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.

With thanks to U02dah4, for pointing out the poignant wording for this in the rulebook.
The word "abilities" has cropped up a couple of times in other threads, with enough vagueness and confusion to warrant having its own thread, I think. I'll summarise what's been established in the other threads so far.

Rules backing:
Page 202 defines abilities very briefly as:

Many units have one or more special abilities; these will be described here.

The section then goes on to only include aura abilities, which are actually pretty well defined:

Some abilities affect models or units in a given range - these are aura abilities.

My observations:
The wording for abilities specifies that units have them, and this is supported by the "Abilities" section of datasheets being titled the way that it is.
The way that auras state that "some" abilities are aura abilities, means that there are other examples - they just aren't listed.

Examples of conflicts with this wording so far: (just providing these as examples, these have their own threads already so please let's not repeat those exact arguments here)
- There's debate over whether the benefits of cover provided by terrain are to be considered as abilities, which would mean conflict with the requirements for fast-rolling if not all models in a unit are in cover.
- Embarked units cannot be affected by abilities, however the same section of rules that dictates they also cannot shoot can be overridden by rules that specifically allow a unit to shoot while embarked. There is debate over whether that means abilities can apply as normal or not. If not, by way of example, a bomb squig's Squig Bomb weapon (that is usually a one-shot weapon that kills the bearer) can fire repeatedly and without its bearer dying, as these are defined on the weapon profile's Abilities.
_________________________

Points for discussion:

- Does the wording mean that only units can have abilities? I would argue that mostly yes, this is the case, as we don't have any other definition of abilities in the rules to go by. However it's been pointed out that special effects for weapon profiles are also called abilities so they are an extra exception. So in sum total - units and weapon profiles, but nothing else, unless something comes along later that calls itself out as an ability.

- Are we agreed that there can be other abilities besides aura abilities, and that just because something isn't an aura, doesn't mean it isn't an ability? I think this is pretty clear, but realise others may disagree.

Further down on the same page of the rulebook, under weapons you have "Abilities" used again for weapon abilities. Good to keep in mind for this discussion, as it is clear that weapons have abilities as well.

I would agree with your assessment that an aura is a single type of ability, but not the totality of available abilities. Weapons/units/models can have abilities certainly.

I'll be following this thread with interest to see what others think. Thanks for posting it!

"special abilities" does not = abilities.

So it is still undefined. So you need to use the basic english definition of abilities.

Many things can be abilities, even weapons have abilities, so it is not confined to only units.

I would say only models with datasheets can have abilities.

The SoB battle sanctum having a datasheet and abilities but not being a unit as an example


Certainly a number of abilities are not aura abilities e.g. models with FNP or that can deep strike.

Auras are a type of ability,as special abilites and weapon abilities.

U02dah4 wrote:
The SoB battle sanctum having a datasheet and abilities but not being a unit as an example

Great example - I'd completely forgotten about building datasheets.

 DeathReaper wrote:
"special abilities" does not = abilities.
So it is still undefined. So you need to use the basic english definition of abilities.
Many things can be abilities, even weapons have abilities, so it is not confined to only units.

Yeah, fair point. I know I disagreed with this elsewhere, but I'm coming around to the idea that inanimate objects can have abilities as well, not just beings with agency.
Eg., "this brick wall has the ability to remain upright in heavy rain" or "this GW receipt has the ability to make my bank manager sad".
The one issue I have with this line of thinking, is that the same sentence that includes "special abilities" then says "these will be described here" - under the section that's just called "Abilities". To me that means from a rules perspective, special abilities specifically refers to aura abilities, as that's the only one covered in the section.

The Vox Espiritum
PRIMARIS model only. If a model has this Relic, add 3" to the range of its aura abilities (e.g. Rites of Battle). This does not increase the range of psychic powers or Litanies of Battle that are aura abilities.

Some psychic powers, and some litanies of battle are (aura) abilities as well.

We know things that are abilities, unfortunately because the word "Abilities" is undefined in game terms its hard to say what explicitly is not an ability.

