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.

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

The 'Battlefield' rules (page 118) define the table halves as comprising the board 'and' the battlefield.

The 'Deployment' rules (page 119) define where one can legally place models on the battlefield, the battlefield edges, the battlefield size, and deployment zones.

The 'Reserves' (page 124) rules further clarify what constitutes 'on' and 'off' the board, and how a model is moved onto the table using them as a reference.

I've been using 'in play' as shorthand for 'on the table'.

This is entirely apart from the fact that many of the rules in the 6th edition handbook are predicated on the physical model being used a point of reference of some sort; either for shooting, abilities, location, proximity, etc. (all of which cannot be determined unless there is a specific rule giving an exception if the model is not present on the table.)

 Neorealist wrote:

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

The 'Battlefield' rules (page 118) define the table halves as comprising the board 'and' the battlefield.

The 'Deployment' rules (page 119) define where one can legally place models on the battlefield, the battlefield edges, the battlefield size, and deployment zones.

The 'Reserves' (page 124) rules further clarify what constitutes 'on' and 'off' the board, and how a model is moved onto the table using them as a reference.

the above sections do not define "in play".

 Neorealist wrote:
I've been using 'in play' as shorthand for 'on the table'.

This is the likely source of your confusion. You have created an overly restrictive definition in a permissive ruleset that does not exist in the rules text.

 Neorealist wrote:
This is entirely apart from the fact that many of the rules in the 6th edition handbook are predicated on the physical model being used a point of reference of some sort; either for shooting, abilities, location, proximity, etc. (all of which cannot be determined unless there is a specific rule giving an exception if the model is not present on the table.)

And again, thankfully we have these rules as well as many clarifications and parallel situations from GW. In this thread, we have posted and discussed the rules that allow the OP's question to be resolved in the affirmative as well as other instructive situations.

foolishmortal wrote:This is the likely source of your confusion. You have created an overly restrictive definition in a permissive ruleset that does not exist in the rules text.

And again, thankfully we have these rules as well as many clarifications and parallel situations from GW. In this thread, we have posted and discussed the rules that allow the OP's question to be resolved in the affirmative as well as other instructive situations.

Thank you for your opinion, but you are incorrect on the particulars: Stating a model needs to be 'in play' (aka 'on the table') for it to to be interacted with is a concept inherent in 40k and a fundamental basis of how the game works. I'm not 'creating' anything new here, let alone an 'overly restrictive definition'.

In this case, you are 'still' trying to equate being able to determine range to Zandrekhs' unit with being able to determine range to Zandrekh.

Ok, here we go....

The original post

skoffs wrote:I tried doing a search, but I couldn't find any results, so I figured I'd have to ask instead:

Let's say you stick in a Zahndrekh in a Nightscythe with, I dunno, some Immortals.
Also, you have Obyron and a unit of 20 Warriors already on the table.
Zahndrekh's Nightscythe zooms onto the table and parks next to something you want shot to pieces.
Zahndrekh's unit does NOT disembark.
now,
Can Obyron and his unit Ghostwalk themselves next to Zahndrekh's Nightscythe and benefit from the Vargard's Duty and not scatter because Obyron is arriving with 6" of Zahndrekh?

If so... wow, that is a very handy way to systematically obliterate back field pains in the ass like Long Fangs and Basilisks.

Answered affermative by a several, including a MOD. I'm not making an argument from authority here, merely going through the thread. Up until now there have been some rules citations, but the tone of the thread has waffled between RAI/HIWPI and RAW.

Mannahnin wrote:This works fine. Of course you need to rely on your Reserve rolls for Zandrekh to show up before you can use it.

The similar combo NecronLord is thinking of is a Locator Beacon on a Stormraven or Drop Pod, which can guide in Deep Striking units, but Locator Beacons and Teleport Homers have to be on the table at the start of the turn (before Reserves move

on) to be used. The Nemesor has no such restriction.

Your rules based objection...

Neorealist wrote:Really? I was under the impression that models in vehicles were 'removed from the table' and therefor not considered 'on' the table for most other rules? (with exceptions for rules which specifically allow for interaction

with models on the board; for example using fire ports).

See page 78 for the transport rules in full, but here is the pertinent text: "...When the unit embarks, remove it from the table and place it aside, making a note that the unit is being transported..."
And a relevent excerpt from 'The Varguards' Duty': "...uses his Ghostwalk Mantle, he does not scatter providing he aims to arrive within 6" of Zahndrekh..."

For posters who've indicated that you can deepstrike without error; please explain how you can 'aim to arrive within 6 inches' of a model that is not currently on the table?

Mannahnin provides a rules based response...

Mannahnin wrote:Well, if you include the following and key sentence in that first quote, you'll see it.

