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.

Yet you fail to address that I mentioned that I see two possible answers for how to resolve the issue and just go with deny the use of the power. First way I see to address it (and I am going to expand a little on this one) is that you just come to the conclusion that the power either A) can not be used or B) allow the power to be used but as the models can not meet the prerequisite of being removed from the table they power does not take effect. Second you can just follow the example of Vortex and the transport and those embarked are moved by the power.

Effectively the way I see it until this issue is addressed by an official FAQ it can be argued east to west and west to east, it is much easier to figure out a simple middle ground that everyone can agree on then to endlessly argue it and that is merely what I see that friendly middle ground that can last until it is dealt with in a more official manner.

Saiisil wrote:Yet you fail to address that I mentioned that I see two possible answers for how to resolve the issue and just go with deny the use of the power.

I 'failed to address it' because it has already been covered. Gate only affects the Librarian and his unit. The Land Raider is a separate unit. It can not be transported with the Gate.

So either you assume that you don't have to physcially remove him from the table if he is Gating from a transport, or you assume that being unable to remove him from the table in this situation means he can not Gate from within a vehicle.

Second you can just follow the example of Vortex and the transport and those embarked are moved by the power.

You can't follow the example of Vortex because Vortex is a completely different power with a completely different effect that works a completely different way. Vortex does not set any sort of precedent for the Gate.

From what I am reading, VoD calls in a huge vortex of umm doom. On a failure it is called down centered on the libby. If the libby is embarked on a vehicle than the vortex is called down on the libby BUT the vehicle protects him. Technically speaking (and I know the rules are not written as such), Gate removes the unit from play and you then can DS the unit. If you really want to argue, I'm pretty sure that although the libby is embarked, he still is technically on the table.

insaniak wrote:I 'failed to address it' because it has already been covered. Gate only affects the Librarian and his unit. The Land Raider is a separate unit. It can not be transported with the Gate.

So either you assume that you don't have to physcially remove him from the table if he is Gating from a transport, or you assume that being unable to remove him from the table in this situation means he can not Gate from within a vehicle.

Yet vortex is centered on the Librarian upon a failed save but here we have an example of a rule that is being changed because the aspect of it's wording can not be meet as it is worded.

You can't follow the example of Vortex because Vortex is a completely different power with a completely different effect that works a completely different way. Vortex does not set any sort of precedent for the Gate.

It works in a different way but not completely, it requires that the Librarian be present and then is ruled that when embarked it is the transport needing to be present. I compare one rule with a similar interaction to another because there exist no black and white answer to the one rule. While the two are different powers and most of the time work differently Vortex does have the side effect of targeting the Librarian, or in failing that his transport. Gate targets the Librarian, if the Librarian is not present on the table as you have suggested by your reasoning as to why Vortex targets the transport instead what is there failing the presence of the librarian?

Happyjew, one issue I am having here is that someone mentioned that the reason Vortex works the way it does for the transport is because the Librarian is in fact not on the table and then that same poster is stating that you are required to ignore a rule that exists within something to satisfy another which I feel shouldn't be done. If we say that the embarked Librarian is on the table in order to be affected by the power then rulings like the one handed down for Vortex would be in the wrong as they are not affecting the librarian, with that same logic you can follow to the belief that you can target a unit that is embarked on a transport as well and I am sure you can see where I am leading.

Saiisil wrote:Yet vortex is centered on the Librarian upon a failed save but here we have an example of a rule that is being changed because the aspect of it's wording can not be meet as it is worded.

Which has no bearing on how a different rule with a different effect should be resolved. It's a completely different situation because of the different ways that the two powers affect units.

It works in a different way but not completely, it requires that the Librarian be present and then is ruled that when embarked it is the transport needing to be present.

It's nothing to do with the transport 'needing to be present'... It's simply a way to resolve needing to place the template over the Librarian when he isn't on the board.

Vortex doesn't target the librarian. The marker is just placed over him. When he is in a transport, that means placing it over the transport, because the librarian is 'in' the transport.

So if you really want to use that as a precedent, it actually works exactly opposite to how you have been claiming... If the librarian in the transport is assumed to be on the table for the placement of the marker (otherwise there would be no need to place it at all) due to the the librarian being inside the transport, then removing the librarian from inside the transport for Gate should likewise be sufficient when we need to remove him from the table.

The transport is only affected by the Vortex because it hits everything it touches. It wont be affected by the gate because the Gate doesn't affect units in a given area... it just affects the librarian's unit.

Saiisil wrote:

insaniak wrote:I 'failed to address it' because it has already been covered. Gate only affects the Librarian and his unit. The Land Raider is a separate unit. It can not be transported with the Gate.

So either you assume that you don't have to physcially remove him from the table if he is Gating from a transport, or you assume that being unable to remove him from the table in this situation means he can not Gate from within a vehicle.

