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.

Better yet, just use the damn thing as terrain.

Then you can place models on top of it to your hearts desire.

Yes. But the question was: "if I use it as a Fortification, can I disembark from it and onto its roof" not "can I put models on top of terrain features". I assume so he could get non-Flyers up there outside of the Deployment phase.

Also, terrain is placed before you even know where your army will be... there is absolutely no way to know if that piece of terrain is going to be where you want it. Fortifications are places down during the deployment phase to your liking. They also do not need to be set up 3” away from other terrain so you can literally create a tiny bottle neck so that a fill enemy squad charging can only fit units through like a tiny 1 niche opening where only a few units can actually make it into combat.

 JohnnyHell wrote:


Of course embarking doesn’t magically make you immune to to hit modifiers when shooting. What a ridiculous assertion.

So, I can use prescience on an embarked unit? If minus to hit works on an embarked unit, plus to hit should work as well.

 p5freak wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:


Of course embarking doesn’t magically make you immune to to hit modifiers when shooting. What a ridiculous assertion.

So, I can use prescience on an embarked unit? If minus to hit works on an embarked unit, plus to hit should work as well.

It would work except you can't target the unit with the power.

I'll wade in with my interpretation, which if I recall ended the last argument (I'm assuming there was no way to argue against it):

The full rule (which I'll now paraphrase) is that The unit cannot NORMALLY do anything or be affected in any way.

"Normally" is the condition for this rule.

The unit has permission to shoot.

Is it normal to shoot out of a transport? No.

The unit is shooting. Therefore, this is not normal.

Therefore, do you apply a rule which only applies when the situation is "normal"? No.

I use "Normal" in the same way that p5freak uses "Affect", to counter his argument entirely.


The majority vote is that a unit can be affected by its own rules, and those of the target, whilst embarked, if they have permission to shoot. Otherwise I'll keep my infinite bomm squigs and all models throwing tankbusta bomms as long as the unit's embarked.

This seems to be going around in circles. I think the main problem is with the fact that these units can’t be affected by anything are are treated as being off the board. Both of those conditions means they cannot be negatively or positively affected by anything.

The real question is, if a negative effect can affect it, is it because the unit counts as being present on the board? In that case, would all the positive modifiers work as well?

@johnnyhell

I think the condescending tone is unwarranted. Many things are dumb by that logic. We could say why wouldn’t a commander in the same building count as able to buff the units inside or why a commander outside the building needs to pretend the units don’t exist anywhere. The rules aren’t always about logic but specific game mechanics. It’s a legitimate question why something like a negative hit modifier would apply but not a buff.

As a side note, it is also worth noting that it is the shooting attack which is affected and not the unit. if a model has +1 to hit when making shooting attacks, this affects the shooting attack, which is not the unit embarked in a transport. Same for altoic fliers.

The only point which really catches on this argument is overheating plasma, exploding bomm-squigs, and so on, as these do actually affect the model/unit inside the transport.

So does my Culexus assassin though because it makes the shooting units BS/WS into 6+. It’s pretty confusing what to allow and what not to allow.

I also realized the units are not actually off the board in the game sense from the definition of embark. It simply says remove the unit from the board but it does not even say that the unit counts as being off the board. It simply makes you assume that because it follows with the words that nothing can affect them.

@some bloke

I think the problem here is people have been arguing that shooting overrides the normal part (hence they can shoot) but it is about in what exact state is the unit when it shoots. Can it be affected by things in this instance and what would be the limit? If it overrides those restrictions then it would be affected by command auras.

GameDadZ wrote:

I think the problem here is people have been arguing that shooting overrides the normal part (hence they can shoot) but it is about in what exact state is the unit when it shoots. Can it be affected by things in this instance and what would be the limit? If it overrides those restrictions then it would be affected by command auras.

But they cannot be affected by command auras as they aren't on the board to measure whether they are in range or not.

My point is that the restriction of "cannot be affected" only applies in "normal" circumstances, which are self-defined by the rule as being when the unit cannot shoot or be affected. The only existing bypass for this rule is the existence of rules which negate the "cannot shoot" part, which by definition stops the situation being "normal" and thus the rule does not need to be applied. Otherwise, the whole rule would be applied and the unit could not shoot.

