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.

@GWAR

I'm surprised (you being RAW King to most people and all) that you didn't go with the RAW and 2 Tyrants getting to stack the +1 to reserves. RAW is clear that they do. Yet the reasoning you went with was "because its the same wording as the IG dex". Which we know was FAQ'd by GW to not stack.

Is this because you think this is the way GW will swing, and you don't want your FAQ to have another disagreement? Be a Rebel.

The only difference with the Autarch ability is that you get to choose to get the +1. Which of course does stack.

Broken Loose wrote:
Crushing Claws are basically powerfists for the purposes of Old One Eye's initiative, but unoptional. His Initiative is ACTUALLY 3, but he strikes at 1. When you piece apart a hive tyrant and take 4 Acid Blood checks, you'll thank me for pointing this out.

Ok, I didn't think about that.

Broken Loose wrote:
"They" in this sentence refers to the subject of the sentence. "If any models cannot be placed, ... they are destroyed."

Yeah, this is the way I read it too, was just wanting to see how others were reading it, because I still see alot of people discounting them, saying that the whole unit is destoryed if there is an enemy model in the terrain.

Thanks!

Broken Loose wrote:
There isn't any rule like it in existence. Half of this is a judgment call. Keep in mind that it's NOT a psychic power, it's a special rule that affects ALL enemy units (that have a Ld value) within 6" regardless of cover or location. RAI states that you can fire out of the transport, so what's preventing your soul from getting sucked out through that window (while a guy huddling in a nearby building with no windows suffers the same fate)? On the contrary, find me a rule that states your unit is completely immune to any effects while embarked on a vehicle.

There is no rule that directly covers this issue, so neither side can cite one to support their position.

Your citation that models in a vehicle can shoot out of it, so therefore must be affected by DoM is a reach, at best, and is comparing apples to oranges.

A player may generate effects that apply to units/models controlled by that player. For example, I may choose a unit of mine to fire out of one of my transports. I can take a psyker within a transport and use a power on the unit within that transport. I can choose to disembark that unit.

Now, as a player, I can't think of much that I can do to directly affect a unit that my opponent controls that is inside one of his transports. I cannot shoot at that unit. I cannot cast Doom on that unit. I cannot use Lash of Submission or Pavane on that unit. I cannot launch an assault on that unit.

This is why your comparison breaks down; just because I can choose to take an action with a unit I control that is inside a transport does not mean that you can choose to directly affect one of my units that is inside a transport. There is little to nothing in the rules to support this.

Now, the closest comparison are such passive things as Runic Weapons, Shadow in the Warp, and other passive abilities that affect enemy units within range. If such abilities are determined to affect enemy units while those enemy units are embarked on a transport, that this would (to me) be support for DoM to affect embarked units as well.

edit: clarity's sake.

Well, runic weapons and hoods work from within vehicles.

Another considerable piece of evidence is that, in the official Orks FAQ, Grotsnik may board a vehicle if doing so will result in him getting closer to an enemy (Grotsnik and his unit suffer from a special version of Rage). In addition, said vehicle also must end each turn closer to the nearest enemy.

If Grotsnik weren't considered to be on the board while embarked in a vehicle, this would be an illegal move (because off the table is further away from the nearest enemy than on the table).

In addition, there's also the Sanctuary rule which works while embarked on a vehicle, or the Shrouding rule which affects units embarked on vehicles, both of which can be found in your local Daemonhunters codex.


edit: Actually, just forget everything I said and only consider The Shrouding because it's the closest thing we have to Spirit Leech (a passive special rule that affects all enemy units within its radius, regardless of position of said units). If you're embarked on a vehicle, do you ignore The Shrouding to fire at Grey Knights?

Comments:

TYR.35.01 - I see nothing that would override BRB pg. 49.

TYR.43.01 - While not an errata, the Eldar FAQ resolves a Tempest Launcher's attacks as a multiple barrage. This seems the same to me.

Homer

Homer S wrote:TYR.35.01 - I see nothing that would override BRB pg. 49.

Urgh.

TYR.43.01 - While not an errata, the Eldar FAQ resolves a Tempest Launcher's attacks as a multiple barrage. This seems the same to me.

As you said, it's not Errata.

Budzerker wrote:I'm surprised (you being RAW King to most people and all) that you didn't go with the RAW and 2 Tyrants getting to stack the +1 to reserves. RAW is clear that they do. Yet the reasoning you went with was "because its the same wording as the IG dex". Which we know was FAQ'd by GW to not stack.

