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.

nosferatu1001 wrote:DAR - This is your quote:

DAR wrote:There is really nothing in the rules that states that "embarked (models)units may not be targeted by shooting attacks".

This is categorically, 100% wrong. As was proven.

To be fair, the rules don't specifically forbid it- you just fail when you check line of sight and/or range (if you can ignore the LoS restriction).

nosferatu1001 wrote:Dooms rules affect embarked models, ignoring the FAQ, because it requires you to measure to units. This you can do by page 66. It is not a shooting weapon, so you dont need LOS, and is not a PSA so the BRB errata statement about Psychic powers does not apply. So because it has permission, it affects units inside a transport.

The FAQ, not errata, removed this capability, along with other stupid rulings such as SitW and transports and mycetic spores and ICs.

The Tyranid FAQ seems to be written with the view that embarked models cannot be affected by outside effects- a view that doesn't seem to be in force for other FAQs. It's not a helpful document. Hopefully all of the 40k FAQS will see a Warhammer Fantasy-style review sometime soon. The rulebook FAQ still makes references to some of the old codeci, for example.

nosferatu1001 wrote:I most specifically do NOT agree that a model has to be on the board to be targetted, as I can happily cast psychic powers such as "guide" while within a transport, as long as I target my own unit.

This. Although it's now somewhat unclear as to what can and can't affect embarked units.

As usual, use your words with your opponent blahblahblah and have fun with your plastic spacemen. If you're some kind of tournament freak, you're at the mercy of the TO's decision so you'd do well to find out a bunch of rulings in advance.

DAR - that is what the bold tags are for.

Your conclusion from my premise is wrong, because despite being able to measure to the unit, which is what is required for ONE part of shooting, you cannot draw LOS to at least one model in the unit which is what is required by step 1

So yes, you are still wrong because, and I will attempt to make this simple: you are ignoring the rules stating you must have LOS to a model in the unit. You are entirely ignoring their existence, despite even posting a scan of them.

While you can measure to the Transport in order to determine if the unit is in range, you are unable to draw LOS to a model in the unit and therefore may not shoot.

It really cant be explained any more simpler than that.

DAR wrote:O IT DOESN'T as just because it has range to the hull, does not mean that it has range to the UNIT which is, as stated on the SAME PAGE OF THE RULE BOOK YOU REFER TO, no longer on the board.

Wrong. Page 66 states exactly the opposite. Seriously, reread it, note the phrase "to or from" and perhaps realise your error. Again.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
To aid DAR with why DoM, preFAQ, worked on embarked units:

1) You are told to measure range to the unit. Page 66 lets you do this by instead measuring to the hull of the vehicle they are embarked on.

So you can determine if they are in Dooms radius. Check. Note Doom mentions *nothing* about caring whether the model is on the board.

2) Doom isnt a weapon or normal shooting attack. It isnt a psychic power. None of the restrictions from either of those applies to Doom.

C1) you can affect units where the unit is within 6" even if they are embarked on a transport.

Which is where the FAQ then changed the rules.

TBH DAR you seem stuck in 4th, where units embarked in vehicles generally couldnt be affected by anything - which then caused issues. In 5th the approach is generally the opposite: they may not be on the table, but can still be affected. This also means you can claim objectives from within a transport - or is this part of my "fantasy world"?

nosferatu1001 wrote:despite being able to measure to the unit, which is what is required for ONE part of shooting, you cannot draw LOS to at least one model in the unit which is what is required by step 1

So Hive Guard can do it?

Tyranid FAQ. . .making worse since 2010.

Seems like it!

Yep, the nid FAQ is atrocious - why they decided that primes cant join noone will ever know. Makes no sense...

I posted this in the other tread but I suppose this one is the same issue:

I know this caused a heated debate before in regards to a certain Blood Angels chalice AOE, but I would say no.

First off, I do use the GW FAQ's, so that's where I'm coming from. In both cases I can find of units inside of a transport being effected by outside rules are concerned, you cannot. The Doom of Malantai' does not effect embarked units with his AOE. Also, Eldar units cannot use psychic powers on embarked units (unless the psyker is doing it to the embarked unit he is joined with) friend or foe. Finally, while people will point to the rulebook where you measure to the hull of the vehicle when determining the range of embarked "involved" units, there is nothing that specifically allows you to effect units in a transport and no rules for it. The crux of their argument is twisting the word "involve" to suit what they want.

