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.

Why are we going back and forth on this Aura/Within issue? The rules here can't be simpler:



Based on the normal reading of GW rules. The target unit takes 2 MW (unless it is a Nurgle Unit with only takes 1 MW) while all other units within 3" take 1 MW.

Was this GW's intent? I would think not, but it is what they wrote. I personally think this is just a really badly written rule as evidenced by this entire thread. Using two conditions like this is just bad and leads to confusion. It be stated as one of the following:

The target unit takes 2 Mortal Wounds (or 1 Mortal Wound if a Nurgle unit). Additionally, all other units within 3" of the target unit take 1 Mortal Wound unless they are a Nurgle unit.

The target unit takes 1 Mortal Wound. Additionally, all other units within 3" of the target unit take 1 Mortal Wound unless they are a Nurgle unit.

Can we have one back and forth without calling each other out like this? Honestly, this sub forum accounts for 95% of animosity on these forums.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Can we have one back and forth without calling each other out like this? Honestly, this sub forum accounts for 95% of animosity on these forums.

Well, one of the back and forth sides is saying, "This is simple, here's the only relevant rule"

And the other side is saying "Oranges aren't purple therefore the aura disproves you".

There are threads that dissolve into salt and then there's... whatever the """logic""" argument was.

You have two points you can resolve them in any order.

The second point also damages the first unit as it is an aura


Yes it is a psycic power but psychic powers can still be auras which is why the vox Espiritum specifically exempts them.

Even if it wasn't aura it would still have the same effect because gw wording of within includes the model itself.

Theirs no grey here

(Also note their is no requirement for an aura to be stamped with aura)

MEASURING DISTANCES
Distances are measured in inches (") between the closest points of the bases of the models you’re measuring to and from.

WITHIN AND WHOLLY WITHIN
If a rule says it applies ‘within’ a certain distance, it applies at any distance that is not more than the specified distance. For example, within 1" means any distance that is not more than 1" away.

I am not convinced that you can measure 0" distance to the base you are measuring from. I dont think you can measure to and from the base itself. You are measuring from one base to another.

"...it applies at any distance that is not more than the specified distance."

PoorGravitasHandling wrote:
"...it applies at any distance that is not more than the specified distance."

I dont think 0" distance is a distance. A 0" distance is non existant, it must be more than 0" to be a distance. You cant measure to and from the base itself.

I think you're focusing on the wrong elements here Yes, the issue is related to the within/wholly within, but not only to that.
It's the combination of the within/wholly within+"other units meaning". Both conditions need to apply to the initial target to suffer 2 MW.

Does the first apply? Sure. Do the second? Unsure, because "other" here isn't defined in GW language as OR (include the original target) or VOR (esclude the original target).

In the logic of language, OR is the common interpretation (because VOR can be built upon that, so compact definitions are preferrable).
In natural language, the VOR is more common and usually implied (and pretty funnily, it's so in many languages not only English -not sure if in ANY language-)

That's the reason why GW should use a symbolic system for their rules and why "raw" as usually meant in this board don't exist. Raw isn't a concept that can be generally applied to natural language.

 p5freak wrote:

PoorGravitasHandling wrote:
"...it applies at any distance that is not more than the specified distance."

I dont think 0" distance is a distance. A 0" distance is non existant, it must be more than 0" to be a distance. You cant measure to and from the base itself.

So you think 0 is more than 3? I don't think we need to be getting into philosophical debates about the nature of zero to parse a very simple rule.

 p5freak wrote:

PoorGravitasHandling wrote:
"...it applies at any distance that is not more than the specified distance."

I dont think 0" distance is a distance. A 0" distance is non existant, it must be more than 0" to be a distance. You cant measure to and from the base itself.

What you think doesn't matter. 0" is a perfect valid value for a distance as per games rules, physics and geometry. You can easily determine the distance between to points, shapes and objects, even if they are congruent. My master thesis happens to be about that exact topic so I can even provide scientific proof for you being wrong.

We also absolutely know that the distance between a model and itself being measurable because of a vast number of precedence cases.

And last but not least, ockham's razor.

Your in every way incorrect way of interpreting the rules solely serves the purpose of finding a problem where there is none.

 Jidmah wrote:

What you think doesn't matter. 0" is a perfect valid value for a distance as per games rules, physics and geometry. You can easily determine the distance between to points, shapes and objects, even if they are congruent. My master thesis happens to be about that exact topic so I can even provide scientific proof for you being wrong.

