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.

Thinking about running 10 Ryzaphrons in a Bastion. Would they potentially get reroll 1s to shoot through the fire points if that was my cantical? I know Auras and strategems cant be used, but canticals are a base unit ability.

I feel like if the new admech transport is open topped this question will be even more relevant.

You roll canticles at the start of the turn and the whole army benefits.

Read the transports rule. It says :

Embarked units cannot normally do anything or be affected in any
way whilst they are embarked.

A bastion is a transport. Units embark on it. Canticles would affect them in any way. The answer is no. All you can do is shoot, you get special permission by the fire points rule. No more, no less.

They do benefit as an extension of permission to shoot. In the same way as they are allowed to use their weapons they are also allowed to make use of rules that affect shooting..

To spare us the inevitable argument here, there are 2 ways of looking at this, and there's no definitive RAW which decides it, and as such there will, until GW clarifies this, always be 2 groups.

Group 1:

The rules state that the embarked unit cannot be affected. This means that they are literally immune to everything whilst embarked - they cannot make use of any special rules which they have, including dakkadakkadakka, plasma weapons overheating, bomm squigs being removed when they are fired, I guess also any rule which confers -1 to hit etc. The sole thing which they can do is make a basic shooting attack using basic rules, as this is all the "open topped" rule allows.

Group 2:

The open topped rules allow you to shoot, and as such you should shoot using all relevant rules, including plasma weapons overheating and so forth. Auras obviously still have no effect as the units are not on the table.

I personally am in group 2. It is ultimately going to be down to you to decide if you want to have perfect plasma, unlimited bomm squigs and immunity to invisibility if embarked in a transport, or if you want to have a unit shoot as if it were shooting.

Do Dark Reapers and Vindicares shooting out of fortifications or open topped transports always hit on 3s or 2s?

No, dark reapers don't hit on 3+ and vindicares don't hit on 2+ when embarked on a fortification.
There is no way for vindicares to embark on an open topped vehicle.
RAW is clear, if you want to house rule it, go ahead.

They can embark in fortifications?

I actually like your arguement better. If they can't be affected by any rules while embarked I can safely overheat my 10d6 plasma shots every turn!

Everyone, from any faction, can embark on an imperial bastion, it's unaligned. It's keywords that matter, not names.
The rules for shooting out of open topped vehicles and fortifications are among the worst of all of 8th edition.

Of course they benefit from canticals

Its not a rule effecting them its part of their datasheet.

Not all admech units have cantical on the datasheet (drill)

Canticals effects them the same reason they have a 3+ bs still and have assault 3 guns.

 p5freak wrote:
Everyone, from any faction, can embark on an imperial bastion, it's unaligned. It's keywords that matter, not names.
The rules for shooting out of open topped vehicles and fortifications are among the worst of all of 8th edition.

I misread your comment, I thought you said Vindicares can not embark in anything.

Me and my opponents always play Open-Topped as "you have access to any Abilities on your datasheet that don't require you to be on the board". For example, if I put Flash Gitz into a Trukk, they get their "roll to shoot again on a 6" rule, but they don't get the "reroll 1s" from Kaptin Badrukk because they aren't on the board and can't be within 6" of him (or whatever the distance is).

 Valentine009 wrote:
They can embark in fortifications?

I actually like your arguement better. If they can't be affected by any rules while embarked I can safely overheat my 10d6 plasma shots every turn!

an excellent example of how this interpretation creates clearly unintended and erroneous results.

The phrase which causes the issue is on page 183 of the rulebook:

"Embarked units cannot normally do anything or be affected in any way if they are embarked"

which is then overruled by:

"Open Topped: Models embarked on this model can attack in their shooting phase. Measure range and draw line of sight from any point on this model. When they do so, any restrictions or modifiers which apply to this model also apply to its passengers; for example, the passengers cannot shot 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."

which clearly overrides the phrase "cannot normally do anything", but does not have such clarity when it comes to the second part "or be affected in any way".

Which resulted in the (now locked) discussion of "what qualifies as "affecting" the unit?" it got quite heated, and will never reach a conclusion, so it shouldn't be re-argued. The 2 camps were "they can't be affected" and "shooting out of a transport isn't normal, so "normally cannot be affected" doesn't apply".

At the end of the day, it's best to discuss it with your opponent before trying to pull a trick like this. If I was playing someone who claimed that his massed plasmacannons won't overheat because they're in a transport, I would walk away. Or, I would put a trukk full of tankbustas on the field and merrily fire unlimited bomm squigs and have every other model throw tankbusta bomms, as they cannot be "affected" by their rules either.

to summarise: It's badly written, and group 1's argument throws in a lot of weird results, both good and bad (no plasma death, but no +1 to hit) and group 2's argument doesn't. And, if you went into a tournament setting trying to pull group 1's argument, then you're not going to have a fun day - you'll either (hopefully) just be told no, or you'll have the distain of every other player to deal with. And if it's not fun, what is the point?

