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.

 flandarz wrote:
It literally says "not affected by anything". Unless there's another definition for "anything" that I don't know, that would still include "preexisting modifiers". I don't know what else to tell ya, champ. You got the Transport rules, then the Open-Topped rules which only grant specific exceptions to those rules. Neither one says "not affected by anything except preexisting modifiers". If your argument is RAI, that's fine. But you can't really argue the RAW. It's right there, in black and white. I quoted it, and others have as well.

Actually we can really argue the RAW. Taking the full sentence and not just a short excerpt, it's "Embarked units cannot normally do anything or be affected in any way whilst they are embarked." This does not say that things that affected them previous to embarking are removed. So, if you picked up a "moving" condition that causes a -1, that condition comes from your actions before embarking and would still apply, the same way that if you advanced before embarking you would still have the condition prohibiting you from shooting. Advancing and embarking does not remove the condition that the unit had advanced.

 doctortom wrote:

 flandarz wrote:
It literally says "not affected by anything". Unless there's another definition for "anything" that I don't know, that would still include "preexisting modifiers". I don't know what else to tell ya, champ. You got the Transport rules, then the Open-Topped rules which only grant specific exceptions to those rules. Neither one says "not affected by anything except preexisting modifiers". If your argument is RAI, that's fine. But you can't really argue the RAW. It's right there, in black and white. I quoted it, and others have as well.

Actually we can really argue the RAW. Taking the full sentence and not just a short excerpt, it's "Embarked units cannot normally do anything or be affected in any way whilst they are embarked." This does not say that things that affected them previous to embarking are removed. So, if you picked up a "moving" condition that causes a -1, that condition comes from your actions before embarking and would still apply, the same way that if you advanced before embarking you would still have the condition prohibiting you from shooting. Advancing and embarking does not remove the condition that the unit had advanced.

He's saying even the core rule ceases to apply because it is "affecting" the unit.

Though I would agree that if an embarked unit was a target of lasting debuffs (i.e. psychic powers), those modifiers will cease to function.

You are technically correct. As per GW, embarked units are no longer on the field, and units not on the field cannot do anything or be affected by anything. I'm pretty sure that "do anything or be affected by anything" covers everything in the core rules. Let me know if you find something in there that isn't "anything".

Let's assume a hypothetical. Let's say there's a universal magical law that states "you cannot be affected by illness while in a hospital". If you were sick outside of the hospital, and walked in, you would might still "be sick", but you would be "unaffected" by the consequences of it.

Same deal here. "Embarked units cannot normally do anything or be affected in any way whilst they are embarked". They were affected by these penalties while they were disembarked, but while embarked, they cannot be affected by anything. They still have the Moving and/or Advanced condition, but because they're embarked, they aren't affected by them.

Now, I don't think this is intended. And, again, I think it's jank. But, as written, it DOES provide immunity to "anything", including penalties for Advancing and/or Moving.

 flandarz wrote:
You are technically correct. As per GW, embarked units are no longer on the field, and units not on the field cannot do anything or be affected by anything. I'm pretty sure that "do anything or be affected by anything" covers everything in the core rules. Let me know if you find something in there that isn't "anything".

Let's assume a hypothetical. Let's say there's a universal magical law that states "you cannot be affected by illness while in a hospital". If you were sick outside of the hospital, and walked in, you would might still "be sick", but you would be "unaffected" by the consequences of it.

Same deal here. "Embarked units cannot normally do anything or be affected in any way whilst they are embarked". They were affected by these penalties while they were disembarked, but while embarked, they cannot be affected by anything. They still have the Moving and/or Advanced condition, but because they're embarked, they aren't affected by them.

Now, I don't think this is intended. And, again, I think it's jank. But, as written, it DOES provide immunity to "anything", including penalties for Advancing and/or Moving.

