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.

 Neorealist wrote:

foolishmortal wrote:Do you have any problem with the PRO position if Zandrekh is in the NightScythe by himself?

I believe that the Transport rules only allow you to draw range to the embarked unit as a whole, not to any specific model found within the embarked unit, and this holds true even if there is only one model in it. As such, I do not think you are given permission within the Transport rules to draw range to 'Zandrekhs' model from the nightscythes' hull for the purposes of 'The Vargards Duty'.

The main rulebook FAQ explicitly disagrees, and uses the Big Mek's Kustom Force Field as the example.

 Neorealist wrote:

Mannahnin wrote: Where are you claiming the unit actually is, while it's embarked?

Set aside at a convenient table edge (or a storage case perhaps?) along with a note of some sort indicating the unit is being transported.

Not the models. The unit. Where is the unit, during the game once it embarks? There are three possible locations that I'm aware of- in play, in Reserve, or destroyed. Your argument seems to posit the existence of some fourth location/state. The unit of robotic Necron warriors does not move to occupy the edge of a gaming table in 21st centure Earth. The models representing that unit are moved to the edge of the table. The unit, in the game, moves into the transport.

This, above. It is the same rule as 5th, and GW have consistently stated you can determine the position of a model and a unit by measuring to the hull.

Where a unit is composed of 1 model, the locatrion of the unit precisely defines the location of hte model.

Mannahnin wrote:The main rulebook FAQ explicitly disagrees, and uses the Big Mek's Kustom Force Field as the example.

The only note in the FAQ that i could find referencing the kustom force field indicates you can measure the range of wargear with a radius of effect from the edge of the transports' hull. Are you presuming that means the model is treated as present in play for some reason? Or were you referring to a different note?

Mannahnin wrote: Not the models. The unit. Where is the unit, during the game once it embarks? There are three possible locations that I'm aware of- in play, in Reserve, or destroyed. Your argument seems to posit the existence of some fourth location/state. The unit of robotic Necron warriors does not move to occupy the edge of a gaming table in 21st centure Earth. The models representing that unit are moved to the edge of the table. The unit, in the game, moves into the transport.

i meant the unit; you are told to set aside 'the unit' somewhere off the table in the Transport rules, no reference is made explicitly to the models contained within it.

nosferatu1001 wrote:GW have consistently stated you can determine the position of a model and a unit by measuring to the hull.

The unit, yes. The (or a specific) model(s) within it? no.

 Neorealist wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:The main rulebook FAQ explicitly disagrees, and uses the Big Mek's Kustom Force Field as the example.

The only note in the FAQ that i could find referencing the kustom force field indicates you can measure the range of wargear with a radius of effect from the edge of the transports' hull. Are you presuming that means the model is treated as present in play for some reason? Or were you referring to a different note?

Are you presuming that the wargear is effectively in the transport but that the model with the wargear is not?

foolishmortal wrote: Are you presuming that the wargear is effectively in the transport but that the model with the wargear is not?

No, i am presuming you are allowed to measure the RoE for certain kind of wargear from the hull of the vehicle, more or less exactly what the rule states. What i am explicitly 'not' doing is reading additional permissions or rules into that phrase than it currently contains.

p78 doesn't refer to embarked wargear. It say embarked units

foolishmortal wrote:p78 doesn't refer to embarked wargear. It say embarked units

Out of curiosity are you actually reading the context for the posts you are quoting from, or just randomly tossing up opinions based solely on whatever post you happened to have read last? The reason i ask is because i was referring to the 6th Edition FAQ when i made that statement, not the rule on page 78.

Also...

Page 34 – Mekboyz, Kustom Force Field.
Change the second sentence to read “A kustom force field
gives all units within 6" of the Mek a cover save of 5+. Friendly
vehicles within 6" are counted as being obscured and have a 5+ cover save”.