Actually, from the very start I had maintained they do not stack RAW, well before the GW FAQ came out. I cba looking for the thread. So yeah, I am going with RaW.

Broken Loose wrote:Well, runic weapons and hoods work from within vehicles.

Another considerable piece of evidence is that, in the official Orks FAQ, Grotsnik may board a vehicle if doing so will result in him getting closer to an enemy (Grotsnik and his unit suffer from a special version of Rage). In addition, said vehicle also must end each turn closer to the nearest enemy.

If Grotsnik weren't considered to be on the board while embarked in a vehicle, this would be an illegal move (because off the table is further away from the nearest enemy than on the table).

In addition, there's also the Sanctuary rule which works while embarked on a vehicle, or the Shrouding rule which affects units embarked on vehicles, both of which can be found in your local Daemonhunters codex.


edit: Actually, just forget everything I said and only consider The Shrouding because it's the closest thing we have to Spirit Leech (a passive special rule that affects all enemy units within its radius, regardless of position of said units). If you're embarked on a vehicle, do you ignore The Shrouding to fire at Grey Knights?

Yes, runic weapons work FROM within vehicles. But, do they work on enemy psykers who are within a vehicle? I think this is something that we've always just assumed is a "yes," even though there is nothing that specifically states that it is so.

Also, Shrouding, while close, isn't the same. Shrouding is close to what I'm looking for, it isn't quite the same. Shrouding does not cause any direct affect on any enemy unit; if I choose to not shoot at a Shrouded unit, Shrouding has no effect on my army at all. DoM has an effect on my units whether I take an action or not.

Gwar! wrote:

Homer S wrote:TYR.35.01 - I see nothing that would override BRB pg. 49.

Urgh.

Does that mean that I am right or wrong?

Homer

Homer S wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

Homer S wrote:TYR.35.01 - I see nothing that would override BRB pg. 49.

Urgh.

Does that mean that I am right or wrong?

Homer

It means "I already gave an explanation as to the multiple different viewpoints this question possess in the red coloured blurb"

In addition - mycetic spores taken with troops are NOT scoring, as iut states in their rules that they are never scoring....

nosferatu1001 wrote:In addition - mycetic spores taken with troops are NOT scoring, as iut states in their rules that they are never scoring....

And this is why I need to sleep more! Also Ninjad, I was just about to say this >.<

Of course you were G!

Gwar! wrote:

Homer S wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

Homer S wrote:TYR.35.01 - I see nothing that would override BRB pg. 49.

Urgh.

Does that mean that I am right or wrong?

Homer

It means "I already gave an explanation as to the multiple different viewpoints this question possess in the red coloured blurb"

Interesting. You watch, they will address all of this stuff in the FAQ portion of the Tyranids FAQ in late-March. That will leave us all wondering how to play it...

Homer

Saldiven wrote:Also, Shrouding, while close, isn't the same. Shrouding is close to what I'm looking for, it isn't quite the same. Shrouding does not cause any direct affect on any enemy unit; if I choose to not shoot at a Shrouded unit, Shrouding has no effect on my army at all. DoM has an effect on my units whether I take an action or not.

By the same logic, if you stay 6" away from the Doom, Spirit Leech has no effect on your army whatsoever.

Gwar! wrote:Actually, from the very start I had maintained they do not stack RAW, well before the GW FAQ came out. I cba looking for the thread. So yeah, I am going with RaW.

I'd sure like to see a RAW explanation as to why 2 Tyrants (separate individuals) each separately granting a +1 to reserves doesn't amount to a +2. Especially since the only wording in the rule is "While the Tyrant is alive you get +1 to reserve rolls". With no further wording.

Broken Loose wrote:

Saldiven wrote:Also, Shrouding, while close, isn't the same. Shrouding is close to what I'm looking for, it isn't quite the same. Shrouding does not cause any direct affect on any enemy unit; if I choose to not shoot at a Shrouded unit, Shrouding has no effect on my army at all. DoM has an effect on my units whether I take an action or not.

By the same logic, if you stay 6" away from the Doom, Spirit Leech has no effect on your army whatsoever.

You still haven't addressed the principal point that there are rules in place that prevent enemy effects from affecting models in your transports and none that specify that the DoM does affect models in an opponent's transports.

In general (if only by precedent), one player's units may not directly affect models within an opponent's transport.

This is easily a gray enough area that it is silly to simply assume that the DoM affects embarked models.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Budzerker wrote:

Gwar! wrote:Actually, from the very start I had maintained they do not stack RAW, well before the GW FAQ came out. I cba looking for the thread. So yeah, I am going with RaW.