Page 78 wrote:When the unit embarks, remove it from the table and place it aside, making a note that the unit is being transported. If the players need to measure a range involving the embarked unit (except for its shooting), this range is measured to

or from the vehicle's hull

Units which are embarked on transports are still in play. The MODELS representing them are removed from the table, but the unit is still in play, with some restrictions on how it interacts with other units.

The part that makes this a bit counterintuitive with Night Scythes is that the fluff for their portal is that they're not actually in the thing, but game mechanics-wise, they are, as the Invasion Beams rule tells us by referring to the unit as being embarked

on the transport.

At this point, the thread's conversation is basically finished as far as RAI/HIWPI. There was still a RAW argument to be made. You proceed to make 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.

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).

Mannahnin and several others did not find your argument persuasive. Neither did, but I was willing explore the topic.

Neorealist wrote:

 Mannahnin wrote:
No, I've provided a list of examples of how the rules make exhaustively clear and obvious that the unit is still in play. All these rules consistently

demonstrate and represent this simple and intuitive concept.

Hardly; not a single one of those examples you've quoted explicitly indicates that the embarked unit is treated as in play. Given not a single one of them ever actuallys states that 'simple and intuitive concept', I'm surprised you believe they are definitive examples of such.

Quite apart from all of that however:
You can determine range to and from a unit embarked on a transport by measuring to the vehicles' hull. That said; how are you seeing permission to measure the range to Zandrekhs' model (note, not 'unit') doing so? The 'Varguards Duty'

only allows you deepstrike within 6" of Zandrekh, you are not given permission within Obryons' rules to deepstrike within 6" of his unit. (which is the only thing the rules support measuring range to while they are embarked on

a transport)

I personally feel that the p78 embarkation rules provide a sufficient RAW basis for the PRO position to the OP's question.

 Neorealist wrote:
In this case, you are 'still' trying to equate being able to determine range to Zandrekhs' unit with being able to determine range to Zandrekh.

But, if you want more, the quickest, clearest FAQ based clarification would be the Ork Mek and the Kuston Force Field...

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”.

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.

foolishmortal wrote:But, if you want more, the quickest, clearest FAQ based clarification would be the Ork Mek and the Kuston Force Field...

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”.

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.

Interesting that you'd mention that, as i've been meaning to directly address those two FAQ updates specifically:
The First ruling you've quoted indicates that range needs to be measured from Mek itself for the Kustom Force Field wargear.
The Second ruling however indicates that measuring the range of such 'items' should be measured from the hull of the transport they are embarked on.

So, the first update ask you to determine range from the Mek (the model), the second update indicates you determine range from the item itself. There is a bit of a conflict there: do you measure range from the 'Mek' itself (ie: following the first FAQ update), or do you measure range from the 'Item' via the hull of the transport? (ie: following the second FAQ update)

Both? Neither? which has precidence?

You measure range to/from a piece of wargear like a KFF, IG Company Standard, or Blood Chalice by measuring to the model holding it. If that model is embarked in a transport, you measure to the edge of the transport's hull.

This has worked the same way for at least four editions of the rules, now.

Obviously measuring to one by definition measures to the other. Otherwise the answers to the FAQs could not be what they are.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Neorealist wrote:

In this case, you are 'still' trying to equate being able to determine range to Zandrekhs' unit with being able to determine range to Zandrekh.

By definition, if you can measure to Zahndrek's model, you have measured to his unit.

 Neorealist wrote:

So, the first update ask you to determine range from the Mek (the model), the second update indicates you determine range from the item itself. There is a bit of a conflict there: do you measure range from the 'Mek' itself (ie: following the first FAQ update), or do you measure range from the 'Item' via the hull of the transport? (ie: following the second FAQ update)

Both? Neither? which has precidence?

Precedence is not required since there is no conflict.

Look at it like a flowchart

Measure from the wargear. >>> How? >>> Measure from the model with the wargear. >>> Unit is embarked in transport. How now? >>> Measure from hull.

rigeld2 wrote:
Obviously measuring to one by definition measures to the other. Otherwise the answers to the FAQs could not be what they are.

Yup. The whole unit/each model in the unit can be measured to and from by measuring anywhere on the hull of the vehicle (except for shooting, which has to be measured from a fire point).

rigeld2 wrote:

 Neorealist wrote:

In this case, you are 'still' trying to equate being able to determine range to Zandrekhs' unit with being able to determine range to Zandrekh.

By definition, if you can measure to Zahndrek's model, you have measured to his unit.

True, although not vice-versa, except when they're in a transport (at which point they all are treated as occupying the same space on the table).

rigeld2 wrote: By definition, if you can measure to Zahndrek's model, you have measured to his unit.

Indeed. However the reverse is not the case: measuring 6" to his unit does not necessarily mean your model is within 6" of Zahndrekh himself. It is only the latter option (measuring range to his unit) that you've been given permission to do within the Transport rules.

