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.

On an official note, people need to moderate their tones and their language a bit. Stop calling each other morons or implying it. Stop saying or implying that the reason they disagree with you is because they have an agenda. It's rude. It's insulting. It's a violation of Rule One.

Beast, tegeus-Cromis, and ColonelEllios, you're all officially warned for violating the rules. Knock it off. You’re all smart people and can do better.

---------------------------------------------------------------

Now, on to the discussion. I am not opposed to using similar cases and rules to try and work out how something is supposed to work. In fact, I think this is often one of the most useful approaches. That said, in this case I think the side by side comparison actually supports the Sisters’ nullification.



The SUBJECT of each rules sentence is different. There is no definition of AoE, but each power does tell you WHOM is being affected.

What's confusing is that the fluff sentence and the rules sentence for Conceal describe different Objects of the power. Conceal's fluff describes the Warlock inhibiting the enemy. But in the rules sentence the Object of the sentence is the Warlock's squad. Veil of Time's fluff sentence has the enemy as the Object of the power, and its rules sentence uses the enemy squad as the Subject, both sentences referring to the enemy unit as the one having something happening to them- AKA being affected.

The unit being affected by Conceal is “The warlock's whole squad."

The unit being affected by Veil of Tears is "Any enemy unit wishing to target the Shadowseer or the unit she is with".

BTW, Beast, T-C had a valid point that it’s better to say “any unit wishing to target” as opposed to “any unit within LOS”, because there are multiple circumstances under which a Sisters unit could have LOS but not “wish to target” the Harlies, and thus not trigger the rule.

Posted By Mannahnin on 10/01/2007 3:30 PM

BTW, Beast, T-C had a valid point that it’s better to say “any unit wishing to target” as opposed to “any unit within LOS”, because there are multiple circumstances under which a Sisters unit could have LOS but not “wish to target” the Harlies, and thus not trigger the rule.

Mannahnin-

Thanks for the warning, I'll keep the tone down in the future.

I agree that he had a valid point, I have always agreed with his point.  In fact I pointed out that I agreed with him in numerous posts.   

What I didn't like was his misrepresentation of my words and his selective editing of my posts which made it appear that I had never  made the qualifying statement at all when in fact I had only occasionally parenthetically left it out (assuming everyone already understood this basic principle of the previously stated rule).  Never had an issue with the condition he was citing, just the necessity for repeating it in every post.

I can see your point, and his.

I recommend that you both apologize and drop it. Let it go and continue the discussion politely.

Posted By Mannahnin on 10/01/2007 4:07 PM
I can see your point, and his.

I recommend that you both apologize and drop it. Let it go and continue the discussion politely.

Agreed. 

A moderator enforcing rule 1!? *Gasp* Maybe things ARE changing around here...

If you say we've violated rule 1, then so be it.

I don't think I was implying anyone was a fool. I applied proper descriptions to some of their ideas, however.

People need to realize that YMDC is NOT a forum for personal attacks, and very few people mean it in such a way. An idea can absolutely be asinine or idiotic, a person cannot be generalized in such a way.

I think the rest speaks for itself.

The fact that VoT tells you to reference other powers means it also functions in a basically similar way. If Conceal doesn't "effect" FoS, then neither should VoT, by the rules. While VoT causes an in-game effect, it is not "affecting" the Sisters in the way implied by the context surrounding "effect" in the FoS rule. This is supported by the fact that the Sisters can choose to ignore the effects of the VoT power. These are the facts.

Anyone claiming otherwise will have to dice off against me before they get their 5+. Good luck...

EDIT:
The broad definition of the word "effect" as it is being characterized by Beast and Mannahnin in the wording of FoS is not only applicable to VoT. If you choose to use this broad definition of the word "effect" for the FoS power, you get crazy and obviously wrong things that become possible, such as Conceal being negated because a cover save "effects" the SOB shooting (applying the broad definition of the term). Applying this same broad definition of the term would also allow FoS to cancel effects such as Gray Knight's shrouding, which "effects" SOB shooting in exactly the same way as VoT does. It is because of this that we must use a more conservative definition of the word "effect" when applied to FoS. I think this more conservative definition has been properly outlined by me and others. Referencing the entire body of rules to extrapolate things such as proper and applicable terms of overly-ambiguous words like "effect" is entirely admissible, and is the only way in which you can have a functioning system supported by RAW as the 40k rules stand. This is the interpretation being outlined by "my camp."