With a more normal reading of not being affected, there's a difference between not being being affected while embarked and being affected by something before you embark. You're still affected by the stuff from before you embark. They still have the effects from before they embark, but nothing that happens while they are embarked (i.e. nothing new) will affect them. Which one seems the more likely interpretation, the one where they're still affected by what they did before, or the magical stasis cube that throws out all rules while embarked?

 flandarz wrote:
I'm pretty sure that "do anything or be affected by anything" covers everything in the core rules.

This is the assumption you're making in the interpretation of the text in question. The written text does not specifically state for that quote to say "this covers everything in the core rules as well".

For all we know, the text could mean to say:

"Embarked units cannot normally do anything or be affected in any way whilst they are embarked, [including penalties imposed as a result of it's prior movement phase]"

or

"Embarked units cannot normally do anything or be affected in any way whilst they are embarked. [All pre-existing penalties, including but not limited to psychic debuffs and moving and firing heavy weapons]"

or

"Embarked units cannot normally do anything or be affected in any way [by any other units, only] whilst they are embarked."

or

"Embarked units cannot normally do anything or be affected in any way [by any other units, including the abilities the unit has on its datasheet] whilst they are embarked."

or

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

and so on.

You seem to be mistaking that we're saying you're reading the RAW wrong. We are telling you that your definition of the RAW is actually in fact HYWPI or your own interpretation of the written text (which you are claiming is THE RAW!!).

There's literally not enough information given to us via rulebook to determine which interpretation is the most correct one.

Sure are a lot of extra words you're adding to the rule to support your case. In both of your interpretation, you're required to add caveats to the rule. "Unaffected by anything [except things you were affected with before embarking]", for example.

As before, I agree that this isn't intended. And, normally, it wouldn't be an issue because "Embarked units cannot do anything". So not being affected by anything meant nothing, as you couldn't do anything that would be affected.

The Open-Topped rule, which I quoted earlier, provides specific exceptions to the Transport rule. 1) can shoot. 2) draw LOS and Range from the vehicle. 3) modifiers that affect the Transport affect the occupants. 4) movement penalties incurred by the transport affect the passengers. None of these exceptions say "any abilities, movement penalties, buffs, or debuffs incurred by the unit prior to Embarking stay until they would normally be resolved."

And, yes. I include anything other than just what Open-Topped exempts in "anything". This means no Dakkax3, no Kultur benefits, no Ammo Grot rerolls, no Flash Gitz "shoot again on a 6", etc.

For me, this is the RAW of how the Transport Rules and the Open-Topped Rules interact. It's how both can apply, without adding extra meaning to either one. I, however, don't play this way and I strongly believe that GW just didn't consider this interaction when they wrote the Open-Topped rule. Which, to be fair, is pretty par for the course considering all the FAQs they release.

Tldr; It's RAW to be "unaffected" by everything but that Open-Topped specifically allows, but it certainly isn't RAI and it isn't how I would play the rule.

 flandarz wrote:
Sure are a lot of extra words you're adding to the rule to support your case.

Tell me, what does "I never said she stole my money" mean to you?

Ambiguity is an inherent quality of any language.

Again, your claims are simply your take on what the rule says. The written text is not clear enough to draw a conclusion.

I wanna be clear: there are a LOT of rules in 40k which make no sense and that I don't like. I don't like that of there are two enemy units on opposites sides of the board, and one is a character and the other isn't, that I can't shoot the character if the other unit is 0.1 inches closer to me. It doesn't make sense. I don't like that an enemy vehicle blocks LOS to the unit behind it, but my own do not. It also doesn't make any sense. I don't like that a flamethrower will never miss a plane flying over the treetops. Again, it doesn't make sense. But I also can't argue that, by RAW, each of these things are in the game. So, at least, I can come up with a rational explanation as to why Move and Advance penalties no longer apply when Embarked (as mentioned earlier, the Embarked unit using the frame of the vehicle as a brace). I may not like the rule, but at least it makes more sense than many of the other readily accepted rules.