I'd sure like to see a RAW explanation as to why 2 Tyrants (separate individuals) each separately granting a +1 to reserves doesn't amount to a +2. Especially since the only wording in the rule is "While the Tyrant is alive you get +1 to reserve rolls". With no further wording.

I would assume his argument would run along the lines of the following...

The rule does not say, "For each Tyrant that is alive, you get +1 to reserve rolls."

As written, if two Tyrants are alive, merely getting a single +1 satisfies the statement of the rule:

Tyrant one is alive, and I got +1 to my reserve rolls, so the rule is satsifed.

Tyrant two is alive, and I got +1 to my reserve rolls, so that rule is satisfied, as well.

Saldiven wrote:

Broken Loose wrote:

Saldiven wrote:Also, Shrouding, while close, isn't the same. Shrouding is close to what I'm looking for, it isn't quite the same. Shrouding does not cause any direct affect on any enemy unit; if I choose to not shoot at a Shrouded unit, Shrouding has no effect on my army at all. DoM has an effect on my units whether I take an action or not.

By the same logic, if you stay 6" away from the Doom, Spirit Leech has no effect on your army whatsoever.

You still haven't addressed the principal point that there are rules in place that prevent enemy effects from affecting models in your transports and none that specify that the DoM does affect models in an opponent's transports.

In general (if only by precedent), one player's units may not directly affect models within an opponent's transport.

This is easily a gray enough area that it is silly to simply assume that the DoM affects embarked models.

And you haven't bothered to mention which rules those are. We can't assume anything.

But the burden is on those claiming that DoM does affect embarked units; theirs is the burden of proof to show that this is possible.

The rules for shooting attacks state specifically that you can't target embarked units. Rules for things like Doom, Pavane, Lash, etc. cannot be used on embarked units. You can't assault embarked units.

By the way, I've mentioned all of the above in previous posts.

All I'm looking for is something that states that DoM does affect embarked units, as this would be a departure from precedence for how one player may affect their opponent's units when those units are embarked on a vehicle.

The only assumption I'm making is that a rule should make clear if it varies from established rules. There are many examples of rules throughout 40K that differ from the normal rules of the game and explain how they differ in their own text. Should not this one do the same?

Gwar!, I'll appeal to your opinion. While I don't always agree with some of your interpretations, I can usually follow and appreciate your reasoning. Do you think I am being unreasonable in wanting more clarity before allowing DoM to affect embarked units? I'm not asking for you to make a "ruling," but merely your opinion on my position.

Saldiven wrote:
I would assume his argument would run along the lines of the following...

The rule does not say, "For each Tyrant that is alive, you get +1 to reserve rolls."

As written, if two Tyrants are alive, merely getting a single +1 satisfies the statement of the rule:

Tyrant one is alive, and I got +1 to my reserve rolls, so the rule is satsifed.

Tyrant two is alive, and I got +1 to my reserve rolls, so that rule is satisfied, as well.

There is nothing to "satisfy". They both have the same rule, coming from different sources. The rule doesn't need to explicitly state that the effects are cumulative. The Autarch power sure doesn't. And we play that one as cumulative. Each model is giving a +1. If a dude named John gives you a cupcake, and then another dude named John gives you a cupcake, then you now have +2 cupcakes. Now your satisfied.

I assumed the argument was as such, thanks for pointing it out. Seems to be one of those things that can be "explained" either way. So until there is an FAQ, I'll be following the most logical assumption. That 1+1=2.

What is DoM? If this is about the debate of effecting units in a transport, technichcally there are in the transport so if the transport is within 6" and the rules say any units within 6" is effected, those inside the transport would be affected as well.

Since they can fire from the transport and effect things outside the transport, then anything outside the transport should be able to effect any units inside the transport. Otherwise if they can't be effected inside the transport because the troops are not within 6" then they can't deembark the transport since they are not within the transport then.

DoM is a creature with an area of effect special rule called Spirit Leech. It affects all units within 6" of the DoM. It does not require LoS, nor is it targeted like a shooting attack. As the rules allow you to measure to embarked models, Spirit Leech indeed does let you attack units inside transports. Broken Loose is correct.

Budzerker wrote:

Saldiven wrote:
I would assume his argument would run along the lines of the following...

The rule does not say, "For each Tyrant that is alive, you get +1 to reserve rolls."

As written, if two Tyrants are alive, merely getting a single +1 satisfies the statement of the rule:

Tyrant one is alive, and I got +1 to my reserve rolls, so the rule is satsifed.

