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.

It's a matter of RAI vs RAW.

I'd say that an "Aura" is a passive or active AOE buff or debuff from one unit effecting one or more unitl(s).

Personally I don't think Orders are an Aura ability.

Same as Chapter Tactics and their equivalents aren't Auras.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
It's a matter of RAI vs RAW.

RaW is RaI, otherwise it would be errataed.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
It's a matter of RAI vs RAW.

RaW is RaI, otherwise it would be errataed.

Not true. There are a plethora of examples showing people misinterpret (and misrepresent) rules on a regular basis.

Lots of people thought Re-rolls before modifiers wasn't RaI and GW outright came out and explicitly said it was both RaW and RaI.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
It's a matter of RAI vs RAW.

I'd say that an "Aura" is a passive or active AOE buff or debuff from one unit effecting one or more unitl(s).

Personally I don't think Orders are an Aura ability.

Same as Chapter Tactics and their equivalents aren't Auras.

I agree that orders themselves are not aura, but the ability Voice of Command that grants the orders needs to count as an 'Aura Ability' for consistency purposes.

Chapter tactics are different in that it is inherent to the eligible models and is not granted from one unit/model to another.

 Larks wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
It's a matter of RAI vs RAW.

RaW is RaI, otherwise it would be errataed.

Not true. There are a plethora of examples showing people misinterpret (and misrepresent) rules on a regular basis.

Oh not this again... "I can't be wrong" is getting ollllld.

If we were to venture into the dangerous realm of intent while Mr. BCB is here, what does Nemesor Zahndrekh's Counter Tactics do exactly?

"...any aura abilities... cannot be used..."

What does this effectively accomplish? It negates a character from using an ability that provides buff/debuff to nearby units/models.

Voice of Command is effectively an ability that provides buff to nearby units. Should VoC really be excluded from being affected by Counter Tactics simply because it provides buff to selected unit(s) only, within its effective radius?

BRB Core Rules wrote:Some units – usually CHARACTERS – have abilities that affect certain models within a given range. Unless the ability in question says otherwise, a model with a rule like this is always within range of the effect.

Is VoC an "Ability"?: Yes, it is in the abilities section of the datasheet.
Does VoC "affect certain models"?: Yes, it affects INFANTRY <REGIMENT> models, which is a subset of "all models".
Does VoC "affect certain models within a given range"?: Yes, "Orders may only be issued to INFANTRY units within 6" of this unit[...]"

If VoC doesn't fit the definition for what an Aura Ability is then nothing does.

Voice of Command requires you to pick a target unit.
Auras affect units/models (depending on the rule in question) within range - no target picking required.
If you actually, really need a delineator, this is a clear one.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Auras affect units/models (depending on the rule in question) within range - no target picking required.

Please can you site where in the rules for aura abilities this is the case? All the rules say is that they "affect certain models within a given range." It does not prohibit the effects from being only temporary, nor does it demand they be permanent.

Yeah, this is a really vague and badly worded ability. You'll need to talk to your opponent/TO to find out what counts and what doesn't to them.

BaconCatBug wrote:

Doctoralex wrote:
Heey there,

I'd like to know how people interpret this ability:

'Counter Tactics: at the start of your opponent's turn, select an enemy character. All aura abilities are disabled until the start of your opponents next turn.'

So I was thinking, what all counts as an aura ability? This is what the general handbook says:

AURA ABILITIES Some units – usually CHARACTERS – have abilities that affect certain models within a given range.
Unless the ability in question says otherwise, a model with a rule like this is always within range of the effect.

Does this mean it is only 'passive' abilities, like a Captain's reroll 1's to hit? or could they mean 'active' abilities as well, like a Guard Commander giving orders?

That's a good question. My gut would say that it's only "passive" ones but I could easily see the argument it's all abilities with a range.

BaconCatBug wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Auras affect units/models (depending on the rule in question) within range - no target picking required.

Please can you site where in the rules for aura abilities this is the case? All the rules say is that they "affect certain models within a given range." It does not prohibit the effects from being only temporary, nor does it demand they be permanent.

It's my interpretation of the rules written; to me it seems a grossly unintended stretch to suggest anything with a range is an "aura". The word "aura" itself is important and deliberately chosen, meaning a field or halo around something. A precisely directed order is not a field around something. Your take may vary, but the RAW to me means what I wrote. if you believe "aura" means "a specific directed thing" then you don't understand the reasoj for the choice of words in the Aura Abilities rules.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
It's my interpretation of the rules written

Which is objectively incorrect, the same way me claiming my conscripts are T20 is objectively incorrect.