Posted By ColonelEllios on 10/02/2007 7:21 AM

EDIT:
The broad definition of the word "effect" as it is being characterized by Beast and Mannahnin in the wording of FoS is not only applicable to VoT. If you choose to use this broad definition of the word "effect" for the FoS power, you get crazy and obviously wrong things that become possible, such as Conceal being negated because a cover save "effects" the SOB shooting (applying the broad definition of the term).

This is the defintion of the word "effect" I am using (from dictionary.com)

effect

–noun <table class="luna-Ent"> <tbody> <tr> <td class="dn" valign="top">1.</td> <td valign="top">something that is produced by an agency or cause; result; consequence</td> </tr> </tbody> </table>

You are misunderstanding me.  VoT causes the SoB to perform an action as a result of its effect.  Conceal does not.  I never, not once, in all my posts claimed otherwise.  I disagree with the idea that Coceal causes an effect on the SoB.  SoF has absolutely no interaction with Coneal because it does not effect the SoB.  Conceal only causes an effect on the Eldar unit it has been cast upon.

Other powers have different wordings and different interactions with SoF which may be discussed in other threads.

Affect is the verb. Effect is the noun.

Just though I would point that out while we were discussing grammar.

I don't have anything else to add, other than that I agree with Mannahnin.

So both of you maintain that FoS is applicable against The Shrouding?

EDIT:

Alright beast. I'll approach it from your angle. You maintain that VoT "effects" the Sisters unit, thereby triggering SoF. The exact wording (as posted earlier in this thread) of FoS(whatever) is as follows:

"Psychic powers targeted against any unit or character...or including them in its area of effect, are nulliified..."

Note these words say "area of effect" and NOT "area or effect." It's an important distinction.

Also note that the VoT rules do not mention a "target" of VoT:

"Any enemy unit wishing to target the Shadowseer or the unit she is with..."

Sorry; by RAW your argument is meaningless. VoT does not in any way interact with FoS.

EDIT Edit:

I should have said "implication" instead of "definition" in my earlier post on the usage of "effect" Beast was resorting to.

Posted By ColonelEllios on 10/02/2007 2:27 PM
So both of you maintain that FoS is applicable against The Shrouding?

You keep using the abbreviation "FoS".  I think you mean SoF (Shield of Faith), or do you mean something else entirely?

I haven't said anything about The Shrouding in any of my posts. I can't therefore maintain anything about it if I haven't yet discussed it.  I don't have the DH dex with me to reference at the moment, but that would be for another thread in any case.

Posted By Wehrkind on 10/02/2007 2:05 PM
Affect is the verb. Effect is the noun.

Just though I would point that out while we were discussing grammar.

I don't have anything else to add, other than that I agree with Mannahnin.

Actually....   Effect can be a noun or a verb.

Effect:

–noun

<table class="luna-Ent"> <tbody> <tr> <td class="dn" valign="top">1.</td> <td valign="top">something that is produced by an agency or cause; result; consequence</td> </tr> </tbody> </table>

–verb (used with object)

<table class="luna-Ent"> <tbody> <tr> <td class="dn" valign="top">10.</td> <td valign="top">to produce as an effect; bring about; accomplish; make happen</td> </tr> </tbody> </table>

Affect is also a noun or  verb.

Affect:

–verb (used with object) <table class="luna-Ent"> <tbody> <tr> <td class="dn" valign="top">1.</td> <td valign="top">to act on; produce an effect or change in</td> </tr> </tbody> </table> –noun <table class="luna-Ent"> <tbody> <tr> <td class="dn" valign="top">4.</td> <td valign="top">[i]Psychology. feeling or emotion.</td> </tr> </tbody> </table>
[/i]

Point of information: Affect can also be a noun (meaning an emotion), and effect can also be a verb (meaning to cause). They are always problem words to interpret, regardless of part of speech.  (edit: arg, Beast beat me to it)

Also I don't remember if the shrouding is defined as a psychic power? If not, then SoF obviously doesn't affect it.