Your scientific proof doesnt matter. This is a game, not real science.

Yes but the convention is proof by RAW which may at times include basic science such as measuring and what is within an inch

If you don't accept RAW proof then you have no business being on a rules forum because your not playing by the rules

 p5freak wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

What you think doesn't matter. 0" is a perfect valid value for a distance as per games rules, physics and geometry. You can easily determine the distance between to points, shapes and objects, even if they are congruent. My master thesis happens to be about that exact topic so I can even provide scientific proof for you being wrong.

Your scientific proof doesnt matter. This is a game, not real science.

Is a unit more than 3” away from itself, as a yes or no question.

It is within 3"

It is not more than 3"

 p5freak wrote:

PoorGravitasHandling wrote:
"...it applies at any distance that is not more than the specified distance."

I dont think 0" distance is a distance. A 0" distance is non existant, it must be more than 0" to be a distance. You cant measure to and from the base itself.

Wouldn't this suggest that models who are in base contact cannot fight each other? As they are 0" away from each other, and thus in some sort of weird blindspot according to you.

 MinMax wrote:

 p5freak wrote:

PoorGravitasHandling wrote:
"...it applies at any distance that is not more than the specified distance."

I dont think 0" distance is a distance. A 0" distance is non existant, it must be more than 0" to be a distance. You cant measure to and from the base itself.

Wouldn't this suggest that models who are in base contact cannot fight each other? As they are 0" away from each other, and thus in some sort of weird blindspot according to you.

According to science, which is a real thing in gaming, as i have now learned, you cannot be in base contact. Because science says atoms repel each other.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yE8rkG9Dw4s


Automatically Appended Next Post:

U02dah4 wrote:
Yes but the convention is proof by RAW which may at times include basic science such as measuring and what is within an inch

If you don't accept RAW proof then you have no business being on a rules forum because your not playing by the rules

Then show me RAW permission to measure to and from the base itself. The rules say distances are measured in inches (") between the closest points of the bases of the models you’re measuring to and from. Bases and models are plural, not singular.

 p5freak wrote:

 MinMax wrote:

 p5freak wrote:

PoorGravitasHandling wrote:
"...it applies at any distance that is not more than the specified distance."

I dont think 0" distance is a distance. A 0" distance is non existant, it must be more than 0" to be a distance. You cant measure to and from the base itself.

Wouldn't this suggest that models who are in base contact cannot fight each other? As they are 0" away from each other, and thus in some sort of weird blindspot according to you.

According to science, which is a real thing in gaming, as i have now learned, you cannot be in base contact. Because science says atoms repel each other.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yE8rkG9Dw4s


Automatically Appended Next Post:

U02dah4 wrote:
Yes but the convention is proof by RAW which may at times include basic science such as measuring and what is within an inch

If you don't accept RAW proof then you have no business being on a rules forum because your not playing by the rules

Then show me RAW permission to measure to and from the base itself. The rules say distances are measured in inches (") between the closest points of the bases of the models you’re measuring to and from. Bases and models are plural, not singular.

The rules make it clear several times that distances can be measured where only one model is involved.

Core rules:

Distances are measured in inches (") between the closest points
of the bases of the models you’re measuring to and from.

Nothing in this statement says that the base you are measuring from and the base you are measuring to have to be different bases. In fact, this is confirmed by the movement rules:

The distance a model moves
is measured using the part of the model’s base (or hull) that moves
furthest along its path (including parts that rotate or pivot).

The Rules Term Glossary entry for "Aura" says

...within a set distance of the model it is on (including that model itself)...

This glossary entry makes it clear that a model is within a set distance of itself.

As for using "models" rather than "model" when discussing measuring distances in the core rules. It is common practice to pluralise when making generalisations in the same way that "they" can be used in generalisations and still apply in the singular in a specific example.

Aash wrote:

The rules make it clear several times that distances can be measured where only one model is involved.

Core rules:

Distances are measured in inches (") between the closest points
of the bases of the models you’re measuring to and from.

Nothing in this statement says that the base you are measuring from and the base you are measuring to have to be different bases.

How do you measure a distance of 0" ? You cant, because there is no 0" distance. You cant measure something that doesnt exist.

Aash wrote:

In fact, this is confirmed by the movement rules:

The distance a model moves
is measured using the part of the model’s base (or hull) that moves
furthest along its path (including parts that rotate or pivot).

Only true for movement.