For certain units have abilities, weapons have abilities, and psychic powers and litanies grant abilities. I am sure there are even codex specific things that are abilities which are not on a datasheet or nor are they a weapon or psychic power such as "Defenders of humanity" and "Chapter tactics" which are both called out as being abilities and neither are actually on a datasheet.

From my perspective an ability is any additional rule that modifies a model, unit, or weapon from the standard rules in how it behaves. Of course my perspective on this like everyone else's is purely RAI because there is no RAW as to what an ability is.

RAW Bomb squigs are not removed when shooting when embarked, and also do not get to re-roll things per tankbusta rules. Plasma overheating doesn't do MW to the unit inside, etc etc. bottomless cesspool of insanity regarding things that would not happen if the unit were not embarked etc.

At this point I wish they would just treat open topped like they do vehicles in AoS, they are basically mobile terrain and the units embarked can do whatever as if they were not embarked measure to the vehicle for all ranges, and can be targeted but count as being behind fortified cover or some such so -1 to hit and +1 save.

I actually have an idea for another possible wording fix for open-topped - how about, the models may shoot as though during the Shooting phase, with all modifiers, abilities etc in effect except for any caused by an opponent?
This neatly includes all the model's, weapon's and faction's own rules (which is fine) and also includes terrain modifiers.

I'm betting there's something out there that would break this, and am somewhat eager to hear it.

 Super Ready wrote:
I actually have an idea for another possible wording fix for open-topped - how about, the models may shoot as though during the Shooting phase, with all modifiers, abilities etc in effect except for any caused by an opponent?
This neatly includes all the model's, weapon's and faction's own rules (which is fine) and also includes terrain modifiers.

I'm betting there's something out there that would break this, and am somewhat eager to hear it.

Ignoring the RaW issues only I care about, what happens if I shoot at some Kastelan Robots and they Repulsor Grid a mortal wound onto an embarked unit?

Yeah, not gonna pretend this is anywhere close to RAW, just a thought exercise. I'm not familiar with repulsor grid, how does it work...?

 Super Ready wrote:
Yeah, not gonna pretend this is anywhere close to RAW, just a thought exercise. I'm not familiar with repulsor grid, how does it work...?

Repulsor Grid: All models in this unit have a 5+ invulnerable save against shooting attacks. In addition, each time you roll a 6 (after re-rolls, but before modifiers) for a repulsor grid’s invulnerable saving throw, the unit that made that attack suffers a mortal wound.

I guess it would count as being from an opponent, so wouldn't hit the embarked unit... buuuuuut, that does break the spirit of my wording.
That said, that strikes me as yet another rule that - right now per RAW - doesn't hit the embarked unit anyway! Never mind then.

The embarked unit suffers a MW if it was the one doing the firing

 Super Ready wrote:
I actually have an idea for another possible wording fix for open-topped - how about, the models may shoot as though during the Shooting phase, with all modifiers, abilities etc in effect except for any caused by an opponent?
This neatly includes all the model's, weapon's and faction's own rules (which is fine) and also includes terrain modifiers.

I'm betting there's something out there that would break this, and am somewhat eager to hear it.

Why troops would suddenly be more accurate vs lightning fast/camoflage guys?

U02dah4 wrote:The embarked unit suffers a MW if it was the one doing the firing

No, embarked units cannot be affected by anything.

 p5freak wrote:

U02dah4 wrote:The embarked unit suffers a MW if it was the one doing the firing

No, embarked units cannot be affected by anything.

No true, a lot of things do effect them and some are MW's like DE trait DT and Shields with reflect from Admech, Nids IB, etc.. there has been faqs showing this.

https://www.warhammer-community.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/rXJ5dCavf5NCsXo9.pdf
Q: Does the Instinctive Behaviour ability apply to Tyranids units
whilst they are embarked within a Fortification?
A: Yes – that means that you must subtract 1 from hit rolls made
for that unit when shooting at any target other than the nearest
visible enemy unit.

https://www.warhammer-community.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/hL7pB0tD3X0cF4v3.pdf
Q: If a 6 is rolled for the invulnerable save conferred by a
Kastelan Robot’s Repulsor Grid ability, for an attack made by a
unit embarked upon a Transport with an ability such as Opentopped or Extended Firing Deck, which unit is the mortal wound
allocated to, the embarked unit or the Transport?
A: The embarked unit that is making the attack suffers the
mortal wound.

