range. The shooting rules are different than the vehicle explosion rules.

paidinfull wrote:Unit A is comprised of 6 Models. Model B represents unit A. If something effects Model B, all 6 models are effected.
This is the same principle behind Epic and swarm bases with wounds... not sure why this is still confusing...

Completely incorrect that if something effects model B, all 6 models are effected. There are several rules where this is not the case, with vehicle explosions being one of them.