Yet vortex is centered on the Librarian upon a failed save but here we have an example of a rule that is being changed because the aspect of it's wording can not be meet as it is worded.

Out of sheer curiosity, how do you justify saying GoI and Vortex have similar results even though they are completely different situations, yet hand wave away comparing GoI to 'Ere We Go, when the powers are worded almost exactly the same and achieve the exact same result.

Sounds delusional, honestly.

How I justify GoI and Vortex is because both are 1 in the same codex and 2 target the librarian though Vortex does so on a failed test. I did not "hand wave away" 'Ere We Go I said why it can not properly work for the ruling of that for GoI, and that was because 'Ere We Go does not have the requirement of the psyker being on the table where GoI does.

Tell me why does 1 thing that target the psyker allow it to target the transport he is in while another does not?

GW FAQ allows the Vortex to target the transport, yet GoI can't target it because of the fact it is not part of the Libbies unit, and never can be? They are 2 different things, so don'tn try to match their rulings up.

A rule had to be made for Vortex, because you may not "shoot" an embarked unit.

It's not needed for GoI as a vehicle is never "HIS UNIT"

Here is my issue, GoI requires you to remove the Librarian from the table, and following what insaniak said the reason for that ruling for Vortex is because with the Librarian being embarked he is not on the table, therefore the requirement can not be fulfilled for the power to be used to the wording. As I have stated before (can't remember if it was this thread or not) when it comes to rules that I feel are not black and white rules meaning they are not completely clear I seek nothing more then an agreeable middle ground.

BTW the separate units argument can only work so far because I can give at least 1 example of how something that affects the transport affects the unit embarked as well.

By saying that somethin must be on the table, you are suggesting that bonuses that cna take effect whether or not the unit is reserve(and therefore not on the table) can't take effect. Or a model up a tree can't do anything because he isn't on the table. Or on top of area terrain that slopes.


He is still there, just inside something else.

Not my words that he is not on the table, I am following the logic provided by another player/poster that happens to have the MOD tag, and if that statement is true then I am suggesting that since the power requires the unit to be on the table to benefit from the power that we need to find a satisfactory way to settle it so that all sides can be happy until/if GW FAQs this one, I have given a few possibilities in which I felt were fair and have not seen much but argument in return.

Fair is to teleport the libby and his unit, leaving the LR behind since he can't join it.

Saiisil wrote:Not my words that he is not on the table, I am following the logic provided by another player/poster that happens to have the MOD tag, and if that statement is true then I am suggesting that since the power requires the unit to be on the table to benefit from the power that we need to find a satisfactory way to settle it so that all sides can be happy until/if GW FAQs this one, I have given a few possibilities in which I felt were fair and have not seen much but argument in return.

Define 'on the table'. Then give me the page number or faq that you found this.

Thanks!

Not my words that he is not on the table, I am following the logic provided by another player/poster that happens to have the MOD tag...

That makes it sound more like you have an axe to grind than a legitimate basis in the rules to support your claims. Perhaps you should read this article and base your argument on the actual rules instead of what somebody said.

Not going to read the article because my axe to grind is with anyone and everyone that wants to take what I say out of context or to completely ignore the context of what I do say and insert there own such as you yourself are doing now Ghaz and such as imweasel has just done as well.

I based my argument in my initial post on the fact that FAQs do not address this and that based on the way they have ruled something I felt something else should be looked at in a similar limelight yet in every argument against me in this thread has either 1 tried to say I am outright wrong with equally weak counter argument and just as much proof to the rules.

That is my axe if you want to say I have 1. BTW my argument has been based completely with actual rules and my understanding as well as my trying to understand others understanding of those rules.

Saiisil wrote:I based my argument in my initial post on the fact that FAQs do not address this and that based on the way they have ruled something I felt something else should be looked at in a similar limelight yet in every argument against me in this thread has either 1 tried to say I am outright wrong with equally weak counter argument and just as much proof to the rules.

You claimed that VoD was similar enough to GoI. I can't see how they're similar at all.

GoI targets the Librarians unit. No problem, because the FAQ allows this.
Unit is removed from the table. This ignores the vehicle because the vehicle is absolutely not part of the unit.
It works fine on embarked units because, while the models are not on the table, it's because they're inside the tank. They can still shoot out of the tank (if there are firing points), they can still use other abilities - and the ranges for those abilities is measured from the hull of the tank.
The removal when you embark is more bookkeeping than anything related to actually being off the board.

That is my axe if you want to say I have 1. BTW my argument has been based completely with actual rules and my understanding as well as my trying to understand others understanding of those rules.

No, your argument has been based on a tenuous linking of two dissimilar psychic powers. There's no reason to think they're similar, or that either one functions uniquely. *any* effect that targets the Lib or his unit will measure to the hull of the LR. Any effect that the Lib (or his unit) is measured from the hull. VoD isn't unique in it's targeting - it simply clarifies what is already in the rules.

