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.

 p5freak wrote:
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 ?

It could be because the modifiers quoted as examples in the open topped rule are falling back and advancing, which fortifications are conspicuous in their inability to do. It also, probably, has to do with firing pistols - a unit in an open topped vehicle can fire pistols only if the vehicle is in combat. A unit in a fortification has no such restriction. This is probably the only reason they re-wrote the rule specifically for the fortifications - to allow the defenders to shoot over the hordes beneath them.

Can someone please quote the full rule for the models shooting out of a fortification? I was working on the assumption that it was identical to the open-topped rule.

Since we are already on the fortification topic, I want to just confirm that the FORTIFICATION itself can benefit from commander auras, correct? I am beginning to collect fortifications, most of which are actually just going to be used as terrain but I really like how they look. Wanting to get the fortress of redemption (completely useless) and even the Castellum Strongpoint.

I think these fortifications need to take a chapter keyword because the transport rule seems to say it can transport X number of <chapter> models, meaning the fortress has to share the same chapter keyword.

GameDadZ wrote:
Since we are already on the fortification topic, I want to just confirm that the FORTIFICATION itself can benefit from commander auras, correct? I am beginning to collect fortifications, most of which are actually just going to be used as terrain but I really like how they look. Wanting to get the fortress of redemption (completely useless) and even the Castellum Strongpoint.

I think these fortifications need to take a chapter keyword because the transport rule seems to say it can transport X number of <chapter> models, meaning the fortress has to share the same chapter keyword.

It depends on the keywords. A Bastion wouldn't benefit from a Space Marine Captain's aura because the Bastion does not have <CHAPTER>.

I don't imagine there are many if any auras that would affect Fortifications for this reason.

Yeah I can’t find the original source for rules regarding the castellum but here is what BattleScribe describes do its transport ability:

This model can transport any number of <CHAPTER> INFANTRY CHARACTERS and one other <CHAPTER> INFANTRY unit, up to a maximum of 30 models (each TERMINATOR and JUMP PACK model takes up the space of two other models, and each CENTURION takes up the space of three other models).

This seems to indicate that there is a need to assign a chapter keyword or it would be impossible to put any units inside. I think GW just hates fortifications.

The keywords are as follows on BattleScribe: Faction: Adeptus Astartes, Building, Castellum Stronghold, Fortification, Faction: Imperium, Transport, Vehicle

Assuming Adeptus Astartes is a keyword it should mean that generic chapters should actually be able to give it auras.

A castellum cannot benefit from a captains re-roll aura. ADEPTUS ASTARTES is not <CHAPTER>.

Fire Points (10)
10 models embarked in this model can shoot in their Shooting phase, measuring and drawing line of sight from any point on this model. They can do this even if enemy models are within 1" of this model.

Open-topped
Models embarked on this model can attack in their Shooting phase. Measure the range and draw line of sight from any point on the model. When they do so, any restrictions or modifiers that apply to this model also apply to its passenger; for example, the passengers cannot shoot if this model has Fallen Back in the same turn, cannot shoot (except with Pistols) if this model is within 1" of an enemy unit, and so on.

Two similiar rules, but worded differently. One rule clearly says that restrictions and modifiers that apply to this model also apply to its passenger. The other rule doesnt say that. Therefore both rules cant be played the same way. Units embarked on a fortification are not affected by restrictions or modifiers.

 p5freak wrote:
Units embarked on a fortification are not affected by restrictions or modifiers.

*Modifiers that apply to the Fortification that is. They are affected by other modifiers.

@p5freak

That’s the question. Can you give it a chapter keyword? The transport rule seems to indicate you MUST since it will need to be dedicated to a certain chapter, otherwise all marines can just enter.

This would otherwise be a bug because if there is no chapter then nothing can enter...

Stux wrote:

 p5freak wrote:
Units embarked on a fortification are not affected by restrictions or modifiers.

*Modifiers that apply to the Fortification that is. They are affected by other modifiers.