The bottom line is, if it doesn't explicitly say you can, then you can't. Like it or not, there are no actual rules that allow outside sources to target or AOE embarked units. Either way it is a "house rule" as I am going off the GW FAQ's and the other side would be making up their own rules.

Cue the incoming logical fallacies, poorly though out straw man agreements, and cries that "GW FAQ's are unofficial and a random internet guy or tourney organizer knows better."

Actually I wasn't going to use any of those arguments. I was going to use the age old GWARgument that why would one FAQ relate to a completely different army? Why should I use the Nid FAQ from Eldar? Or High Elves? Or Red Blok? Or any other such random extrapolation of the point?

Oshova

Actually I wasn't going to use any of those arguments. I was going to use the age old GWARgument that why would one FAQ relate to a completely different army? Why should I use the Nid FAQ from Eldar? Or High Elves? Or Red Blok? Or any other such random extrapolation of the point?

Oshova

I can completely see where this phrase can be valid; in this case it is an easy way out. I have expressed that I use the GW FAQ's and they don't' cover everything (obviously). I look in the rulebook and it has no mention of effecting or targeting embarked models. There are no explicit rules for it there. So I look at the FAQ's. In 2/2 situations that are completely analogous the ruling is you cannot.

I combine this with *gasp* common sense and come up with a reasonable solution. RAW fails here. So, there is a required house rule. I think a good general rule is that if it doesn't say you can, then you can't. I have seen no specific language indicating you can. In the two analogous cases, you explicitly can't. So a rational and reasonable person who plays the game for fun (it is just a game after all) should have no problems with this ruling.

I understand the strict cult of RAW will continue to argue that the GW FAQ's are not official and spend days trying to play lawyer with the word "involve". That isn't worth it to me. I use the GW FAQ's because they are made by GW and because it's way easier than sitting down with my gaming group to nitpick and make a decision on every poorly worded rule. Either that or use some internet guy's ruling. Why would I do that? Does GWAR work for GW? No. Then he is less official as far as I'm concerned than a "house rule set" made by the actual company.

Use RAW when you can. If you can't just be a reasonable persona and use common sense.

kirsanth wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:despite being able to measure to the unit, which is what is required for ONE part of shooting, you cannot draw LOS to at least one model in the unit which is what is required by step 1

So Hive Guard can do it?

Shooting requires measuring to a model. Measuring to a unit (per p66 and embarked units) does not mean that you have measured to a model, and so you cannot satisfy the range check.

Read page 3 again.

I have to agree with JGrand in that, if I was a TO, I would rule in a way that goes 'along with' rulings given by those at GW.

So in my reasoning, as with how other things have been described in the FAQ by GW, AoE items cannot effect units in transports.

But it's equally feasable to say you can affect them. It's a house rule, and will have to be determined in each gaming group, tournament whatever seperatly. But on here we have to say . . . "WTF GW!? . . . SORT IT OUT!!!"

Oshova

But it's equally feasable to say you can affect them. It's a house rule, and will have to be determined in each gaming group, tournament whatever seperatly. But on here we have to say . . . "WTF GW!? . . . SORT IT OUT!!!"

Oshova

It really comes down to two things:

1. what the word "involves" completely entails (just the fact that we have to argue this is bad )
2. Do you feel that the rule set is something meant to be permissive or restrictive?

As to point one I don't think the simple sentence on p 66 (?) is enough to explicitly allow embarked units to be effected or targeted by outside sources. The GW FAQ's promote this as well. In both cases they do not allow the embarked models to be effected.

On to the second point I think the game gets too messy if you just extrapolate the meaning of ambiguous words. There is one person I play with who was trying to have Independent Characters gain the powers of a unit they join because under the special rule it states "the unit". The rulebook is clear that this doesn't happen, but there are people who want to bend the word "unit" to include an independent character joining the unit. There is only one reason people would do this, to gain an advantage.