Its measured from the Mek, not the wargear


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Neorealist wrote:

foolishmortal wrote:p78 doesn't refer to embarked wargear. It say embarked units

Out of curiosity are you actually reading the context for the posts you are quoting from, or just randomly tossing up opinions based solely on whatever post you happened to have read last? The reason i ask is because i was referring to the 6th Edition FAQ when i made that statement, not the rule on page 78.

Yes, which is why I pointed out that the only reason we measure for the wargear in these rules is that the wargear is not alone. It is on embarked units per p78 and per the faq you cited

Q: Do embarked passengers with ‘area of effect’ wargear, such as
the Big Mek’s Kustom Force Field, measure the range of such items
from the hull of the transport they are embarked upon? (p78)
A: Yes.

i apologise to those who have read this already (since this won't be the first time i'm stating it) but being able to determine range for/to a unit, (or for/to wargear for that matter) from the hull of a vehicle does not mean you treat that unit as being in play.

So far what we have here are a few rules which 'imply' the unit is in play (but work just fine based solely on their own rules-text if the unit is not in play since it is never explicitly referenced by them)

And one rule which very clearly, and very definitively indicates the unit is 'not' in play; because you are told to remove it from the table as part of executing said rule.


If anyone would care to explain to me how a unit can both be removed from play and still be 'in' play, i'd like to hear it.

That rule says to remove the unit from the table, not from play.

Removing a unit from play means to destroy it or to put it into reserve (there's no other place it can go).

Removing a unit from the table makes clear this this rule is describing what you do with the MODELS that represent the unit. Not the unit within the game. The unit within the game is in the transport. The models which represent the unit are on a table.

Neorealist wrote:i apologise to those who have read this already (since this won't be the first time i'm stating it) but being able to determine range for/to a unit, (or for/to wargear for that matter) from the hull of a vehicle does not mean you treat that unit as being in play.

So far what we have here are a few rules which 'imply' the unit is in play (but work just fine based solely on their own rules-text if the unit is not in play since it is never explicitly referenced by them)

And one rule which very clearly, and very definitively indicates the unit is 'not' in play; because you are told to remove it from the table as part of executing said rule.


If anyone would care to explain to me how a unit can both be removed from play and still be 'in' play, i'd like to hear it.

iirc the rule explicitly states that it [the unit] is removed from the table

Mannahnin wrote:Removing a unit from the table makes clear this this rule is describing what you do with the MODELS that represent the unit. Not the unit within the game. The unit within the game is in the transport. The models which represent the unit are on a table.

Wouldn't telling you to 'set the models aside' have been more clear then? Why reference the unit itself and explicitly 'not' the models of which it is comprised if that is actually what the rule intended?

A good example of a unit off the table but in play is Necron Cryptek with Veil walking on and opting to use veil

The ability to tank shock onto the table from reserves might be another.

iirc, there is a space wolf HQ which does something similar


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Neorealist wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:Removing a unit from the table makes clear this this rule is describing what you do with the MODELS that represent the unit. Not the unit within the game. The unit within the game is in the transport. The models which represent the unit are on a table.

Wouldn't telling you to 'set the models aside' have been more clear then? Why reference the unit itself and explicitly 'not' the models of which it is comprised if that is actually what the rule intended?

Mostly just responding to you saying some rules were implied, but others were implicit.

Neorealist wrote:So far what we have here are a few rules which 'imply' the unit is in play (but work just fine based solely on their own rules-text if the unit is not in play since it is never explicitly referenced by them)

And one rule which very clearly, and very definitively indicates the unit is 'not' in play; because you are told to remove it from the table as part of executing said rule.

The embarking rules on p78 very clearly, and very definitively indicate that it [the unit] is removed from the table.

The table 'is' the playing field. Anything not on it isn't 'in play'.

 Neorealist wrote:

Kevin949 wrote: I'm unaware of anything can target/affect units in a transport that also causes wounds outside of gets hot! and those don't cause morale checks since it wasn't a shooting attack.

PSAs, mainly, often it's due to Perils of the Warp. That said: any time a unit loses 25% or more of it's models in a given movement or shooting phase that unit needs to make a morale check at the end of the phase regardless of what caused those casualties. (so wounds from 'Gets hot' count, as do Perils and other sources of self-inflicted wounds).