Aash wrote:

The Rules Term Glossary entry for "Aura" says

...within a set distance of the model it is on (including that model itself)...

This glossary entry makes it clear that a model is within a set distance of itself.

How do you measure a distance of 0" ? You cant, because there is no 0" distance. You cant measure something that doesnt exist.

Zero is an integer, and yes it is possible to measure zero, accuracy of the measurement to 1 significant figure is common, it is also not unknown for rounding to occur, measuring is usually taken as accurate to half the smallest division of the measuring instrument. If you want to get into details such as planck distance, subatomic repulsion and attraction etc, then you are arguing in bad faith. This is a wargaming distance, not quantum physics.

Only true for movement.

Whether or not this is true doesn't change my answer, I was demonstrating that rules allow for measurements where only one model is involved (which you said was not so), I was making no comment on when those rules apply.

Only true for auras. Noxious Discharge is not an aura.

Whether or not this is an aura is irrelevant to my point, I was demonstrating that rules allow for measurements where only one model is involved (which you said was not so), I was making no comment on when those rules apply.

 Blndmage wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
...so your arguement is that this Psychic Power doesn't deal 2MW to the taget unit because a different rule from 8th edition was FaQ'd to change the wording so that Kharne couldn't deal damage to himself?

So you've gone from "This doesn't work because of some nebulous context and I feel that it doesn't include the target unit" to "the wording of the rule might not be the finalised version and/or was faked by reviewers" and then further to "GW might change it in the future like they did this other rule, so it doesn't work" even though you have no way of knowing that and that wouldn't mean the Psychic Power doesn't currently deal 2 MW RAW either...
Which would also mean you are admitting that it does deal 2 MW to the target unit RAW and thus proving Jidmah's commentary right?

Um... yeah.

That is not at all what I was saying.

Can you read all of my posts next time, and then reply?

Just stop, please.

When someone misrepresents what I was saying, I will always let them know.

 p5freak wrote:


The rules say distances are measured in inches (") between the closest points of the bases of the models you’re measuring to and from.

The rule we're discussing here actually says "...not more than the specified distance."

I'll ask again: do you think 0 is more than 3?

On a separate note, this thread should probably be held up as the perfect example of everything wrong with this sub-forum. It's embarrassing the lengths some people will go to just so they don't have to admit they were wrong.

Aash wrote:

Zero is an integer, and yes it is possible to measure zero, accuracy of the measurement to 1 significant figure is common, it is also not unknown for rounding to occur, measuring is usually taken as accurate to half the smallest division of the measuring instrument. If you want to get into details such as planck distance, subatomic repulsion and attraction etc, then you are arguing in bad faith. This is a wargaming distance, not quantum physics.

Ok, no more science stuff, its a game. The rule in question says "...all units within 3" of that unit...". This requires measuring. And you cant measure 0" with a tape measure.

Aash wrote:

Only true for movement.

Whether or not this is true doesn't change my answer, I was demonstrating that rules allow for measurements where only one model is involved (which you said was not so), I was making no comment on when those rules apply.

Only true for auras. Noxious Discharge is not an aura.

Whether or not this is an aura is irrelevant to my point, I was demonstrating that rules allow for measurements where only one model is involved (which you said was not so), I was making no comment on when those rules apply.

I never said you cant measure when only one model is involded, sure you can in the movement phase. What i said is you cant measure a distance of 0", because it doesnt exist. And you cant measure to and from the base itself.

MEASURING DISTANCES
Distances are measured in inches (") between the closest points of the bases of the models you’re measuring to and from.

You cannot measure between the closest point of a base of a model. Between means there must be at least two bases or models.

This is a rule where all tournaments players agree 99.9999% of casual players agree and the there's p5freak. It is well established auras effect their own units because they are within the aura range. Auras are usually a circle and anywhere in that circle is within range.

There's no rules question here and I'm not sure if p5freak is deliberately trolling or genuinely believes the nonsense he's spewing but either way your not going to get him to agree

 p5freak wrote:

Aash wrote:

Zero is an integer, and yes it is possible to measure zero, accuracy of the measurement to 1 significant figure is common, it is also not unknown for rounding to occur, measuring is usually taken as accurate to half the smallest division of the measuring instrument. If you want to get into details such as planck distance, subatomic repulsion and attraction etc, then you are arguing in bad faith. This is a wargaming distance, not quantum physics.

Ok, no more science stuff, its a game. The rule in question says "...all units within 3" of that unit...". This requires measuring. And you cant measure 0" with a tape measure.