My "gut feeling" is incorrect, as I have pointed out. My "gut feeling" means less than nothing when it comes to the RaW. It was just an observation that, once again, the first glance look at the rules turns out to be wrong.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
It's my interpretation of the rules written

Which is objectively incorrect, the same way me claiming my conscripts are T20 is objectively incorrect.

My "gut feeling" is incorrect, as I have pointed out. My "gut feeling" means less than nothing when it comes to the RaW. It was just an observation that, once again, the first glance look at the rules turns out to be wrong.

Adding 'objectively' to your subjective hot take doesn't make it objective, lets not stoop to that low quality level of discourse please. It's a poor habit that makes for poor discussions. Although yes, I'm glad we agree your oft-mentioned Conscript fallacy is incorrect, which it is by any yardstick.

Are you saying "Explodes" is now somehow an aura? It's in the abilities section, with a range, which could affect some models... by your logic it's an aura. (It also isn't by the way)

Why do you think an aura is a directed ability like an order? Do you understand why they chose the word 'aura' at all? It wasn't for no reason. An aura ability affects all eligible models in a radius - that would be a better way of phrasing what they actually wrote. That is how I understand the RAW.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Are you saying "Explodes" is now somehow an aura? It's in the abilities section, with a range, which could affect some models... by your logic it's an aura. (It also isn't by the way)

RaW it fits the definition, the same reason why Bellowing Voice applies to explodes too.

GW would need to issue an errata or special snowflake FAQ to make it otherwise.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Why do you think an aura is a directed ability like an order? Do you understand why they chose the word 'aura' at all? It wasn't for no reason. An aura ability affects all eligible models in a radius - that would be a better way of phrasing what they actually wrote. That is how I understand the RAW.

Your "understanding" of the RaW is simply wrong. Incorrect. Not applicable. Other Synonym. The rule simply does not say what you claim it says. If it said "affects all eligible models in a radius all the time", then fine. But it doesn't. You might as well argue that Bolters don't need to roll to hit because it doesn't specifically forbid bolters from not needing to roll to hit. What the name of the rule is is irrelevant.

I agree with those saying that Voice of Command is an Aura ability insofar as this power is concerned RAW.

Might not be the intended use of the rule but it's certainly there now.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
I agree with those saying that Voice of Command is an Aura ability insofar as this power is concerned RAW.

Might not be the intended use of the rule but it's certainly there now.

Really?
... Ok i accept that people genuinely don't know what an aura is.(by which I mean the definition isn't precise enough, fault at gw, not the reader)
Orders don't meet the definition at all, even with the usual dakka lawyering.

BUT it is kinda funny that explodes is an aura.

Captyn_Bob wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
I agree with those saying that Voice of Command is an Aura ability insofar as this power is concerned RAW.

Might not be the intended use of the rule but it's certainly there now.

Really?
... Ok i accept that people genuinely don't know what an aura is.(by which I mean the definition isn't precise enough, fault at gw, not the reader)
Orders don't meet the definition at all, even with the usual dakka lawyering.

BUT it is kinda funny that explodes is an aura.

It IS GWs fault. It's not rules lawyering to try to follow the rules as written. It's just that GW writes such fething horrible rules that we have these endless discussions. You can't fault people for following the definition as written. They are correct in doing so. And it's not like it's possible to try to sort out RAI. They have made some calls that go completely counter to what people would reasonably assume was RAI before. It's all bull crap and it's all GWs fault.

 JohnnyHell wrote:

It's my interpretation of the rules written; to me it seems a grossly unintended stretch to suggest anything with a range is an "aura". The word "aura" itself is important and deliberately chosen, meaning a field or halo around something.

Oh yes, GW is well known for their precise choice of words

 JohnnyHell wrote:

A precisely directed order is not a field around something. Your take may vary, but the RAW to me means what I wrote. if you believe "aura" means "a specific directed thing" then you don't understand the reasoj for the choice of words in the Aura Abilities rules.

The core rules define what an aura is. Orders fit the description perfectly.

 JohnnyHell wrote:

 Larks wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
It's a matter of RAI vs RAW.

RaW is RaI, otherwise it would be errataed.

Not true. There are a plethora of examples showing people misinterpret (and misrepresent) rules on a regular basis.

Oh not this again... "I can't be wrong" is getting ollllld.