But, just because I don't like a rule doesn't mean I don't accept that it's RAW. Even if I think it's not intended, or that it makes no sense, it's still RAW. And while I may not play by that RAW, I can't argue that it isn't what it is. I can make my claims to intent and "common sense", and "houserule" it, but then it'll be just that. A house rule.

In this case, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree, cuz I still think this rule is unambiguous and clear-cut.

A unit which is embarked on a transport is not on the battlefield, and can't do anything, or be affected by anything. That's confirmed by the transports rule. An embarked unit can only do something if it gets special permission from another rule, like open topped. The unit can do what open topped allows it to do, no more, no less.

 p5freak wrote:
A unit which is embarked on a transport is not on the battlefield, and can't do anything, or be affected by anything. That's confirmed by the transports rule. An embarked unit can only do something if it gets special permission from another rule, like open topped. The unit can do what open topped allows it to do, no more, no less.

Yes, and then implicitly any rule that comes into affect as a direct result of shooting also applies.

By RAW, no. By near universal consensus (including my own), yes.

 flandarz wrote:
By RAW, no. By near universal consensus (including my own), yes.

It's not even RAW. It's a gap in RAW, which has a clear consensus for how to handle it.

 p5freak wrote:
A unit which is embarked on a transport is not on the battlefield, and can't do anything, or be affected by anything. That's confirmed by the transports rule. An embarked unit can only do something if it gets special permission from another rule, like open topped. The unit can do what open topped allows it to do, no more, no less.

How do you resolve [Gets Hot!] for overcharged plasma in your interpretation?

 skchsan wrote:

 Type40 wrote:
Isn't there also an FAQ that says you have to be able to move to embark. I. E. If you are in melee, surrounded, unless you can fly you can't embark. Doesn't not movimg constitute a similar game state of being unable to move... Again in relation to the OP I don't think this matters because a model that is not on the battlefield is not affected in anyway unless otherwise stated... But you have to move in order to embark, definitely an FAQ on this.

Right. But put more accurately, you must be able to end a move in order to embark. If you are unable to end a move, in this particular case you rbing up, due to being unable to move, then you cannot embark into a transport.

Regarding the second part of your post, let's take another extreme example of this.

Let's say a troupe all equipped with fusion pistol advances, ending it's move within 3" of a Starweaver upfield within 6" of enemy model. The Troupe embarks onto the Starweaver. Because embarking "removes" the state of being "affected" by having advanced and thus not being able to fire any ranged weapon except for assault type, the Troup now shoots their fusion pistols while embarked on the Starweaver.

Does that sound like something you'd agree with? So not only have you gained an ability to advance and shoot a pistol, you've effectively gained d6" + 3" + 60mm on the range of your fusion pistol. Maybe this is what GW intended, maybe not.

I was in a harlies v harlies match up at a tournament. And someone did exactly this to me. The TO said it was legit and RAW. I have been doing it at tournies ever since.
None of this is even about what the transport rule says. Its about what happens to models that are not on the battlefield. We know models not on the battlefield can not be affected by anything.
I wouldn't do this in a friendly casual game, but the RAW does support this, without stitching different sentences or ignoring anything. When a rule says "models not on the battlefield can't be affected in anyway', at least when RAW is concerned, we can't just arbitrarily decide that this one particular rule gets an exception.

Otherwise i'll argue that my Dark Apostle or Chaplain can use their prayers while embarked, because they were on the battlefield at some point.
When it comes to RAW, we don't get to pick and choose, its is what it is.

Now, on that note, if I am playing casually, I wont do that to my opponent, but if I am playing for all the marbles at the tourny, I will, and I expect other harly players to do the same. If my opponent in a casual game wants to do this, I'll probably say its fine, i'll just play more cut throat with that guy next time.

 flandarz wrote:

Embarked units cannot normally do anything or be affected in any way whilst they are embarked. Unless specifically stated, abilities that affect other units within a certain range have no effect whilst the unit that has the ability is embarked.