No, they arent. The default transports rule apply, if not overruled by a special rule.

GameDadZ wrote:@p5freak

That’s the question. Can you give it a chapter keyword? The transport rule seems to indicate you MUST since it will need to be dedicated to a certain chapter, otherwise all marines can just enter.

This would otherwise be a bug because if there is no chapter then nothing can enter...

You cant give it a chapter keyword because it doesnt have <CHAPTER>. It isnt dedicated to a certain chapter. Any <CHAPTER> units can embark on it, because the transport rule of the castellum says so.

 p5freak wrote:
A castellum cannot benefit from a captains re-roll aura. ADEPTUS ASTARTES is not <CHAPTER>.

Fire Points (10)
10 models embarked in this model can shoot in their Shooting phase, measuring and drawing line of sight from any point on this model. They can do this even if enemy models are within 1" of this model.

Open-topped
Models embarked on this model can attack in their Shooting phase. Measure the range and draw line of sight from any point on the model. When they do so, any restrictions or modifiers that apply to this model also apply to its passenger; for example, the passengers cannot shoot if this model has Fallen Back in the same turn, cannot shoot (except with Pistols) if this model is within 1" of an enemy unit, and so on.

Two similiar rules, but worded differently. One rule clearly says that restrictions and modifiers that apply to this model also apply to its passenger. The other rule doesnt say that. Therefore both rules cant be played the same way. Units embarked on a fortification are not affected by restrictions or modifiers.

That... that isn’t the proof you think. Are you honestly trying to use the “it doesn’t say I can’t” defence here? It’s the same logic, sure smells like it.

If it doesn’t say modifiers to a Shooting attack don’t apply then the core rules say they do. The core Transport rules also say auras don’t affect models in a Transport. So we’re back to your interpretation being incorrect because you’ve misread.

You keep trying to twist this to make it fit but your ‘proof’ is actually not what you think.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

GameDadZ wrote:
@p5freak

That’s the question. Can you give it a chapter keyword? The transport rule seems to indicate you MUST since it will need to be dedicated to a certain chapter, otherwise all marines can just enter.

This would otherwise be a bug because if there is no chapter then nothing can enter...

If a unit has a mutable Keyword you must choose what it stands for before the game begins, Codexes tell us this. You can’t leave it as the <KEYWORD> version and claim anyone with that on their Datasheet can embark. That’s not how that type of Keyword works.

 p5freak wrote:

Stux wrote:

 p5freak wrote:
Units embarked on a fortification are not affected by restrictions or modifiers.

*Modifiers that apply to the Fortification that is. They are affected by other modifiers.

No, they arent. The default transports rule apply, if not overruled by a special rule.

I've demonstrated here why by RAW any shooting rules including those that cause modifiers must apply: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/30/776891.page#10481729

If you want to house rule it and ignore modifiers then fine, but please stop claiming it's RAW. It's simply misleading.

 Stux wrote:

 p5freak wrote:

Stux wrote:

 p5freak wrote:
Units embarked on a fortification are not affected by restrictions or modifiers.

*Modifiers that apply to the Fortification that is. They are affected by other modifiers.

No, they arent. The default transports rule apply, if not overruled by a special rule.

I've demonstrated here why by RAW any shooting rules including those that cause modifiers must apply: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/30/776891.page#10481729

If you want to house rule it and ignore modifiers then fine, but please stop claiming it's RAW. It's simply misleading.

Hear, hear.

 Stux wrote:

I've demonstrated here why by RAW any shooting rules including those that cause modifiers must apply: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/30/776891.page#10481729

If you want to house rule it and ignore modifiers then fine, but please stop claiming it's RAW. It's simply misleading.