Yes, The Shrouding is described as a psychic power.

It is worded in almost exactly the same way as VoT. But since neither power targets or affects a specific area, the discussion is rather moot.

Okay Colonel. I will bite on your "No area of effect" theory... Please provide a definition from the rulebook for area of effect. I don't think they ever define it specifically. You (or someone in 'your camp') previously suggested the flamer template, blast template, etc. Does the BGB define an area of effect as only templates, or at all in fact? Maybe it does, but I've never seen it.

So should we therefore ignore, as meaningless, the rules that mention an area of effect as part of the game mechanics? Or are we left to define it by common English usage (ie. definitions from a dictionary). I think we are, indeed, left to define it as it is commonly used in English. The area in this case (since it is not defined by the BGB) could be the eyeballs, frontal lobe, models/bases, etc of the SoB unit in question- take your pick. It is really moot though, because the whole SoB unit is effected (thus there is by definition an area since it effects all the models in the unit).

EDIT:  Let me put it this way...  The unit constitutes an area on the table.  Fact.  The whole unit is effected by VoT. Fact. I will leave it to you to now draw the obvious conclusion from those two facts.

It's really very simple, Beast. You don't even have to "define" area of effect, although I think we probably both use it in the same way and share a common vernacular.

The SoF power requires an "area of effect."

VoT does not have an "area of effect." It simply effects any enemy unit wishing to target the Harlies...

Now, if you bother to apply just a tiny bit of logic to a power like "Wind of Chaos," you get a fairly reliable definition of "area of effect."

The power reads something along the lines of "any model under the template is wounded on a 4+, no saves allowed."

Since the power has an effect of "no saves allowed" and an area of "template" then we can surmise that for the Wind of Chaos power the "area of effect" would in fact be the "template."

EDIT: Sorry it took this long to boil this down to a black-and-white issue, and sorry if I offended you in the process. I assure you that I applied my vocabulary in an accurate way, and that it was entirely directed at your argument, and not you.

Posted By ColonelEllios on 10/02/2007 3:29 PM
It's really very simple, Beast. You don't even have to "define" area of effect, although I think we probably both use it in the same way and share a common vernacular.

The SoF power requires an "area of effect."

VoT does not have an "area of effect." It simply effects any enemy unit wishing to target the Harlies...

Now, if you bother to apply just a tiny bit of logic to a power like "Wind of Chaos," you get a fairly reliable definition of "area of effect."

The power reads something along the lines of "any model under the template is wounded on a 4+, no saves allowed."

Since the power has an effect of "no saves allowed" and an area of "template" then we can surmise that for the Wind of Chaos power the "area of effect" would in fact be the "template."

EDIT: Sorry it took this long to boil this down to a black-and-white issue, and sorry if I offended you in the process. I assure you that I applied my vocabulary in an accurate way, and that it was entirely directed at your argument, and not you.

I think you are basically saying that another power uses a template as their area of effect even though their rules don't say 'area of effect'.  So you are using an example from one rule to say that is the entirety of what defines all areas of effect.  Sorry but I am just not buying that line of reasoning. 

Absent a definition of AoE in the BGB, we are left to use the definition within the specific rule (if given) or define it as it is commonly used and apply it case-by-case (if no definition is given).  You define the AoE for Wind of Chaos as the flamer template.  Does that mean all areas of effect in the game are the flamer template?  That is a logical fallacy (although I can't remember which one ). 

I too regret if there are any hard feelings.  Hope you don't have any.  I have none. 

Are you being sarcastic?

...the power defines an effect...and defines an area...and the effect happens in the area... :|

Posted By ColonelEllios on 10/02/2007 3:59 PM
Are you being sarcastic?

...the power defines an effect...and defines an area...and the effect happens in the area... :|

Not being sarcastic.  Let me steal your quote for a moment...