Open-topped: Models embarked on this model can attack in their Shooting phase. Measure the range and draw line of sight from any point on this model. When they do so, any restrictions or modifiers that apply to this model also apply to its passengers; for example, the passengers cannot shoot if this model Fell Back in the same turn, cannot shoot (except with Pistols) if this model is within 1" of an enemy unit, and so on.

The two rules in question. The former is the "normal" rules for units that are embarked. The latter provides specific exceptions to those rules. Anything it does not provide an exception for still remains "off the table". That includes penalties, bonuses, special abilities, etc.

Again, this is RAW but NOT HIWPI. And, seemingly, not how anyone else would play it either. It's stupid, cheesy, lame, and counterintuitive. But, it wouldn't be the first time that some real dumb RAW was ignored by the entire community (including GW themselves). *looks at Assault Weapons*

They're not being affected? They're shooting with all the bonuses and penalties that apply to them - both their own, and their transport's. They're not shooting because of a banner or a psychic power. They're shooting because of their own ability, and Open Topped, using the penalties and bonuses they incurred during the turn.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 flandarz wrote:
It literally says "not affected by anything". Unless there's another definition for "anything" that I don't know, that would still include "preexisting modifiers". I don't know what else to tell ya, champ. You got the Transport rules, then the Open-Topped rules which only grant specific exceptions to those rules. Neither one says "not affected by anything except preexisting modifiers". If your argument is RAI, that's fine. But you can't really argue the RAW. It's right there, in black and white. I quoted it, and others have as well.

So they're not affected by... Open Topped? They Heavy/Assault/RapidFire/etc profile rules? If they're in the open topped transport and they're not affected by anything Open Topped is part of anything Weapon profile/type rules are anything

skchsan wrote:How do you resolve [Gets Hot!] for overcharged plasma in your interpretation?

RAW, you can overcharge, and you wouldnt die on a 1, because that would you affect in any way.

Breton wrote:
They're not being affected? They're shooting with all the bonuses and penalties that apply to them - both their own, and their transport's. They're not shooting because of a banner or a psychic power. They're shooting because of their own ability, and Open Topped, using the penalties and bonuses they incurred during the turn.

No, by RAW they are not affected by their own penalties and bonuses, they are not on the battlefield. They are not shooting because of their own ability, because they arent on the battlefield. They shoot following the open topped rule, no more, no less. It makes no sense, i dont like it either, but thats RAW.

 flandarz wrote:
Sure are a lot of extra words you're adding to the rule to support your case. In both of your interpretation, you're required to add caveats to the rule. "Unaffected by anything [except things you were affected with before embarking]", for example.

Those "caveats" are a summary of the various different interpretations of the same original rule not caveats. This should have been fairly obvious based on their mutual exclusivity.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 p5freak wrote:
A unit which is embarked on a transport is not on the battlefield, and can't do anything, or be affected by anything. That's confirmed by the transports rule. An embarked unit can only do something if it gets special permission from another rule, like open topped. The unit can do what open topped allows it to do, no more, no less.

I'm sorry, Open Topped is part of "anything" As are all the weapon types. You can shoot, but you have no ability to choose a weapon, or for that weapon choice to mean anything, as you can't be affected by RapidFire, Assault, Pistol, Grenade and so on.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 skchsan wrote:

 p5freak wrote:
A unit which is embarked on a transport is not on the battlefield, and can't do anything, or be affected by anything. That's confirmed by the transports rule. An embarked unit can only do something if it gets special permission from another rule, like open topped. The unit can do what open topped allows it to do, no more, no less.

How do you resolve [Gets Hot!] for overcharged plasma in your interpretation?

You don't. Not being affected by anything means you can't be affected by RapidFire so you can't shoot a Rapid Fire weapon which tells you how many dice to roll for attacks.

Now you got it. The transports/open topped rules makes no sense.

 p5freak wrote:
Now you got it. The transports/open topped rules makes no sense.