It undoubtedly is. I really feel for someone who exhibits such anxiety over the letter of the rules. In my opinion 8th is the edition of Rules-As-Intended. To pretend everything is crystal-clear regardless of contradictions and confusions and nonsensical conclusions is... definitely interesting.

I seriously wonder if anyone who truly thinks about the game this way has any fun at all "playing" it.

Except in this case, the RAI is clear as mud.

 Larks wrote:
It undoubtedly is. I really feel for someone who exhibits such anxiety over the letter of the rules. In my opinion 8th is the edition of Rules-As-Intended. To pretend everything is crystal-clear regardless of contradictions and confusions and nonsensical conclusions is... definitely interesting.

I seriously wonder if anyone who truly thinks about the game this way has any fun at all "playing" it.

I have a question: Do you enjoy having your opponents needing to roll to hit and wound with their 240" range Heavy Artillery? If you do, you might just enjoy playing by the rules! After all, I could argue that artillery have spotters, so should never miss, and artillery is very explosive, so should automatically wound. Rules as Intended, of course.

8th is no more the "edition" of RaI than any other. Being simplified doesn't excuse poor rules writing.

What is all the more galling is that the question being asked here has an UNAMBIGUOUS and air-tight answer, yet people still try to bang the "RaI" drum because they disagree.

Ugh, nvm, I'll report instead of continuing.

Let's try and keep the discussion polite, guys...

If we were to truly look at the intent behind Counter Tactics ability, it seems its supposed to function as a 'silence' mechanism that disables the character, making it into a simple unit for remainder of the turn.

For one to discount VoC from the abilities that Counter Tactics affects simply because it's a targeted buff seems unintentional IMO.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Auras affect units/models (depending on the rule in question) within range - no target picking required.

Please can you site where in the rules for aura abilities this is the case? All the rules say is that they "affect certain models within a given range." It does not prohibit the effects from being only temporary, nor does it demand they be permanent.

Shooting an enemy unit with ranged weapons affects certain models within a given range. Would you claim shooting is an aura?

Can we start talking about Psychic Powers yet:

Is Psyker an "Ability"?: Yes, it is in the abilities section of the datasheet.
Does Psyker "affect certain models"?: Yes, it can affect damn near every model depending on the power.
Does Psyker "affect certain models within a given range"?: Yes, though which models specifically depends on the power.

If Psyker doesn't fit the definition for what an Aura Ability is then nothing does.

 doctortom wrote:
Shooting an enemy unit with ranged weapons affects certain models within a given range. Would you claim shooting is an aura?

No, because it is not an Ability, which is a defined section of a models datasheet. You're gonna need better quality straw than that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Can we start talking about Psychic Powers yet:

Is Psyker an "Ability"?: Yes, it is in the abilities section of the datasheet.
Does Psyker "affect certain models"?: Yes, it can affect damn near every model depending on the power.
Does Psyker "affect certain models within a given range"?: Yes, though which models specifically depends on the power.

If Psyker doesn't fit the definition for what an Aura Ability is then nothing does.

Please look at a psykers datasheet. You will find that the powers are not in the Abilities section of the datasheet. Again, your straw is of low quality.

An example from the Chaos Space Marines Errata (so it's not showing codex rules wholesale): http://prntscr.com/i77pqi

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 doctortom wrote:
Shooting an enemy unit with ranged weapons affects certain models within a given range. Would you claim shooting is an aura?

No, because it is not an Ability, which is a defined section of a models datasheet. You're gonna need better quality straw than that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Can we start talking about Psychic Powers yet:

Is Psyker an "Ability"?: Yes, it is in the abilities section of the datasheet.
Does Psyker "affect certain models"?: Yes, it can affect damn near every model depending on the power.
Does Psyker "affect certain models within a given range"?: Yes, though which models specifically depends on the power.

If Psyker doesn't fit the definition for what an Aura Ability is then nothing does.

Please look at a psykers datasheet. You will find that the powers are not in the Abilities section of the datasheet. Again, your straw is of low quality.

An example from the Chaos Space Marines Errata (so it's not showing codex rules wholesale): http://prntscr.com/i77pqi

Oh! You're right. I was thinking of the Inquisitor datasheet in my head, but it doesn't say to replace "Iron Will" with Psyker (though the rules functionally do that).

My mistake.

Still, if the definition of aura abilities includes things like an Inquisitor's Quarry, then the definition still needs looking at.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Still, if the definition of aura abilities includes things like an Inquisitor's Quarry, then the definition still needs looking at.

Quarry does not meet the definition of an Aura ability. None of the Quarry effects have any range.