As for your assassin, that remains a grey area. I would say that it does indeed take effect, but it does Affect the unit in the vehicle to do so, so you need to decide if they can be affected when they shoot.

Units being on the battlefield is pretty grey because in that sense, they are inside the building which is what is being used to measure both line of sight and range. That means the building itself is the unit that is the shooting units area. At the moment it shoots, it does exist in a capacity on the board for shooting, which is why its confusing. Also, -1 to hit from super sonic flyers for example, would suffer the exact same problem. Either the unit can be affected by outside factors or it doesn’t. Most abilities seem to apply to the unit.

GameDadZ wrote:
Units being on the battlefield is pretty grey because in that sense, they are inside the building which is what is being used to measure both line of sight and range. That means the building itself is the unit that is the shooting units area. At the moment it shoots, it does exist in a capacity on the board for shooting, which is why its confusing. Also, -1 to hit from super sonic flyers for example, would suffer the exact same problem. Either the unit can be affected by outside factors or it doesn’t. Most abilities seem to apply to the unit.

This is not true. In rules terms they are not on the battlefield. When shooting they draw line of site from the Bastion, but that does not mean the unit is on the board, and it does not give you permission to draw range to the Bastion for auras nor to transfer penalties or bonuses the Bastion itself is affected by to the unit embarked.

I feel you might be misunderstanding our position here to be honest. There's no reason it needs to be as black and white as "can be affected by outside factors or it doesn't". It is given permission to shoot. The rules we are saying come into play are specifically the ones that use wording along the lines or "When this unit makes a shooting attack" or rules on enemy units that say something like "shooting attacks against this unit..." or similar wordings. The fact the unit is making a shooting attack means that these rules come into play, because they are triggered by making a shooting attack and because more specific rules (for instance a unit ability) override general rules (for instance that embarked units cannot be affected by abilities).

This isn't a contradiction when it comes to the unit not being able to shoot in the first place, because the specific rule for embarking units not being able to do anything overrides the more general rule about being able to shoot - then the even more specific rule the Bastion has that allows the unit to shoot overrides the more general embarking rule.

Honestly, I don't see how the Bastion can let a unit shoot (using specific trumps general) unless a unit ability that explicitly affects shooting can also come into play (same specific trumps general).

Indeed. Claiming modifiers to hit fall under the “cannot normally be affected” is such flagrant misrepresentation of the rules that it would only be accepted on an Internet forum as a possibility.

As far as the game is actually played, embarking doesn’t mean you ignore to hit modifiers. Hence my exasperation. It pollutes and dilutes this forum’s usefulness when bonkers ‘interpretations’ generate noise.

 JohnnyHell wrote:

As far as the game is actually played, embarking doesn’t mean you ignore to hit modifiers.

So, positive modifiers work, just like negatives do ?

@stux

I think you also are misrepresenting something. I mentioned a few skills specifically. If the skill does say shooting attacks then it would actually make plenty of sense. However, that’s not what units like the Culexus or Plaguebearers say. It actually says it applies a debuff to the unit, not a shot. This is the same problem with stratagems.

I agree if it actually says “when shooting, xyz.”

GameDadZ wrote:
@stux

I think you also are misrepresenting something. I mentioned a few skills specifically. If the skill does say shooting attacks then it would actually make plenty of sense. However, that’s not what units like the Culexus or Plaguebearers say. It actually says it applies a debuff to the unit, not a shot. This is the same problem with stratagems.

I agree if it actually says “when shooting, xyz.”

I don't really see how the Colexus would be any different. They're still attacking the Colexus, so the Colexus' ability would apply.

It isn't about the word 'shooting' specifically. It's that the embarked unit are doing the exact thing that causes the ability to come into effect.

Anyways, I think I will just try to establish your interpretation as a house rule when I try this out next week. I feel like this rule is so iffy and requires clarification. I’m not even sure if I can use stratagems on these guys now.

GameDadZ wrote:
Anyways, I think I will just try to establish your interpretation as a house rule when I try this out next week. I feel like this rule is so iffy and requires clarification. I’m not even sure if I can use stratagems on these guys now.