They do to people who understand what normally means. Normally they can't, and don't. Open Topped provides an abnormal exception and the effects of that exception. People are taking models are affected by the transport's statuses to mean remove the original statuses when that's not what it says.

They're not being affected by something, they're applying the shooting rules to their shooting. The -1 to hit for moving and firing a heavy is part of the Heavy weapon type. If they're not affected by the Heavy weapon type rules they're shooting with, they're also not going to get to fire Heavy 1 can target a non-closest character sniper rifle rules either.

Breton wrote:

 p5freak wrote:
Now you got it. The transports/open topped rules makes no sense.

They do to people who understand what normally means. Normally they can't, and don't. Open Topped provides an abnormal exception and the effects of that exception. People are taking models are affected by the transport's statuses to mean remove the original statuses when that's not what it says.

They're not being affected by something, they're applying the shooting rules to their shooting. The -1 to hit for moving and firing a heavy is part of the Heavy weapon type. If they're not affected by the Heavy weapon type rules they're shooting with, they're also not going to get to fire Heavy 1 can target a non-closest character sniper rifle rules either.

Now you are talking house rules, and thats fine, because RAW is unplayable.

 p5freak wrote:

Breton wrote:

 p5freak wrote:
Now you got it. The transports/open topped rules makes no sense.

They do to people who understand what normally means. Normally they can't, and don't. Open Topped provides an abnormal exception and the effects of that exception. People are taking models are affected by the transport's statuses to mean remove the original statuses when that's not what it says.

They're not being affected by something, they're applying the shooting rules to their shooting. The -1 to hit for moving and firing a heavy is part of the Heavy weapon type. If they're not affected by the Heavy weapon type rules they're shooting with, they're also not going to get to fire Heavy 1 can target a non-closest character sniper rifle rules either.

Now you are talking house rules, and thats fine, because RAW is unplayable.

No, the -1 to hit with a heavy while moving is not a house rule, its a rule from the Heavy Weapon type in the Core Rules. Have you EVER even read the rules?

Breton wrote:

No, the -1 to hit with a heavy while moving is not a house rule, its a rule from the Heavy Weapon type in the Core Rules. Have you EVER even read the rules?

Which would affect a unit which is not on the battlefield in any way. Have your EVER even read the rules ?

From the Core Rules shooting weapon types:

Heavy: If a model with a heavy weapon moved in the preceding movement phase

In the OP scenario a unit moved to within 3" of the transport then embarked. They moved.

If a SAG mek moves to a battlewagon and gets in

The BRB FAQ suggests models in a transport, and the transport have their own statuses which may or may not be transferred back and forth.

Q: If a transport moves, do any models embarked inside it count
as also having moved?
A: Yes

So the Mek who moves to and then embarks on the Battlewagon moved in the preceding movement phase, and thus suffers a -1 to hit with Heavy Weapons because of the Heavy rule.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 p5freak wrote:

Breton wrote:

No, the -1 to hit with a heavy while moving is not a house rule, its a rule from the Heavy Weapon type in the Core Rules. Have you EVER even read the rules?

Which would affect a unit which is not on the battlefield in any way. Have your EVER even read the rules ?

I've read them enough to know a -1 to hit with heavy after moving isn't a house rule. I've read them enough to know "abilities" aren't limited to what's on the datasheet based on a half dozen or more pages of the rule book that refers to abilities NOT on the datasheet. I wonder who didn't read the rules enough to make THAT claim.

Breton wrote:
From the Core Rules shooting weapon types:

Heavy: If a model with a heavy weapon moved in the preceding movement phase

In the OP scenario a unit moved to within 3" of the transport then embarked. They moved.

If a SAG mek moves to a battlewagon and gets in

The BRB FAQ suggests models in a transport, and the transport have their own statuses which may or may not be transferred back and forth.

Q: If a transport moves, do any models embarked inside it count
as also having moved?
A: Yes

So the Mek who moves to and then embarks on the Battlewagon moved in the preceding movement phase, and thus suffers a -1 to hit with Heavy Weapons because of the Heavy rule.