TL;DR: Discuss it with your opponent / TO, prepare to be laughed at.

U02dah4 wrote:
Of course they benefit from canticals

Its not a rule effecting them its part of their datasheet.

So, their datasheet is not part of the rules ?

 p5freak wrote:

U02dah4 wrote:
Of course they benefit from canticals

Its not a rule effecting them its part of their datasheet.

So, their datasheet is not part of the rules ?

Of course it's rules. It's not 'affecting' them though, it's part of what defines them.

Stop misrepresenting this argument, it's getting tiresome.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 p5freak wrote:

RAW is clear, if you want to house rule it, go ahead.

It's really not. At least acknowledge that your interpretation is very much in the minority here, instead of blindly spreading a niche reading as hard RAW.

 Stux wrote:

 p5freak wrote:

RAW is clear, if you want to house rule it, go ahead.

It's really not. At least acknowledge that your interpretation is very much in the minority here, instead of blindly spreading a niche reading as hard RAW.

I agree. It doesn't have a definitive answer either way. Though, I do have another ludicrous application of this thinking:

Group 1 states that the weapons own rules (EG overheating plasma) do not apply as the unit cannot be affected by their own rules or those of their weapons whilst transported. on the Missile launcher entry, the Rule states "When attacking with this weapon, choose one of the profiles below". Do you:
A: fire both profiles, as the rule telling you to choose does not affect this unit
B: Fire neither profiles, as the rule allowing you to choose one does not affect this unit

or C: Use this rule normally, as you are shooting.

Same for firing a flamer from a vehicle - does the flamers "autohit" rule disappear when fired from a vehicle? Does a meltagun not roll 2D6 for damage within 1/2 range? Can a mortar not target units out of sight?

Group 1 opens a vast can of worms, and group 2 doesn't, so it seems logical which of the two to use.

I agree that RAW creates lots of problems, but GW literally tells you to apply rules as written, even if you don't like the outcome, if you email them at their FAQ email address.

And being in the minority doesn't automatically make me wrong. What you are doing is house ruling. Thats fine to make it work as you wish, but it's not RAW.

I'm not going to actually try to convince an opponent that I can overheat safely. Frankly the cantical thing is confusing enough, and of little enough utility, that I'm not going to use it either.

If the new transport is open-topped however, I expect the confusion will go even higher. I was hoping there was a FAQ entry or something I missed.

 p5freak wrote:
I agree that RAW creates lots of problems, but GW literally tells you to apply rules as written, even if you don't like the outcome, if you email them at their FAQ email address.

And being in the minority doesn't automatically make me wrong. What you are doing is house ruling. Thats fine to make it work as you wish, but it's not RAW.

In fairness, I can't dispute this. But, the RAW is not definitive here. it is literally a gap in the rules. Being a permissive ruleset is all well and good, but you neither have permission to ignore your rules, nor permission to use them. There is no definitive RAW for this. it's literally not written. Shooting out of a transport will always, therefore, be house ruling unless using the most basic of weapons on models without relevant special rules.

 p5freak wrote:
I agree that RAW creates lots of problems, but GW literally tells you to apply rules as written, even if you don't like the outcome, if you email them at their FAQ email address.

And being in the minority doesn't automatically make me wrong. What you are doing is house ruling. Thats fine to make it work as you wish, but it's not RAW.

No I'm not house ruling. I'm interpreting differently to you. There's a huge difference. It's quite condescending to dismiss a different interpretation as a house rule actually.

This is a grey area in the rules. While you are right that being in the minority doesn't make you wrong, when the rules are not written clearly it is important to acknowledge that your interpretation is not the only one, and that others are possible.

I don't see how cannot be affected by anything can be interpreted differently. Looks like we have to agree to disagree.

 p5freak wrote:
I don't see how cannot be affected by anything can be interpreted differently. Looks like we have to agree to disagree.

Yea, "cannot be affected by anything" would mean that we do not know what they need to hit, since they have a 3+ BS buy they "cannot be affected by anything" which would include the Ballistic Skill...

 p5freak wrote:
I don't see how cannot be affected by anything can be interpreted differently. Looks like we have to agree to disagree.

That's really all I'm asking

For me it's just another failure for GW to properly define their scope. Exactly the same issue as "as if" for phases, until we finally got an errata. Most of the really contentious RAW interpretation issues are essentially scope issues.

 p5freak wrote:
I don't see how cannot be affected by anything can be interpreted differently. Looks like we have to agree to disagree.

at least quote the exact phrase;

"Cannot normally be affected by anything".

Can they normally shoot out of a transport? No.
Are they shooting out of a transport? Yes.
Is this normal? No.