By your logic a stratagem would work because its a more specific rule that would override the general rule that embarked unit cannot be affected in any way. Lets say i have necron destroyers embarked in an imperial bastion. The fire points rule gives me permission to shoot, and the extermination protocols stratagem allows me to re-roll all failed hit and wound rolls. It doesnt say i have to select a unit, which wouldnt be possible, because the unit isnt on the battlefield.

 p5freak wrote:


By your logic a stratagem would work because its a more specific rule that would override the general rule that embarked unit cannot be affected in any way. Lets say i have necron destroyers embarked in an imperial bastion. The fire points rule gives me permission to shoot, and the extermination protocols stratagem allows me to re-roll all failed hit and wound rolls. It doesnt say i have to select a unit, which wouldnt be possible, because the unit isnt on the battlefield.

Spoiler:

I believe that there is an FAQ or something stating that stratagems cannot be used on embarked units. However, if the only reason stratagems cannot apply to embarked units is because they usually state "select a unit on the battlefield", then yes, that stratagem can be used.

"use this stratagem in your shooting phase when shooting with a unit of destroyers, reroll failed rolls to hit and wound with this unit for this phase"

Is it your shooting phase? Yes.
Are you shooting with a unit of destroyers? Yes.

You have all the permission, in a permissive ruleset, to use the stratagem.


As for your argument about the different embarkation rules, you're stating that because the rule doesn't state that the modifiers of the fortification don't pass to the unit, that the unit cannot be affected by any modifiers?

I have already proven (using your own logic) that, as it is not a "normal" situation, the "normally cannot be affected in any way" doesn't apply. Now you're stating that it is the difference between "open Topped" and "fire points" which denies the unit in a bastion from using it's own rules. You've lost yourself in your own argument.

Rules have to be applied in their entirety. The rule is "An embarked unit cannot normally shoot or be affected in any way". If the unit is shooting, this rule doesn't apply. at all. If it did, the unit couldn't shoot.


Please can you explain to me, better, how you are drawing the conclusion that because the rules don't state that the embarked unit is affected by modifiers of the fortification (such as falling back and firing pistols in 1" range) that a unit who's plasmagun rolls a 1 doesn't die? Clearly they omitted this because they are considering the modifications to be advancing, falling back and being within 1" of the enemy. They have already overruled one, and the other 2 can never apply to a fortification. I honestly don't think that GW are expecting us to apply -1 to hit to the units inside if the transport shoots at a flier, or reduce them to BS6+ if the transport shoots an assassin. But that is a RAI argument, which obviously has no place in this hair-splitting contest!

 some bloke wrote:

I believe that there is an FAQ or something stating that stratagems cannot be used on embarked units. However, if the only reason stratagems cannot apply to embarked units is because they usually state "select a unit on the battlefield", then yes, that stratagem can be used.

There is a FAQ entry about embarked units and stratagems. But it doesnt apply here, because its about stratagems that select units at the start of the turn.

Q: If a Stratagem instructs you to select a unit from your army
at the start of the turn, can I choose one that is not yet on
the battlefield (because, for example, it is currently embarked
in a Transport or it was set up in a teleportarium chamber
during deployment)?
A: No, unless the Stratagem specifically says otherwise

 some bloke wrote:

As for your argument about the different embarkation rules, you're stating that because the rule doesn't state that the modifiers of the fortification don't pass to the unit, that the unit cannot be affected by any modifiers?

Yes, because thats what the general transport rule says.

 some bloke wrote:

I have already proven (using your own logic) that, as it is not a "normal" situation, the "normally cannot be affected in any way" doesn't apply.

Its normal when a unit shoots in the shooting phase. It wouldnt be normal when a units shoots in any other phase.

 some bloke wrote:

Now you're stating that it is the difference between "open Topped" and "fire points" which denies the unit in a bastion from using it's own rules. You've lost yourself in your own argument.

No, i havent.

 some bloke wrote:

Rules have to be applied in their entirety. The rule is "An embarked unit cannot normally shoot or be affected in any way". If the unit is shooting, this rule doesn't apply. at all. If it did, the unit couldn't shoot.