Aash wrote:

Only true for movement.

Whether or not this is true doesn't change my answer, I was demonstrating that rules allow for measurements where only one model is involved (which you said was not so), I was making no comment on when those rules apply.

Only true for auras. Noxious Discharge is not an aura.

Whether or not this is an aura is irrelevant to my point, I was demonstrating that rules allow for measurements where only one model is involved (which you said was not so), I was making no comment on when those rules apply.

I never said you cant measure when only one model is involded, sure you can in the movement phase. What i said is you cant measure a distance of 0", because it doesnt exist. And you cant measure to and from the base itself.

MEASURING DISTANCES
Distances are measured in inches (") between the closest points of the bases of the models you’re measuring to and from.

You cannot measure between the closest point of a base of a model. Between means there must be at least two bases or models.

the rule doesn't require measuring of 0", as you say, the rule is

...all units within 3" of that unit.

So you measure 3" from the unit in question and anything inside that distance is within 3" as per the rules definition of "within".

Could someone argue that GW is moving away from the "Unit is affected by it's own Aura" style of play with the Captains not affecting their own re-rolls themselves rules?

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Could someone argue that GW is moving away from the "Unit is affected by it's own Aura" style of play with the Captains not affecting their own re-rolls themselves rules?

That restriction is baked into the captain-level reroll rules now. If they errata it later we'll know what they intended to do all along. Right now it just affects the targeted unit twice.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Could someone argue that GW is moving away from the "Unit is affected by it's own Aura" style of play with the Captains not affecting their own re-rolls themselves rules?

No. That's a result of how they're using the Core keyword.
Drazhar from the DE codex is affected by his own aura (which is based off the Incubi keyword, which he has), while Archons with their regular aura are not (it only affects Core Kabal and Incubi. Archons lack Incubi and Core).
Destoyer Lords from the Necron codex are similar in that regard.
The Palatine from the recent SoB vs DE box also benefits from her aura (will likely change once they get a new codex with the Core keyword, but still).

 p5freak wrote:

 MinMax wrote:

 p5freak wrote:

PoorGravitasHandling wrote:
"...it applies at any distance that is not more than the specified distance."

I dont think 0" distance is a distance. A 0" distance is non existant, it must be more than 0" to be a distance. You cant measure to and from the base itself.

Wouldn't this suggest that models who are in base contact cannot fight each other? As they are 0" away from each other, and thus in some sort of weird blindspot according to you.

According to science, which is a real thing in gaming, as i have now learned, you cannot be in base contact. Because science says atoms repel each other.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yE8rkG9Dw4s

That's a rather glib response. I expected better.

I'll reiterate one of my questions from earlier in the thread - do you also claim that a psyker cannot cast psychic powers on themselves, or that a Chapter Master/Mortarion cannot target themselves with their own reroll abilities?

U02dah4 wrote:
This is a rule where all tournaments players agree 99.9999% of casual players agree and the there's p5freak. It is well established auras effect their own units because they are within the aura range. Auras are usually a circle and anywhere in that circle is within range.

This rule we are talking about is not an aura. Even though you are right, your response has nothing to do with this.

Aash wrote:

the rule doesn't require measuring of 0", as you say, the rule is

...all units within 3" of that unit.

So you measure 3" from the unit in question and anything inside that distance is within 3" as per the rules definition of "within".

Measuring is done between bases and models, its impossible to measure between a base.

 MinMax wrote:

I'll reiterate one of my questions from earlier in the thread - do you also claim that a psyker cannot cast psychic powers on themselves, or that a Chapter Master/Mortarion cannot target themselves with their own reroll abilities?

If those psychic powers or abilities are auras, they can target themselves. Thats what the aura abilities rule says. Assuming (Aura) means that those psychic powers and abilities are aura abilities, the rules dont explain this. However, Noxious Discharge is not an aura.

Well it is an aura it meets the criteria which are very specific

"Some abilities affect models or units in a given range – these are aura abilities." Thats the definition

We know some psychic abilities are auras there is unequivocal precedent on this. E.g. Vox Espiritum, psychic fortress, nullzone

So the only question is does it effect units or models in a given range

Which in this instance isn't contested. Its all units within 3" So it is an aura.

Refusal to accept that is just refusal to accept RAW and makes anything else you say irrelevant.

However in your 3rd quote you admit your wrong if it's an aura and as established it is so congrats you killed your own argument