Tyrant two is alive, and I got +1 to my reserve rolls, so that rule is satisfied, as well.

There is nothing to "satisfy". They both have the same rule, coming from different sources. The rule doesn't need to explicitly state that the effects are cumulative. The Autarch power sure doesn't. And we play that one as cumulative. Each model is giving a +1. If a dude named John gives you a cupcake, and then another dude named John gives you a cupcake, then you now have +2 cupcakes. Now your satisfied.

I assumed the argument was as such, thanks for pointing it out. Seems to be one of those things that can be "explained" either way. So until there is an FAQ, I'll be following the most logical assumption. That 1+1=2.

Actually, Saldiven is correct. it is the same argument that I used for the IG codex and it is what the rules say.

@Gwar
Do you have a copy of the Codex to confirm RAW for subterranean assault in 51.01?

If Subterranean Assault
- Allow the Mawloc to be placed in impassable terrain
- Allow the model to be placed on top of an enemy model
- or Follow a different deep strike process, IE you are placing a template first instead of a model

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/30/273600.page

I'm not sure how you came to this as a RAW conclusion.
You can't place a model on top of another model unless it has a special rule that permits it.

Gwar! wrote:Actually, Saldiven is correct. it is the same argument that I used for the IG codex and it is what the rules say.

It's what the rules (FAQ) says for the IG codex.

Not for the Eldar codex and not for this codex. So until there is an official FAQ on this matter, the simple logical interpretation for this rule is the correct one. Again, 1+1=2.

Budzerker wrote:It's what the rules (FAQ) says for the IG codex.

Errrm... No? It's what the actual rules themselves say and the FAQ had this question included because some people couldn't figure it out?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

paidinfull wrote:@Gwar
Do you have a copy of the Codex to confirm RAW for subterranean assault in 51.01?

If Subterranean Assault
- Allow the Mawloc to be placed in impassable terrain
- Allow the model to be placed on top of an enemy model
- or Follow a different deep strike process, IE you are placing a template first instead of a model

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/30/273600.page

I'm not sure how you came to this as a RAW conclusion.
You can't place a model on top of another model unless it has a special rule that permits it.

And as has been said many, many times, you are not placing the model on top of another until after the deep strike scatter has been resolved, at which point you roll on the Mishap table.

In regards to an autarch and astropath these units are a clear indication that what applies to one codex does not necessarily apply to another. GW was very clear in regards to these rulings since one can stack while the other cannot.

G

@Gwar

BRB p95 wrote:First place one model from the unit anywhere on the table, in the position you like the unit to arrive, and roll the scatter dice.

The Mawloc is placed on the table first.
I've been asking for a quote... is there a different Deep Strike rule that the Mawloc is following? From what I have read it is only the mishap rule that is effected.

No model may be placed on the table in the first step of the Deep Strike rule so that it is on top of another model unless it has a special rule that prohibits this.
Does the Mawloc have a special rule that allows them to be placed on top of another model, or perhaps in impassable terrain?

paidinfull wrote:@Gwar

BRB p95 wrote:First place one model from the unit anywhere on the table, in the position you like the unit to arrive, and roll the scatter dice.

The Mawloc is placed on the table first.
I've been asking for a quote... is there a different Deep Strike rule that the Mawloc is following? From what I have read it is only the mishap rule that is effected.

No model may be placed on the table in the first step of the Deep Strike rule so that it is on top of another model unless it has a special rule that prohibits this.
Does the Mawloc have a special rule that allows them to be placed on top of another model, or perhaps in impassable terrain?

-Sigh-

You place the model on the table, but it is only a marker. If it were actualy meant to be on the table, you would be forced to take a Dangerous terrain test if you placed it inside difficult terrain, before you scatter.

Also, note how the "Misplaced" result of the Deep Strike Mishap Table has to explicitly forbid you causing another mishap. This means that causing an intentional mishap by Deep Striking on top of other models is permitted.

It's only a marker is it?
Your misplaced quote does nothing to support your claim, you might want to re-read it.

If you don't place a model on the table per the Deep Strike rule you are not following RAW. Not sure where you read that the model placed is a "marker", clearly the rule is pretty straight forward.

Place a model where you want the unit to arrive and in what position, ie facing, then roll the scatter...

You wouldn't take a dangerous terrain check as that rule specifically says "models arriving via deep strike treat all difficult as dangerous" The only point at which the models are considered to have "arrived " for that rule to take place is after the scatter dice has been rolled.

Ok, this isn't going anywhere. I kindly ask you stop trying to derail my thread.