Agreed. Rules have to be applied in their entirety. The fire points rule removes the cannot normally shoot restriction, but not the be affected in any way. The open topped rule removes the not be affected in any way. You cannot ignore that fire points is different from the open topped rule and treat both the same.

 some bloke wrote:

Please can you explain to me, better, how you are drawing the conclusion that because the rules don't state that the embarked unit is affected by modifiers of the fortification (such as falling back and firing pistols in 1" range) that a unit who's plasmagun rolls a 1 doesn't die? Clearly they omitted this because they are considering the modifications to be advancing, falling back and being within 1" of the enemy. They have already overruled one, and the other 2 can never apply to a fortification. I honestly don't think that GW are expecting us to apply -1 to hit to the units inside if the transport shoots at a flier, or reduce them to BS6+ if the transport shoots an assassin. But that is a RAI argument, which obviously has no place in this hair-splitting contest!

 p5freak wrote:

 Stux wrote:

I've demonstrated here why by RAW any shooting rules including those that cause modifiers must apply: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/30/776891.page#10481729

If you want to house rule it and ignore modifiers then fine, but please stop claiming it's RAW. It's simply misleading.

By your logic a stratagem would work because its a more specific rule that would override the general rule that embarked unit cannot be affected in any way. Lets say i have necron destroyers embarked in an imperial bastion. The fire points rule gives me permission to shoot, and the extermination protocols stratagem allows me to re-roll all failed hit and wound rolls. It doesnt say i have to select a unit, which wouldnt be possible, because the unit isnt on the battlefield.

Spoiler:

Agreed, I believe that would work. As you say, it will depend on the wording of the stratagem.

 p5freak wrote:

 some bloke wrote:

I have already proven (using your own logic) that, as it is not a "normal" situation, the "normally cannot be affected in any way" doesn't apply.

Its normal when a unit shoots in the shooting phase. It wouldnt be normal when a units shoots in any other phase.

It's not normal for an embarked unit to be able to shoot, even in the shooting phase.. The fact that you have a special rule that lets them shoot means it's not normal, otherwise you wouldn't need a special rule to allow it. So, you are not in a normal situation, and restrictions that function on "normally" do not apply.

I am squarely on the side of modifiers applying to the shooting attack. The act of shooting overrides the 'normal' condition of the models not being effect by things, as clearly demonstrated earlier in this (and previous) threads on the matter.

However, even if you believed they could not be effected by the modifier, how would you account for the fact that most modifiers don't target the shooting model in the first place? Rules like Alaitoc, Hard to Hit, Lightning Fast Reactions... these apply to the opponent and to the hit roll. They do not target or effect the shooting unit itself, they effect the shooting roll. Seems like a clear difference to me.

Lightning fast reactions - subtract 1 from all hit rolls made against that unit for the rest of the phase.

Hard to Hit - your opponent must subtract 1 from hit rolls for attacks that target this model in the shooting phase.

Neither specifies the model in the transport as a target. The model is simply making a shooting attack, and that shooting attack is required to be modified by the above rules.

Although I don't expect this to resolve the issue, lol. It seems like pretty much everyone is on the same page here, and there will be no convincing some people. If you ignore the 'normal' condition of being unable to be effected by rules/abilities of course modifiers won't apply, but that condition is there for a reason.

@p5freak

I only have battlescribe and not the original rule section for Castellan, but I do not see anywhere where it says any marines can enter without giving it a keyword. It is specifically listed differently than other fortifications on battlescribe which could be wrong.

Most other fortifications simply say that it can transport infantry units with no <CHAPTER> Keyword requirements.

I think you may be indicating that <CHAPTER> means all chapters of Astartes can enter?

Well, lets ignore that the castellum doesnt work at all. It suffers from the same problem as any fortification, its a model of your army, and models cant be placed upon models. All fortification rules need to be overhauled, because they are really bad. You are right that you have to replace <CHAPTER> with the chapter you are playing, as usual with SM. I guess they have given it ADEPTUS ASTARTES so it cant benefit from aura abilities.

 p5freak wrote:

 some bloke wrote:

I believe that there is an FAQ or something stating that stratagems cannot be used on embarked units. However, if the only reason stratagems cannot apply to embarked units is because they usually state "select a unit on the battlefield", then yes, that stratagem can be used.