You generally cannot use Stratagems on units not on the battlefield.

I would say you can use Stratagems that have as a trigger something the unit has been given permission to use though. So you could Command Re-roll a hit roll, as you are rolling a dice and that gives you implicit permission to use the re-roll strat.

But yes, talking to your opponent is ultimately the best thing to do when you're not sure of something.

Deathwatch disciplines do not really state anything about being on a battlefield. It just says to use it before you make a shooting attack with a unit.

 p5freak wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:

As far as the game is actually played, embarking doesn’t mean you ignore to hit modifiers.

So, positive modifiers work, just like negatives do ?

Yes. If they come from an aura, or from a stratagem that needs the unit to be on the battlefield then you don't get the modifier whether it's positive or negative. If it's an inherent ability of the unit or the target that isn't targeting the unit in specific (note: affecting the roll is not necessarily affecting the unit). then the modifier works.

 p5freak wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:

As far as the game is actually played, embarking doesn’t mean you ignore to hit modifiers.

So, positive modifiers work, just like negatives do ?

If you’re determined to misread everything then you can’t have a discussion. Don’t twist what you know my meaning was. If you’d like to discuss properly, do crack on.

 JohnnyHell wrote:

If you’re determined to misread everything then you can’t have a discussion. Don’t twist what you know my meaning was. If you’d like to discuss properly, do crack on.

You literally wrote : "As far as the game is actually played, embarking doesn’t mean you ignore to hit modifiers." This includes positives, and negatives. If you mean something different you should write that. We know, for sure, that positive to hit modifiers dont affect embarked units, so negatives shouldnt as well, because the embarked unit isnt on the battlefield.

Isn't this why the Open Topped rule exists? At the very least, Ork vehicles that are able to be shot out of transfer all modifiers to the occupants. Is that not the case for other Faction vehicles?

The fire points rule is different from the open topped rule. Open topped transfers modifiers from the vehicle to the embarked unit. Fire points does not.

Huh. Well that just feels like poor rule writing. Especially since they coulda just did a "copy-paste" and it would have been covered just fine.

Yes, but this is GW. Poor rules writing is the standard here.

Well, yeah. But this is worse than just missing a rule interaction, or failing to see an issue before it comes up, or even just writing the rule poorly/vaguely. They literally HAVE a rule just for this already. It works well, and isn't ambiguous. It doesn't have weird interactions or issues. And they just didn't decide to use it in every place it should be used in. That's just real dumb.

That's why I say that embarked units on a fortification aren't affected by modifiers. The fire points rule doesn't say so. It's different from the open topped rule. The reason for this ? Intended ? Oversight ? I don't know.

 p5freak wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:

If you’re determined to misread everything then you can’t have a discussion. Don’t twist what you know my meaning was. If you’d like to discuss properly, do crack on.

You literally wrote : "As far as the game is actually played, embarking doesn’t mean you ignore to hit modifiers." This includes positives, and negatives. If you mean something different you should write that. We know, for sure, that positive to hit modifiers dont affect embarked units, so negatives shouldnt as well, because the embarked unit isnt on the battlefield.

You took one sentence of a post, removed all context, ignored common sense and twisted it to try and annoy. Leave it out.

If you’re making a shooting attack you’re subject to relevant shooting modifiers as Stux says, but if embarked you can’t benefit from auras etc. as per the Transport rules. Your take is not RAW - it’s a bad reading.

You’re deliberately misconstruing this for who knows what reason. Sometimes consensus is more important than being a slavish RAW purist (especially if you’re not reading the RAW correctly). You won’t find an opponent that will allow you to apply an aura and ignore an Alaitoc plane’s -2 to hit when firing with an embarked unit. You simply won’t. As I said earlier, this would only be entertained as potentially possible on an Internet forum. And as I also said it dilutes this forum’s utility if every thread descends into discussing one bonkers ‘interpretation’ (misreading). So let’s not.

Then please explain why the open topped rule transfers modifiers to the embarked unit, and fire points does not. Fortifications can shoot, they have weapons. Why is it written differently ? Could it be intended ? Could it be that GW doesn't want modifiers to affect units embarked inside a fortification ?