The VoT "power defines an effect" upon the SoB"...and defines an area" which includes all the models in the SoB unit "...and the effect happens in the area" defined by the SoB unit.

Okay I'm being a bit funny here, but it does make my point.

What? That's not what I was saying at all. I was responding to your "flamer = table" comment.

There is no area of effect for VoT described in the RAW...

Not so, and I'll demonstrate in a moment.



The only thing you have going for you here is the SoB player is making the roll. If spotting distance was something the Eldar player rolled, would this be an issue? I think not.

SoF has two elements: Unit must be targeted and/or be within the Area of Effect (AoE): Note: I?ll ignore the inconsequential references to minor psychic powers.

For the sake of this discussion, I'll call my point of view Restrictive and yours Permissive; boiled down, this is what we're talking about.

Unit A: Sisters of Battle squad (w/ SoF rule)
Unit B: Storm Trooper squad led by a Heroine (only Heroine w/ SoF rule)

Restrictively speaking, units with SoF must be actively targeted by an opposing player; I?m picking on the syntax, but there it is. Targeting the unit occurs in the enemy phases, which phase dependent on the power in question. By this, we (our camp) mean powers that explicitly define how they target the enemy unit. The AoE is also specified within the power through ranges and templates, as follows:

Mind War: The Eldar player chooses one unengaged model within 18 inches?. The targeting is specified with a range and functions like shooting a weapon; the AoE being the specific model targeted. Any model in Unit A benefits from SoF, whereas in Unit B only the Heroine would if selected as a target.

Holocaust: The DH player places the Ordnance template in contact with him; all models underneath suffer a S5 hit?. Targeting is specified by template placement in contact with the psyker; the AoE is the Ordnance template. Unit A can negate the power due to SoF, whereas Unit B would only negate it if the Heroine were implicated under the template.

Psychic Scream (by extension Doom): Any unit with models within 18 inches of the Nid model reduces Ld-based tests?. Targeting is specified that all units with a single model within the AoE are affected; the AoE is restricted to 18 inches. Both Units A and B benefit from SoF but only if within 18 inches.

Now. Permissively speaking.

VoT has two elements: Spotting Distance and Target Priority.

Spotting Distance: You argue that by targeting the Harlies, the SoB unit is targeted, thereby affected by the power and SoF should apply. By this, your meaning of AoE is extended to LOS, because you need that to target the Harlies. Passivity in the wording aside, because you are rolling dice for Spotting Distances does not equate to being in the AoE, just that it is your prerogative to roll your unit?s Spotting Distance; neither are you targeted as defined above (ranges, templates, et al).

If you wish to claim LOS is definitive for AoE, then we have a problem using SoF with all the other psychic powers in the game. This is where your definition gets ?loose.? You can?t subject your interpretation of SoF in the vacuum context against VoT ? how you interpret the power has consequences versus all other psychic powers.

In the case of VoT, there is no targeting mechanism and neither is AoE defined. If LOS equates AoE, then all units benefit from the save versus VoT, out of turn sequence. Unit A rolls and makes the save; fine. Unit B, because it includes the SoB model, may shoot the Harlies and no longer has to roll for spotting distance. You have effectively created a 5+ psyhood out of SoF.

Now extend the AoE = LOS to other powers:

- Eldar players Doom?s a unit of Storm Troopers; SoB unit is in LOS (heck this could be either the Farseer or the Storm Troopers), therefore SoF is enacted due to either being targeted or AoE.

- A unit wishes to charge a Nid with The Horror; any SoB unit in LOS can negate the power. By extension, you could charge the Nid with Storm Troopers, a nearby Seraphim squad rolls SoF and negates the power, free to charge in with no ill effects.

- A unit fires at an Eldar unit with Conceal. They are in LOS of the power, ergo in the AoE; therefore SoF is enacted.

<shrug> Personally I'll lay my money down with restrictive interpretations over what I see as the pandora's box a permissive interpretation allows for outside of the VoT vs SoF box.

;francois

I think everyone in this discussion should just wait for the soon to be released Eldar FAQ. I'm sure it'll sort all this out.

Lol x2