There is a FAQ entry about embarked units and stratagems. But it doesnt apply here, because its about stratagems that select units at the start of the turn.

agreed.

 p5freak wrote:

 some bloke wrote:

As for your argument about the different embarkation rules, you're stating that because the rule doesn't state that the modifiers of the fortification don't pass to the unit, that the unit cannot be affected by any modifiers?

Yes, because thats what the general transport rule says.

I think you're getting it a bit wrong here. or misunderstanding my question!

The OT rules state that the modifiers which apply to the transport also apply to the embarked unit. not the modifiers which could apply to the transport.

EG: If the transport falls back, the unit inside cannot shoot, because the transport cannot shoot.

If the transport doesn't shoot at a flier, then this ruling would mean that the guys inside can shoot one without -1 to hit as, if you only apply modifiers which the transport is also affected by. What actually happens is the unit inside is affected by the modifier independently of the transport, as they are shooting at the flier, the "normally" rule is waived for the duration of the abnormal shooting attack, and the unit is affected by modifiers which apply when they shoot, because they are shooting.
Because of the fact that the unit is affected independently of the transport, the open-topped rule isn't used. It is only used to apply modifiers which the transport is affected by onto the guys inside.

This does have some quirks, for example, if a unit of orks is in a chinork (flying transport) and you put the stratagem (long uncontrolled bursts, I think it is) which gives +1 to hit fliers, that chinork has the modifier and it is passed to the units inside - until an FAQ gets rid of it!

 p5freak wrote:

 some bloke wrote:

I have already proven (using your own logic) that, as it is not a "normal" situation, the "normally cannot be affected in any way" doesn't apply.

Its normal when a unit shoots in the shooting phase. It wouldnt be normal when a units shoots in any other phase.

As others have said, shooting out of a transport isn't normal. that's why it has to have rules to allow it in certain situations.

 p5freak wrote:

 some bloke wrote:

Rules have to be applied in their entirety. The rule is "An embarked unit cannot normally shoot or be affected in any way". If the unit is shooting, this rule doesn't apply. at all. If it did, the unit couldn't shoot.

Agreed. Rules have to be applied in their entirety. The fire points rule removes the cannot normally shoot restriction, but not the be affected in any way. The open topped rule removes the not be affected in any way. You cannot ignore that fire points is different from the open topped rule and treat both the same.

The open topped rule doesn't remove the "be affected in any way", it simply transfers modifiers from the transport to the unit inside. nothing more, nothing less. the fact that the unit is shooting is what removes the "or be affected in any way" part of the rule which is being waived to allow them to shoot at all.

 p5freak wrote:
[

 some bloke wrote:

Please can you explain to me, better, how you are drawing the conclusion that because the rules don't state that the embarked unit is affected by modifiers of the fortification (such as falling back and firing pistols in 1" range) that a unit who's plasmagun rolls a 1 doesn't die? Clearly they omitted this because they are considering the modifications to be advancing, falling back and being within 1" of the enemy. They have already overruled one, and the other 2 can never apply to a fortification. I honestly don't think that GW are expecting us to apply -1 to hit to the units inside if the transport shoots at a flier, or reduce them to BS6+ if the transport shoots an assassin. But that is a RAI argument, which obviously has no place in this hair-splitting contest!

Open topped rule says : "...for example, the passengers cannot shoot if this model has Fallen Back in the same turn, cannot shoot (except with Pistols) if this model is within 1" of an enemy unit, and so on." Its not only about falling back and shooting pistols within 1" of enemy models.
Yes, GW is expecting us to apply -1 to hit for an embarked unit inside an open topped transport when shooting a supersonic flyer, because thats what the rule says.

The 'Realm of Battle Space Marine Castellum Stronghold' is a Forge World model whose rules apparently appear in the Imperial Armor index. I wouldn't recommend using those rules as evidence of anything.