Considering the way that "cannot be affected" has been interpreted, surely we can interpret this to mean that, as the situation is not "normal", the restriction is entirely void? The same as "you may not shoot after advancing" is void if you didn't advance, and "-1 to hit with heavy weapons if you move" is void if you don't move, or it's not a heavy weapon? as "Normally" featured in the rule, then we must first establish that the situation is "normal" before applying the rule. and shooting out of a transport isn't normal, as defined by the very same rule:

"Embarked units cannot normally do anything or be affected in any way whilst they are embarked."

if they are doing something, this is not normal, and as such the whole rule is waived. Otherwise you could never disembark.

 some bloke wrote:
if they are doing something, this is not normal, and as such the whole rule is waived. Otherwise you could never disembark.

Disembarking gives a specific permission. Canticles do not.

Canticles dont require special permission canticles dont target the model.they are part of its rules

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 some bloke wrote:
if they are doing something, this is not normal, and as such the whole rule is waived. Otherwise you could never disembark.

Disembarking gives a specific permission. Canticles do not.

I was using the disembarking as a silly example, and I realise it was probably wrong to do so. I have to admit that I don't know the wording of canticles, so you may well be right. However, if it is anything like the majority of rules where it states something along the lines of "when this unit shoots, X happens", then it must be applied, because the unit is shooting. The rule being thrown around to try and stop this states "Embarked units cannot normally do anything or be affected in any way whilst they are embarked.".

What is happening: the unit is shooting from a transport.
does this mean we apply rules which are applied when the unit is shooting? Yes, because the unit is shooting.
Is it normal to shoot from a transport? No.
Does this mean we apply rules which are only applied in normal circumstances? No, because this isn't "normal".
Therefore, can a unit which is shooting out of a transport be affected by rules which take effect when they shoot? Yes, because the situation is not normal, thus the "normally" aspect of the rule is not triggered, and because they are shooting, their rules apply.

it's 2 different things tied together.

First, the unit is selected to shoot, and can because of open-topped (or equivalent rule permitting shooting).
Second, all the rules which trigger when the unit shoots are resolved.
Then, if the embarked unit would be affected by this rule (EG overheating plasma) we consult the Transport rule.
The transport rule states that they normally cannot do anything or be affected in any way. As such, we have clearly found that this is not normal, as they have done something, and so this rule doesn't apply
As no rules prevent the unit from being affected (see above) the plasma overheating rules are applied as normal.
Plasma rules dictate that the model is slain. Slain models are removed from play, not removed from the battlefield (rulebook page 181, under "inflict damage"), and as such the distinction does not allow people to claim "they can't be removed if they're not there".

I think this is sufficient RAW to show that you can be affected by your own shooting rules.

"Canticles of the Omnissiah
The disciples of the Omnissiah incant complex war-blessings, as much optimisation subroutines as they are expressions of faith in the Machine God.

All units with this ability gain a bonus during the battle depending on the Canticle of the Omnissiah currently being canted.

At the start of each battle round, pick which Canticle of the Omnissiah from the table below is in effect for the duration of the battle round. The same Canticle may not be picked twice during the same battle.

Alternatively, you can randomly determine which Canticle of the Omnissiah is in effect by rolling a D6 and consulting the table below. Note that if you randomly determine a Canticle, it takes effect even if the same Canticle has been in effect earlier in the battle.

If you have a Battle-forged army, units only receive the bonus if every model in their Detachment has this ability."

 Valentine009 wrote:
"Canticles of the Omnissiah
The disciples of the Omnissiah incant complex war-blessings, as much optimisation subroutines as they are expressions of faith in the Machine God.

All units with this ability gain a bonus during the battle depending on the Canticle of the Omnissiah currently being canted.

At the start of each battle round, pick which Canticle of the Omnissiah from the table below is in effect for the duration of the battle round. The same Canticle may not be picked twice during the same battle.

Alternatively, you can randomly determine which Canticle of the Omnissiah is in effect by rolling a D6 and consulting the table below. Note that if you randomly determine a Canticle, it takes effect even if the same Canticle has been in effect earlier in the battle.

If you have a Battle-forged army, units only receive the bonus if every model in their Detachment has this ability."

OK, but what does the canticle in question actually say? is it +1 to hit, or +1 BS?

Either way, it sounds like you do get the benefit of it, unless it specifies "units on the battlefield".

 some bloke wrote:
OK, but what does the canticle in question actually say? is it +1 to hit, or +1 BS?

Either way, it sounds like you do get the benefit of it, unless it specifies "units on the battlefield".

Benediction of the Omnissiah
Those blessed enough to comprehend this blaring vox-prayer find their targeting reticules guided by the Omnissiah’s own vigilance.
You can re-roll failed hit rolls of 1 for affected units in the Shooting phase.