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.

Models can normally do everything the rules allow them to do. There is no need to define everything. A D6 isnt defined as a six sided dice with numbers 1 to 6 on every side, everyone knows what a D6 is.

 p5freak wrote:
Models can normally do everything the rules allow them to do. There is no need to define everything. A D6 isnt defined as a six sided dice with numbers 1 to 6 on every side, everyone knows what a D6 is.

So is being affected by strategems something a model can normally do? Did we reach a conclusion to the strategem case wich was asked initially?

Gitdakka wrote:

So is being affected by strategems something a model can normally do? Did we reach a conclusion to the strategem case wich was asked initially?

Normally you can use a stratagem to affect a model. But you cant while its embarked.

 Grotsnik1 wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
No. The Repressor Firing Ports rules allows units to fire during the Shooting Phase and Acts of Faith happen at the beginning of the turn. By Transport rules, they are therefore not eligible to be picked by Acts of Faith.

But it says that they can shoot "as if it was the shooting phase"... dont know really.
You can choose them for your AoF no doubt, the question is wheter its a waste as you cant shoot, or if you would be able to

Actually there is doubt for choosing them for your AoF. GW doesn't let embarked units use psychic powers, so I wouldn't see them allowing an act of faith either.

p5freak wrote:Models can normally do everything the rules allow them to do. There is no need to define everything. A D6 isnt defined as a six sided dice with numbers 1 to 6 on every side, everyone knows what a D6 is.

Except you know... it is defined in the first page of battle primer.
And there absolutely is a need of defining game terms, in this chase normal would be a game term, (as wholly within for example) given that normal is not defined then that sentense can not be interpreted and used as a rule. Is the same as saying that entirely within, wholly within and completely within are all the same because in normal language they are synonyms, and no, only wholly within is a game term and is treated as such. You want yo use "normally" as "unless stated otherwise" which is simply wrong

Gitdakka wrote:

 p5freak wrote:
Models can normally do everything the rules allow them to do. There is no need to define everything. A D6 isnt defined as a six sided dice with numbers 1 to 6 on every side, everyone knows what a D6 is.

So is being affected by strategems something a model can normally do? Did we reach a conclusion to the strategem case wich was asked initially?

The conclusion is that people who understand the rule set got tired of arguing about a sentense that means nothing. Play it as you like and be happy.

doctortom wrote:

 Grotsnik1 wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
No. The Repressor Firing Ports rules allows units to fire during the Shooting Phase and Acts of Faith happen at the beginning of the turn. By Transport rules, they are therefore not eligible to be picked by Acts of Faith.

But it says that they can shoot "as if it was the shooting phase"... dont know really.
You can choose them for your AoF no doubt, the question is wheter its a waste as you cant shoot, or if you would be able to

Actually there is doubt for choosing them for your AoF. GW doesn't let embarked units use psychic powers, so I wouldn't see them allowing an act of faith either.

But psychers not being able to do so are stated somewhere dont know if in the BRB or the FAQs, as long as they dont do the same with AoF RAW allows you to use it because all requirements are ment

 Grotsnik1 wrote:


Except you know... it is defined in the first page of battle primer.

If you refer to this :

Warhammer 40,000 uses
six-sided dice, sometimes
abbreviated to D6.

Yes, it does say six sided dice, but it doesnt say numbered 1 to 6.

 Grotsnik1 wrote:

And there absolutely is a need of defining game terms, in this chase normal would be a game term, (as wholly within for example) given that normal is not defined then that sentense can not be interpreted and used as a rule. Is the same as saying that entirely within, wholly within and completely within are all the same because in normal language they are synonyms, and no, only wholly within is a game term and is treated as such. You want yo use "normally" as "unless stated otherwise" which is simply wrong

Some game terms need to be defined, others not, because usually everyone knows what is meant just by looking at the rules. There are numbers 2-6 everywhere, so, logically, a 6 sided dice has to have the numbers 1-6 on it.

Gitdakka wrote:
The conclusion is that people who understand the rule set got tired of arguing about a sentense that means nothing. Play it as you like and be happy.

Same to you. If you want to make house rules about your units embarked on transports being able to do everything they can do as if they werent embarked, thats up to you and your opponent. But this is YMDC, you cant ignore sentences in the rules that you dont like, and use only sentences that you like.

 p5freak wrote:

 some bloke wrote:

are you, in short, stating that a unit may only shoot with the basic shooting rules, unaffected by any other rules, even those on the weapon and firing unit?

Thats what the transport/open topped rule says.

 some bloke wrote:

what repercussions does this have when targeting a unit which has rules which would in turn affect your attack, such as -1 to hit, +1 toughness?

If its a modifier or restriction that applies to the transport it would also apply to the embarked unit, thats what the open topped rule says.

But a modifier will only apply to the transport if it shoots the unit. the modifier will likely state that "any shots fired at this model are at -1 to hit", so if the transport doesn't fire shots at it, then it isn't modified, so nothing gets passed on to the passengers.

Would you argue that if a transport shoots a flier, and so suffers -1 to hit, this will be applied to the passengers, no matter what they shoot at?

do you simply put the vehicle in a state of suffering every possible modifier on the board, so that they apply to the transported unit?

in this case, would the whole stratagem to make a chinork +1 to hit transfer to the passengers, no matter what they shoot at, due to the transport having a modifier of +1 to hit?

so you would accept, in game, that a unit tankbustas has infinite bomm squigs and can all throw tankbusta bomms, provided that they are in a trukk?

 Grotsnik1 wrote:
Yeahhhh.. at this point this has reached the ridiculous level.
Rules for transport are perfectly clear, people trying to apply a description that says "normally models can not be affected" are the ones who are not uderstanding (or understand and are just trolling). Nowhere it is stated what "normal" stands for, and so that is not a rule, that is a description.
You are shooting, and so you are afected by everything that afects shooting with the exception of auras and similar things that need range, in which chase you have to see whether they are modifiers/restrictions or not and so apply them or not respectively.
Not worth wasting more time here, everything has been explained already.

Tenets of this forum asks you to respect everyone and their comments despite the differences in opinions. Calling people "trolls" and they're "trolling" for basically telling you EXACTLY what the RAW states is not an accepted behavior.

Having said, what you are arguing for is the RAI/HIWPI interpretation of the given rule.

RAW for transports and related interactions, GW being GW, are extremely poorly written and has much room for interpretation.

You can argue what you think the rule is supposed to mean/do, but it has no weight on what the RAW states. RAW is RAW. Plain and simple.

Given the amount of alerts this topic generates, I think we're done here.