The simple fix that I keep bringing up is "don't do it unless it says you can". In this case there is nothing that says you can. There you go.

In the instance of embarked models, you have to have more extensive rules that do not exist if you want to target the models in the transports. Do they get cover? What can target them? Where do you draw the line? Easy, you don't allow it.

Either way is a house rule, don't let the strict RAW crowd tell you they are right. There is no real answer and you have to decide.

Huh? That is exactly what DOES happen: a War boss joining a pain-boy nob squad gets FNP, as "the unit" includes the warboss (explicitly states so in the IC rules)

nosferatu1001 wrote:Read page 3 again.

Shooting-
p16, The Shooting Sequence boxout
"Check range. At least one target model must be within range of the weaponry of your firing models.
p17, Check Range
"When you're checking range, simply measure from each firer to the nearest visible model in the target unit.

p3, Measuring Distances
"When measuring distances between two units, use the closest models as your reference points, as shown in the diagram below."

p66, Embarking
"When the unit embarks, it is removed from the table and placed aside..."

p66, Embarking
"If the players need to measure a distance involving the embarked unit, this range is measured to and from the hull."

Normal troops cannot shoot at an embarked unit as they cannot draw line of sight.
Hive Guard cannot shoot at an embarked unit, because although they ignore line of sight-
Shooting requires a measurement to a target model.
There are no target models in the embarked unit, as they have been removed.
Since you cannot measured to a target model, your shooting fails it's range check.
You may measure to an embarked unit, but that isn't what the shooting rules look for.

This-
p66, Embarking
"If the players need to measure a distance involving the embarked unit, this range is measured to and from the hull."
-is not interchangable with this-
p3, Measuring Distances
"When measuring distances between two units, use the closest models as your reference points, as shown in the diagram below."
-as a way of measuring to a model.

You can tell, because provides a measurement to a unit while the other measures to a model.
By all means, please show where these two are interchangable.

Huh? That is exactly what DOES happen: a War boss joining a pain-boy nob squad gets FNP, as "the unit" includes the warboss (explicitly states so in the IC rules)

In some instances, yes. Most others, no. Under the independent character section it specifically states that an IC does not gain the benefits of a unit's special rule unless stated. But that's unrelated to this topic. I just bough the Red Thirst example up as an example of using loosely defined words to allow something for the sake of gaining an advantage.

forkbanger wrote:[Shooting requires a measurement to a target model.
There are no target models in the embarked unit, as they have been removed.
Since you cannot measured to a target model, your shooting fails it's range check.
You may measure to an embarked unit, but that isn't what the shooting rules look for.

Same wording is used for psychic hoods.

Oshova wrote:Why should I use the Nid FAQ from Eldar?

Why would I not use my Tyranid FAQ when playing against Eldar?

kirsanth wrote:

Oshova wrote:Why should I use the Nid FAQ from Eldar?

Why would I not use my Tyranid FAQ when playing against Eldar?

I think what he means is "What effect on my army as an Eldar player does the 'Nid codex have?". If you're playing, for example, Eldar vs. Necrons, why would the Eldar player bring the 'Nid FAQ?

I understood that, actually. I only play Tyranids; the question still comes up.

I have restrictions on SitW because of the Eldar FAQ. . . .

forkbanger wrote:The Tyranid FAQ seems to be written with the view that embarked models cannot be affected by outside effects-

Personally, I think it's more that it's written with the view that the Doom's ability, whilst not actually a Psychic Shooting Attack, functions in more or less the same way and so should be covered by the same prohibition on targeting units in transports.

insaniak wrote:Personally, I think it's more that it's written with the view that the Doom's ability, whilst not actually a Psychic Shooting Attack, functions in more or less the same way and so should be covered by the same prohibition on targeting units in transports.

And the SitW and other anomalies?

If there is any consistency at all to be read from it, it is the restriction of measuring to models in a transport.

Unless I totally misread things--or they are deliberately hindering the 100% non-mech army in a mech-heavy environment.

Which, honestly is possible, if spiteful.

Haven't you worked it out yet? Phil Kelly wrote the Nid FAQ, he made it fit in with his backlash at GW for not letting him write it, by making all the other codices he does be awesome against them.

Oshova