But the FAQ makes clear and explicit that you also measure to and from the hull when measuring effect from a particular model in the unit, specifically referencing the KFF.

 Mannahnin wrote:
But the FAQ makes clear and explicit that you also measure to and from the hull when measuring effect from a particular model in the unit, specifically referencing the KFF.

Not really. The first of the two FAQ notes refers to how you measure range for the Kustom Force Field outside of a transport, the Second applies to how you'd do so inside of a transport. The first one doesn't work within the context of a Transport, and the second one doesn't allow you to measure to the specific model so much as measuring to a proxy for the item iself.

You appear to be looking for excuses for the rules not to work. Your interpretation here is in conflict with how they do work. You're making a circular argument, using your conclusion as a premise to prove your own conclusion.

A) To measure the units affected by a particular wargear item with a radius effect, you measure to and from the model equipped with that wargear. Easy.
B) If that unit is embarked in a transport, instead of measuring to the model (which is now impossible, as it's physically off the table), you measure to the transport, just as you do when measuring to the unit in the transport. Simple and clean.

Mannahnin wrote:You appear to be looking for excuses for the rules not to work. Your interpretation here is in conflict with how they do work. You're making a circular argument, using your conclusion as a premise to prove your own conclusion.

A) To measure the units affected by a particular wargear item with a radius effect, you measure to and from the model equipped with that wargear. Easy.
B) If that unit is embarked in a transport, instead of measuring to the model (which is now impossible, as it's physically off the table), you measure to the transport, just as you do when measuring to the unit in the transport. Simple and clean.

I'm not looking for excuses; on the contrary i'd prefer if it 'did' work they way you've indicated as i am a big Necron enthusiast.

I don't have any issue with your first point, just your second.
There are specific reasons that you are allowed within the rules to measure range to the embarked unit, (shooting, abilities, etc) most of which you've done an admirable job of pointing out previously. Unfortunately there is no specific rule which allows you to determine range to a specific model within the transport, which you would need to do in order to satisfy the conditions for 'The Vargards Duty'.

 Neorealist wrote:
Unfortunately there is no specific rule which allows you to determine range to a specific model within the transport, which you would need to do in order to satisfy the conditions for 'The Vargards Duty'.

So you're ignoring the KFF example, the Blood Chalice example, and others?

I'm not ignoring them, they just aren't applicable. Whatever it is that makes Zahndrekh oh so irresistable to Obyron, it is not a piece of wargear and would therefore not follow rules for such.

 Neorealist wrote:
I'm not ignoring them, they just aren't applicable. Whatever it is that makes Zahndrekh oh so irresistable to Obyron, it is not a piece of wargear and would therefore not follow rules for such.

Actually, it is a piece of wargear. Specifically, Obyron's Ghostwalk mantle.

Nope, that is inaccurate. The ghostwalk mantle is what Obyron uses to teleport with, sure. But the special rule which states all that good stuff about the proximity to Zahndrekh? it is one of his special abilities, specifically the one called 'The Vargard's Duty'.

That said, even if the Ghostwalk Mantle 'was' generating some sort of proximity-detecting aura, it's not Obyron that is in the Nightscythe in the example given, but Zandrekh. Surely no one is claiming that Zahndrekh can use another models' wargear for that purpose?

Neorealist wrote:Nope, that is inaccurate. The ghostwalk mantle is what Obryon uses to teleport with, sure. But the special rule which states all that good stuff about the proximity to Zahndrekh? it is one of his special abilities, specifically the one called 'The Vargard's Duty'.

That said, even if the Ghostwalk Mantle 'was' generating some sort of proximity-detecting aura, it's not Obyron that is in the Nightscythe in the example given, but Zandrekh. Surely no one is claiming that Zahndrekh can use another models' wargear for that purpose?

Nope, and I apologize for drinking the koolaid and responding on this distracting line of thought earlier. Mannahnin summed up the core claim pretty well earlier.

Mannahnin wrote:You appear to be looking for excuses for the rules not to work. Your interpretation here is in conflict with how they do work. You're making a circular argument, using your conclusion as a premise to prove your own conclusion.

A) To measure the units affected by a particular wargear item with a radius effect, you measure to and from the model equipped with that wargear. Easy.
B) If that unit is embarked in a transport, instead of measuring to the model (which is now impossible, as it's physically off the table), you measure to the transport, just as you do when measuring to the unit in the transport. Simple and clean.

I have not yet seen a specific rule or a rules based argument that contradicts it.

I don't know, i think the fact that there isn't a single rule allowing it is a pretty good place to start.

This thread has proven informative; there 'are' lots of discrete rules-concepts that are given permission to determine range to/from a transports' hull in proxy of the embarked unit inside.