 Super Ready wrote:
I actually have an idea for another possible wording fix for open-topped - how about, the models may shoot as though during the Shooting phase, with all modifiers, abilities etc in effect except for any caused by an opponent?
This neatly includes all the model's, weapon's and faction's own rules (which is fine) and also includes terrain modifiers.

I'm betting there's something out there that would break this, and am somewhat eager to hear it.

I think the passenger rule needs to be fixed, the open topped rule needs a cleaned-up wording at best.

The intent seems to be that passengers are supposed to pretty much not exist until they disembark, and open topped is supposed to have them shoot as if they were standing on top of their transport.

Can't be that hard to take a couple of hours to figure out a wording that doesn't break any of the ~20 units that are actually affected by this.

 Amishprn86 wrote:

 p5freak wrote:

U02dah4 wrote:The embarked unit suffers a MW if it was the one doing the firing

No, embarked units cannot be affected by anything.

No true, a lot of things do effect them and some are MW's like DE trait DT and Shields with reflect from Admech, Nids IB, etc.. there has been faqs showing this.

https://www.warhammer-community.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/rXJ5dCavf5NCsXo9.pdf
Q: Does the Instinctive Behaviour ability apply to Tyranids units
whilst they are embarked within a Fortification?
A: Yes – that means that you must subtract 1 from hit rolls made
for that unit when shooting at any target other than the nearest
visible enemy unit.

https://www.warhammer-community.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/hL7pB0tD3X0cF4v3.pdf
Q: If a 6 is rolled for the invulnerable save conferred by a
Kastelan Robot’s Repulsor Grid ability, for an attack made by a
unit embarked upon a Transport with an ability such as Opentopped or Extended Firing Deck, which unit is the mortal wound
allocated to, the embarked unit or the Transport?
A: The embarked unit that is making the attack suffers the
mortal wound.

Ok, so they do suffer a MW from repulsor grid. And abilities do affect embarked units, which contradicts RAW.

 p5freak wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:

 p5freak wrote:

U02dah4 wrote:The embarked unit suffers a MW if it was the one doing the firing

No, embarked units cannot be affected by anything.

No true, a lot of things do effect them and some are MW's like DE trait DT and Shields with reflect from Admech, Nids IB, etc.. there has been faqs showing this.

https://www.warhammer-community.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/rXJ5dCavf5NCsXo9.pdf
Q: Does the Instinctive Behaviour ability apply to Tyranids units
whilst they are embarked within a Fortification?
A: Yes – that means that you must subtract 1 from hit rolls made
for that unit when shooting at any target other than the nearest
visible enemy unit.

https://www.warhammer-community.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/hL7pB0tD3X0cF4v3.pdf
Q: If a 6 is rolled for the invulnerable save conferred by a
Kastelan Robot’s Repulsor Grid ability, for an attack made by a
unit embarked upon a Transport with an ability such as Opentopped or Extended Firing Deck, which unit is the mortal wound
allocated to, the embarked unit or the Transport?
A: The embarked unit that is making the attack suffers the
mortal wound.

Ok, so they do suffer a MW from repulsor grid. And abilities do affect embarked units, which contradicts RAW.

And sadly GW doesn't write RAW correctly to reflect their RAI. I know we are not suppose to to use RAI in YMDC but it is clear its RAI on how embark works, when something calls to them you get to use them for what they are and not just the weapon profiles shooting and nothing else.

Oh small PSA, you absolutely can discuss RAI. This subforum is about playing the game, not blindly following a rule that doesn’t work. Label your post properly and no one *should* have an issue. If they do, point them to the Tenets of YMDC and they’ll see they’re wrong in believing it’s only “RAW as absurdum” permitted.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Oh small PSA, you absolutely can discuss RAI. This subforum is about playing the game, not blindly following a rule that doesn’t work. Label your post properly and no one *should* have an issue. If they do, point them to the Tenets of YMDC and they’ll see they’re wrong in believing it’s only “RAW as absurdum” permitted.