Oh? But if they're not in play they can't take morale tests. If they're not in play there's no reason for them to be fearless.

Kevin949 wrote: Oh? But if they're not in play they can't take morale tests. If they're not in play there's no reason for them to be fearless.

if you would be so kind, please quote (or at least reference) a rule which specifically indicates units that aren't in play cannot take morale tests.

 Kevin949 wrote:
Oh? But if they're not in play they can't take morale tests. If they're not in play there's no reason for them to be fearless.

I pointed that out a while ago. He won't budge on the point that rules like that imply in play but that the p78 embarking rules explicitly state off the table.

I am now trying to un-conflate "off the table" vs "out of play"

 Neorealist wrote:
The table 'is' the playing field. Anything not on it isn't 'in play'.

And if you look at the very first line in the transports section, it says "Some vehicles can carry Infantry across the battlefield..."

You can't go "across" something without being in it, or on it.

 Neorealist wrote:

Kevin949 wrote: Oh? But if they're not in play they can't take morale tests. If they're not in play there's no reason for them to be fearless.

if you would be so kind, please quote (or at least reference) a rule which specifically indicates units that aren't in play cannot take morale tests.

try again. Permissive rules set.

There are rules in place that cause wounds to embarked units and rules that require morale checks under these conditions. There does not need to be rule which specifically indicates units that aren't in play cannot take morale tests, hence there is a reason to make them fearless.

Also, do you have a response about "off the table" = "out of play" ? That would simplify the topic

Kevin949 wrote: You can't go "across" something without being in it, or on it.

Wandering a bit far from a rules-specific discussion here, but don't airplanes do that all the time? they can hardly be said to be 'on' or 'in' the ocean, but they can certainly do 'go across' it.

 Neorealist wrote:
Actually no, the rule you quoted indicates that 'when the unit embarks, remove it (the unit) from the table' just as i'd previously suggested.

Yes but 'remove from the table' is not the same thing as 'remove from play'.

foolishmortal wrote:

 Kevin949 wrote:
Oh? But if they're not in play they can't take morale tests. If they're not in play there's no reason for them to be fearless.

I pointed that out a while ago. He won't budge on the point that rules like that imply in play but that the p78 embarking rules explicitly state off the table.

I am now trying to un-conflate "off the table" vs "out of play"

Not to nitpick but I actually brought it up before your post about it and have been arguing the point of how they must be in play to utilize a rule that ONLY works when models are in play. Indeed everything embarked models can do requires they be in play

foolishmortal wrote: Also, do you have a response about "off the table" = "out of play" ? That would simplify the topic

Certainly: the parameters of the playing surface (aka 'the battlefield') are detailed on the various 'deployment maps' on pages 118 and 119. Models which are not within the boundries indicated by the various maps are dealt with in various ways depending on how they ended up in that situation; but the most common result of not being within the 'table edges' is the removal of the models as casualties.

In this case however the unit is simply set aside with a note indicating it is being transported, so it can later be reintroduced to the playing surface when it's controller decides to disembark it.

 Neorealist wrote:

Kevin949 wrote: Oh? But if they're not in play they can't take morale tests. If they're not in play there's no reason for them to be fearless.

if you would be so kind, please quote (or at least reference) a rule which specifically indicates units that aren't in play cannot take morale tests.

Uh, what? It's a function OF the rules, not the rule itself. I mean, that's just a ridiculous statement to make. If we're starting to allow things to work from not-in-play models then I want my Imotekh lord of the storm from reserves back!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Neorealist wrote:

Kevin949 wrote: You can't go "across" something without being in it, or on it.

Wandering a bit far from a rules-specific discussion here, but don't airplanes do that all the time? they can hardly be said to be 'on' or 'in' the ocean, but they can certainly do 'go across' it.

So we're resorting to comparing to real life scenarios now?

Also, even though they go across the ocean they're still in the air space and would be "in-play" in those areas it crosses.