Irrelevant, a unit which isnt on the battlefield cant be affected in any way.

Breton wrote:

I've read them enough to know a -1 to hit with heavy after moving isn't a house rule. I've read them enough to know "abilities" aren't limited to what's on the datasheet based on a half dozen or more pages of the rule book that refers to abilities NOT on the datasheet. I wonder who didn't read the rules enough to make THAT claim.

You didnt read them thoroughly enough. A unit which isnt on the battlefield cant be affected in any way.

You keep deliberately omitting the word “normally”...

 JohnnyHell wrote:
You keep deliberately omitting the word “normally”...

The unit is not on the battlefield, so normally, it cant do anything, or be affected in any way. Satisfied now ?

Okay, so now we've gone all the way to "A unit in an open topped transport cannot shoot because the rules only state that it can shoot".

Does it not become obvious at this point that, when faced with 2 interpretations, both of which conform to the English language and can be defined as RAW, and one suggestion completely contradicts half the rules, and the other only contradicts the aforementioned interpretation, then the second is probably the one to use?

To clarify:

Interpretation 1:
"A model cannot normally be affected in any way whilst embarked. Whilst open topped overrules this rule to allow the model to shoot, the "Embarked" rule still stands and thus the model still cannot shoot, as this would cause it to be affected by the rules of shooting."

Interpretation 2:
"A model normally cannot be affected in any way whilst embarked. Open-topped overrules this and allows the models to shoot. As this is not a "normal" scenario, the original rule is not used, and as such the shooting models can fire, and are affected by all the relevant rules for shooting whilst they do so, including overcharging, weapon profiles, and whether or not they moved before shooting. They also suffer penalties if the vehicle moves etc as per the open topped rules."

Both of these are RAW. because RAW was W terribly.

No doubt someone will ask me to prove how they are both RAW, and I will draw your attention to the word "normally", and the cycle will repeat again.

I personally think that, now that we have extended the term "affect" to completely invalidate the ability to shoot, then it's clearly the wrong way to do it.


Let's make another comparison.

A maths/physics question asks you to calculate the circumference of the earth, but has been written poorly and left one piece of information open to interpretation.

There are 2 answers because of this - one states the earth has a circumference of about 40,000Km The other states the circumference is about 400km.
The method of calculation was correct in both, but the initial interpretation was wrong on one of them- and one of these answers is obviously more correct than the other.


Same goes here. One says you can't shoot despite being told you can, and contradicts all of the open-topped rules. The other states you can shoot, as per the open topped rules, and only contradict the previous interpretation.


Does Codex still trump rulebook? If so, then the answer is obvious - Open Topped is not in the rulebook, it's codex. Having established the "Embarked" rule contradicts "Open-Topped", then we can confidently say the Open Topped overrules Embarked. Thus you can shoot, and suffer penalties for doing so.

"Units in a transport cannot be affect in any way"

This does not work with the FAQ that states,

"Q: If a transport moves, do any models embarked inside it count
as also having moved?
A: Yes"

So can units be affected whilst in transports or can they not?

If the Answer is "Yes, they can," which imo the FAQ implies, then they keep the -1 from moving.

Dadavester wrote:
"Units in a transport cannot be affect in any way"

This does not work with the FAQ that states,

"Q: If a transport moves, do any models embarked inside it count
as also having moved?
A: Yes"

So can units be affected whilst in transports or can they not?

If the Answer is "Yes, they can," which imo the FAQ implies, then they keep the -1 from moving.

Contradictory Special Snowflake FAQ is Contradictory Special Snowflake FAQ. Just like how you can't modify a dice below 1 unless you're Necrons.

 p5freak wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
You keep deliberately omitting the word “normally”...

The unit is not on the battlefield, so normally, it cant do anything, or be affected in any way. Satisfied now ?

Yup, so in situations that aren't normal such as open topped other rules relevant to shooting can absolutely come into affect. Agreed.