Exactly this.

It's You Make Da Call. Not You Parse Da RAW

HIWPI for "Open Topped" rules. Based on the FAQs noted above and a bit of that uncommon common sense, I would do the following:
1. Measure the distance from the firing unit to the target from any part on the vehicle, as noted in the rules. This is the range for all weapons in the unit.
2. Act as if the range from any unit on the table the firing unit to be "out of range".
3. No use of Stratagems on the attacking unit.
4. Apply all other rules I would normally apply when making a shooting attack as if the unit was on the table, unless said rule specifically mentioned the unit being embarked in a Transport. In that case, apply that rule as written.

So, no ignoring rules because Units cannot normally do anything or be affected in any way while they are embarked. We are already beyond the normal since units cannot normally shoot while embarked, so apply the rules for shooting attacks like you normally would.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Oh small PSA, you absolutely can discuss RAI. This subforum is about playing the game, not blindly following a rule that doesn’t work. Label your post properly and no one *should* have an issue. If they do, point them to the Tenets of YMDC and they’ll see they’re wrong in believing it’s only “RAW as absurdum” permitted.

No-one has ever said it's only RaW permitted, but you have to accept that following RaI cannot be logically consistent when discussing it.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
No-one has ever said it's only RaW permitted, but you have to accept that following RaI cannot be logically consistent when discussing it.

Please elaborate.

 doctortom wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
No-one has ever said it's only RaW permitted, but you have to accept that following RaI cannot be logically consistent when discussing it.

Please elaborate.

You can't argue for RAW with RAI premises.

BCB follows the belief that there always is only one way to read RAW, while there is no way to deduct RAI.

Obviously, reality is never that black and white, so it's just that - a belief.

 Jidmah wrote:
BCB follows the belief that there always is only one way to read RAW, while there is no way to deduct RAI.

Obviously, reality is never that black and white, so it's just that - a belief.

There is no way to deduce RaI, you can guess, but you can never know. If you allow one rule to be ignored because it is "intended" to do something else, you have to allow ALL rules to be ignored because it is "intended" to do something else. Why is one persons declaration of the RaI less valid than someone elses?

Sorry, BCB, but there is no point in arguing believes. What you are doing is essentially the same as people taking the bible literally, can't argue with those people either.

Your fatalism and slippery slope fallacy take care of everything else. Let's save us both and everyone else the trouble of arguing this again.

 skchsan wrote:

 doctortom wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
No-one has ever said it's only RaW permitted, but you have to accept that following RaI cannot be logically consistent when discussing it.

Please elaborate.

You can't argue for RAW with RAI premises.

That doesn't mean that the RAI cannot be logically consistent when discussing it.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
BCB follows the belief that there always is only one way to read RAW, while there is no way to deduct RAI.

Obviously, reality is never that black and white, so it's just that - a belief.

There is no way to deduce RaI, you can guess, but you can never know. If you allow one rule to be ignored because it is "intended" to do something else, you have to allow ALL rules to be ignored because it is "intended" to do something else. Why is one persons declaration of the RaI less valid than someone elses?

To further clarify/reinforce the above: a logical conclusion derived from series of inductive reasoning (aka RAI) carries only a certain probability of being right.

Your conclusion MAY BE right, but it is not with 100% certainty that it IS right. This is why RAI cannot be used to support RAW argument because it yields cogent arguments (arguments that are probably right given the premises, but not with 100% certainty).

RAW discussion requires biasedly unbiased reading of the rules (even if it yields absurd results), and cannot be supported by RAI (which necessarily includes some form of bias, how minute they may be), otherwise you're arguing RAI is RAW (which the forum specifically requires you to avoid) and not RAW is ____ .

You can derive a HIWPI using RAI interpretation of the rule when RAW fails to provide adequate solution, but you cannot claim RAW based on series of logically sound RAI premises because they are inherently incompatible (because by definition, inductive reasoning yield a cogent argument, and RAW requires all of its arguments to be sound arguments).

TLDR: RAW utilizes purely deductive arguments, while RAI is inductive arguments. Defending RAW with RAI is supporting deductive arguments with inductive arguments, which makes for really bad logic.