*edit*
Also, you still haven't answered my question as to what you think you *can* measure for from an embarked unit (that is not a shooting attack or the KFF).

 Neorealist wrote:

Kevin949 wrote: You can't go "across" something without being in it, or on it.

Wandering a bit far from a rules-specific discussion here, but don't airplanes do that all the time? they can hardly be said to be 'on' or 'in' the ocean, but they can certainly do 'go across' it.

This is argument for the sake of argument. Your point has been dis-proven by rules already.

Kevin949 wrote:Uh, what? It's a function OF the rules, not the rule itself. I mean, that's just a ridiculous statement to make. If we're starting to allow things to work from not-in-play models then I want my Imotekh lord of the storm from reserves back!

Not that it is particularly relevent to this discussion but you 'can' benefit from certain abilities even when the model itself is not in play (if those abilities explicitly state such), and 'Lord of the Storm' is one of them: how else would the Nightfighting automatically apply during the first turn regardless of wether or not Imotekh is on the board?

 Neorealist wrote:

foolishmortal wrote: Also, do you have a response about "off the table" = "out of play" ? That would simplify the topic

Certainly: the parameters of the playing surface (aka 'the battlefield') are detailed on the various 'deployment maps' on pages 118 and 119. Models which are not within the boundries indicated by the various maps are dealt with in various ways depending on how they ended up in that situation; but the most common result of not being within the 'table edges' is the removal of the models as casualties.

In this case however the unit is simply set aside with a note indicating it is being transported, so it can later be reintroduced to the playing surface when it's controller decides to disembark it.

Saying "playing surface" instead of table or battlefield is not a citation of a rule for "off the table" = "out of play"

I didn't notice the phrase "in play" on p118-119

p121 might be relevant, or maybe just a distraction. I am unsure.

Deploy Forces
units are deployed on the table, in deployment zones
units may be deployed in transport vehicles

They are the rules for what constitutes the playing surface. Are you looking for a specific rule that indicates a model on the battlefield is in play or controversely that a model not on the battlefield 'isn't' in play?

The table is the physical real-world thing that exists outside the game, used to represent the battlefield in the fictional battle/game. Just like the models in a unit represent the fictional unit.

By using the word table, GW indicates to us that they're talking about the physical representations, not the fictional unit and battlefield inside the game. Yes, they could have been more precise by saying "pick up the models and remove them from the table", but I don't expect that they thought that was necessary. If the game rules are representing a unit entering a vehicle, how on earth would they expect people to take that as the unit embarking and then somehow NOT being in the vehicle? That's the whole point. They're inside, and the rules describe how a unit which is inside a vehicle interacts with other units, which is necessitated by two things:

A) Representing the concept of them being inside a big solid thing and thus shielded from harm/targeting to some degee, and likewise restricted in how they can interact with other things outside the transport.
B) Establishing how you interact with a unit which is not physically represented by its own models, whose position is now instead indicated by the model for the transport.

 Neorealist wrote:
They are the rules for what constitutes the playing surface. Are you looking for a specific rule that indicates a model on the battlefield is in play or controversely that a model not on the battlefield 'isn't' in play?

Yes. I keep coming back to this post.

 Neorealist wrote:
Actually no, the rule you quoted indicates that 'when the unit embarks, remove it (the unit) from the table' just as i'd previously suggested.

What i'd like you to clarify if you could is where you are seeing rules-justification for your statement that the unit remains in play? as your quoted text states quite the opposite. Also, 'Varguards' Duty' allows one to deepstrike without error only within 6" of Zandrekh himself, not whatever unit he happens to be a part of (if any).

You are asking for a rule saying explicitly that off the table units can remain in play.

I am now seeking a rules based definition of in play.

If there isn't one, then I reject the premise of your initial question and would instead say that (RAW) 40k is a permissive ruleset with explicit interactions and some measure of clarification provided by GW.

They [GW] have provided the rules interaction for this situation and clarification from several faqs. You seem to be objecting based on the definition of the term "in play". Please cite your source.