All the deciding between VoD and GoI aside...

GoI does not state "Unit he is attached to"... it states... "The Librarian and any unit he is with are removed..." My question is.. what is this defined as? If they were intending to mean only a unit he had joined, wouldn't they have specified 'Any unit he has joined' instead?

Also... I would argue that he is "with" the Land Raider while embarked because of several reasons... he arrives "with" the LR when it arrives from reserves or moves on the table. As the LR moves, anyone inside the LR moves "with" it as well... You measure firing and any psychic power from the hull of the vehicle... and lastly, when any transport is destroyed by a shooting attack in the shooting phase, the shooter can assault the infantry that was in side for the purposes of shooting and assaulting the same target.

There are many examples of the LR and the troops embarked acting as a singular 'unit', though they are actually two separate units acting "with" each other. but the point is not weather the LR is a part of the libby's unit, only that the libby is 'wiith' the LR unit while they're embarked inside.

An IC can never be "with" a vehicle. Expressly forbidden in the IC rules.

nosferatu1001 wrote:An IC can never be "with" a vehicle. Expressly forbidden in the IC rules.

Not to be rude, but where in the rules? It state that an IC cannot join a vehicle or squadron of vehicles, but then again that wasn't the argument. That is expressly provided for. The question is... what is the meaning of "with"?

In my opinion, "with" is not synonymous with "attached to" or "joined".... I think that the qualifications of the word "with" can be expressed as I previously stated. Moves -with-, shoots -with-, deploys -with- ... etc.

Ailoth wrote:
In my opinion, "with" is not synonymous with "attached to" or "joined".... I think that the qualifications of the word "with" can be expressed as I previously stated. Moves -with-, shoots -with-, deploys -with- ... etc.

The librarian is deployed "with" his squad "in" the landraider. "With" is not the same as "in". If you want to argue single words out of context it will get crazy fast.

I think its safe to say that with can feasibly be seen as an attached unit.

Ailoth wrote:GoI does not state "Unit he is attached to"... it states... "The Librarian and any unit he is with are removed..." My question is.. what is this defined as? If they were intending to mean only a unit he had joined, wouldn't they have specified 'Any unit he has joined' instead?

If GW believed in precise terminology, yes, they would have. Unfortunately, they don't... so sometimes we have to interpret a little.

So we have two options:
1) 'With' means 'joined to'
or
2) 'With' means 'nearby'

In game terms, the first option works just fine. We know what 'joined to' means. The second, however, raises all sorts of problems... Just how far away can the unit be before the Librarian is no longer 'with' them? Since a distance is never specified, you would need to apply a house rule to make the power function under this interpretation.

So, since the first potential interpretation has an easily definable in-game effect, and the second either requires either a house rule definition of 'with' or allows the power to effect anything on the entire board, it seems most sensible to go with the first one.

Melchiour wrote:

Ailoth wrote:
In my opinion, "with" is not synonymous with "attached to" or "joined".... I think that the qualifications of the word "with" can be expressed as I previously stated. Moves -with-, shoots -with-, deploys -with- ... etc.

The librarian is deployed "with" his squad "in" the landraider. "With" is not the same as "in". If you want to argue single words out of context it will get crazy fast.

I think its safe to say that with can feasibly be seen as an attached unit.

Yes,
I see that taking single words, in context or not, can get kinda crazy... however... what we're arguing now is **with vs. in....** and as we can see from all previous arguments so far, with is synonymous with in. However, with is not limited to or synonymous with "attached to".

Is the squad in the LR? yes
Is the squad with the LR? yes
Is an IC who is attached to a squad in a squad? yes
Is an IC who is attached to a squad with a squad? yes
Is the squad attached to the LR? no

Therefore, A squad can be both WITH, and IN a LR without being attached TO a LR. :-)

It is safe to say that an IC that is attached to a squad is "with" the squad, and "in" the squad, you're absolutely correct that "with" can feasibly be seen as an attached unit. But it is not safe to say that the scope of "with" is limited to the scope of "attached unit". Infact, "unit he is with" seems to have a broader scope than just "squad he's attached to".






And thanks for your reply insaniak! I wass hoping we'd catch your attention again.
I understand where you are going with this, and I do agree with what you're saying. However, I think I've clarified that 'With' does not mean nearby. I've called out examples of movement, shooting, assault and deployment that support the meaning of 'With' to be something akin to -performing an action or actions together/at once/or with one another.-

Being nearby does not qualify as with - nearby is more synonymous with proximity than it is with performing orchestrated functions or actions.

I think insaniak summed it up rather well.

Insaniak has it exactly. If we read "with" as meaning "joined to", the rule works clearly and simply. If we try to come up with some other meaning we go straight into house rule territory, as we have to create and agree upon limits and boundary conditions.