Regrettably, 'The Vargard's Duty' isn't one of them by virtue of requiring the model be within 6" of Zandrekh himself. (not his unit, his wargear, or anything else that i've been able to find or have had brought to my attention that actually does have permission to do that.)

 Neorealist wrote:

Regrettably, 'The Vargard's Duty' isn't one of them by virtue of requiring the model be within 6" of Zandrekh himself. (not his unit, his wargear, or anything else that i've been able to find or have had brought to my attention ]that actually does have permission to do that.)

Assuming Zandrekh is a unit of one (ie isn't attached), would you say you could measure to the model?

rigeld2 wrote: Assuming Zandrekh is a unit of one (ie isn't attached), would you say you could measure to the model?

I do not believe we are given permission within the rules to measure to a specific embarked 'model' itself for any reason, even if measuring to the embarked 'unit' (which we have permission to do) would result in the exact same measurement as would be the case if Zandrekh was by himself in the 'scythe.

 Neorealist wrote:

rigeld2 wrote: Assuming Zandrekh is a unit of one (ie isn't attached), would you say you could measure to the model?

I do not believe we are given permission within the rules to measure to a specific embarked 'model' itself for any reason, even if measuring to the embarked 'unit' (which we have permission to do) would result in the exact same measurement as would be the case if Zandrekh was by himself in the 'scythe.

The KFF gives all units within 6" of the Mek a save.
The FAQ allows that save to be measured to a vehicle.
That's a measurement to a model in a vehicle.

rigeld2 wrote:
The KFF gives all units within 6" of the Mek a save.
The FAQ allows that save to be measured to a vehicle.
That's a measurement to a model in a vehicle.

A careful reading of the FAQ indicates that it gives measurement of range to an 'item' or 'wargear' found in a vehicle, not the model itself. Just because they are (for the purposes of range anyway) the same thing does not mean because you can do one you automatically can do the other.

 Neorealist wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
The KFF gives all units within 6" of the Mek a save.
The FAQ allows that save to be measured to a vehicle.
That's a measurement to a model in a vehicle.

A careful reading of the FAQ indicates that it gives measurement of range to an 'item' or 'wargear' found in a vehicle, not the model itself. Just because they are (for the purposes of range anyway) the same thing does not mean because you can do one you automatically can do the other.

Except the actual KFF rule (as posted in this thread) requires measuring to the Mek, not to the wargear.
So the FAQ is actually making the equality between a model and its wargear, and saying that you can measure to a model inside a vehicle.

Sure, measuring to the KFF normally requires measuring to the model which you would not normally be able to do from within a vehicle. The second FAQ note rectifies that by allowing you to measure to the 'item' itself instead when the model carrying it is embarked on a vehicle.

Make no mistake though, the 'KFF from within a vehicle' ruling is specific to wargear, it's not a general admission of ability to determine range to models.

 Neorealist wrote:
Sure, measuring to the KFF normally requires measuring to the model which you would not normally be able to do from within a vehicle. The second FAQ note rectifies that by allowing you to measure to the 'item' itself instead when the model carrying it is embarked on a vehicle.

Make no mistake though, the 'KFF from within a vehicle' ruling is specific to wargear, it's not a general admission of ability to determine range to models.

That's not what the FAQ says.
The question equates measuring to wargear and measuring to a model.
The answer gives allowance to do so using the hull of a vehicle.

rigeld2 wrote: That's not what the FAQ says.
The question equates measuring to wargear and measuring to a model.
The answer gives allowance to do so using the hull of a vehicle.

i cannot think of anything more eloquent than "uhh, yes it does?", so i'll quote the relevent entry here and let you be the judge.

FAQ Entry:
"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. "
The pertinent points being the references to 'area of effect wargear', and the 'range of such items'.

 Neorealist wrote:

rigeld2 wrote: That's not what the FAQ says.
The question equates measuring to wargear and measuring to a model.
The answer gives allowance to do so using the hull of a vehicle.

i cannot think of anything more eloquent than "uhh, yes it does?", so i'll quote the relevent entry here and let you be the judge.

FAQ Entry:
"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. "
The pertinent points being the references to 'area of effect wargear', and the 'range of such items'.

A) I've asked in the past to please stop using yellow as its hard for me to read.
B) the actual KFF rule requires measuring to the Mek. The FAQ does not say to measure to the wargear. It says to measure the range of the wargear from the hull of the transport. Nothing in that FAQ changes the target of what you measure to.

 Neorealist wrote:

rigeld2 wrote: That's not what the FAQ says.
The question equates measuring to wargear and measuring to a model.
The answer gives allowance to do so using the hull of a vehicle.

i cannot think of anything more eloquent than "uhh, yes it does?", so i'll quote the relevent entry here and let you be the judge.

FAQ Entry:
"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. "
The pertinent points being the references to 'area of effect wargear', and the 'range of such items'.

And your failing to realize those items of wargear are on a specific model.