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.

How many mortal wounds would Noxious Discharge do to its initial target, one or two?

The rule:

- [The target unit] suffers 1 mortal wound
- All units within 3" of that unit suffer 1 mortal wound (excluding Nurgle units).

It seems to be clear to me that the initial target would suffer 2 mortal wounds (as long as it didn't have the Nurgle keyword) as it is within 3" of itself. Am I correct?

Edit:

Where is Noxious Discharge from?

Is that an old rule? I can not find it.


But from the way it sounds, the context would dictate that the part that says "All units within 3" of that unit" is talking about other units, and not the target unit.

It's from the Death Guard's Fester discipline in the (unreleased) Book of Rust

Maybe wait until the book is out so we can see the final rules before asking questions? (Because things can change, or they can have a section clarifying some of the rules in that book).

We already have seen all parts of that book, there is none of the kind.

I think it's pretty clear the target gets 1 MW, then everything around it gets 1. Just My opinion.

For reference.

Source

To me it's rather clear that the target unit takes 2 MW, even if it might not be intended that way. A unit is always within 3" of itself, and it does not specify other units.

Why would it suffer 2MW ? Because its an aura ability ? Its not.

Aura Abilities​
Some abilities affect models or units in a given range – these are aura abilities. A model with an aura ability is always within range of its effect. The effects of multiple, identically named aura abilities are not cumulative (i.e. if a unit is within range of two models with the same aura ability, that aura ability only applies to the unit once).

Because it suffers 1 MW, then it suffers 1 MW for being with 3" of the targeted unit (itself).

Auras have absolutely nothing to do with this.

 Jidmah wrote:
Because it suffers 1 MW, then it suffers 1 MW for being with 3" of the targeted unit (itself).

Auras have absolutely nothing to do with this.

Where in the rules (except aura abilities) does it say that a unit is within range of itself ? Citation please.

MEASURING DISTANCES
Distances are measured in inches (") between the closest points of the bases of the models you’re measuring to and from.

WITHIN AND WHOLLY WITHIN
If a rule says it applies ‘within’ a certain distance, it applies at any distance that is not more than the specified distance. For example, within 1" means any distance that is not more than 1" away.

Stop trolling p5freak.

There's no such thing as "within range of itself". It's within the 3" range of the psychic power, since 0" is not more than 3".

If a vehicle in a squadron explodes, the squadron takes MWs along with whatever else is nearby.

It takes a MW for being the target and, if still alive, takes another one for being inside 3".

Unless we get to see the rule and it says "other units within 3" or some such thing. It would have to specifically exclude the targeted unit, not specifically include it.

 Jidmah wrote:
MEASURING DISTANCES
Distances are measured in inches (") between the closest points of the bases of the models you’re measuring to and from.

WITHIN AND WHOLLY WITHIN
If a rule says it applies ‘within’ a certain distance, it applies at any distance that is not more than the specified distance. For example, within 1" means any distance that is not more than 1" away.

Stop trolling p5freak.

Your quotation for Measuring Distances talks about models plural, not model singular. It doesn't talk about measure the closest point between a base and the same base.

Its hilarious that the selected unit suffers 1MW even if its a NURGLE unit, but it wouldnt suffer 1MW if its a NURGLE unit within 3" of the selected unit that suffered 1MW.

 doctortom wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
MEASURING DISTANCES
Distances are measured in inches (") between the closest points of the bases of the models you’re measuring to and from.

WITHIN AND WHOLLY WITHIN
If a rule says it applies ‘within’ a certain distance, it applies at any distance that is not more than the specified distance. For example, within 1" means any distance that is not more than 1" away.

Stop trolling p5freak.

Your quotation for Measuring Distances talks about models plural, not model singular. It doesn't talk about measure the closest point between a base and the same base.

So you're saying models can never, ever target themselves with their own ability because they are out of range? Cool story, but absolutely and indisputably wrong.
Oh, and you're also claiming that nothing can move ever, because you are not measuring to "models plural" when moving.

Seriously, I wonder why people who fail to understand even basic logic keep entering rules discussions.

 Jidmah wrote:

 doctortom wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
MEASURING DISTANCES
Distances are measured in inches (") between the closest points of the bases of the models you’re measuring to and from.

WITHIN AND WHOLLY WITHIN
If a rule says it applies ‘within’ a certain distance, it applies at any distance that is not more than the specified distance. For example, within 1" means any distance that is not more than 1" away.

Stop trolling p5freak.

Your quotation for Measuring Distances talks about models plural, not model singular. It doesn't talk about measure the closest point between a base and the same base.

So you're saying models can never, ever target themselves with their own ability because they are out of range? Cool story, but absolutely and indisputably wrong.
Oh, and you're also claiming that nothing can move ever, because you are not measuring to "models plural" when moving.

Seriously, I wonder why people who fail to understand even basic logic keep entering rules discussions.

Actually, RAW, he is correct. The rules refer to multiple bases, not a single one. The distance between something and itself is impossible to calculate as it would require the same thing to exist twice.

The law of conservation has to apply, we cannot take these rules to mean a model is the same as models. Any other interpretation would be absurd.

This is another clear example of how the GW design team writes the worst rules. If GW wanted to fix this, they had ample opportunity in various FAQs and addendums. Maybe we can look forward to an update someday, but there's no other way to play it.

...

Yeah, just kidding. Language fails us sometimes, of course a model can target itself unless specified otherwise.

Don't know why this has to turn into an epistemological discussion.

 Jidmah wrote:
We already have seen all parts of that book, there is none of the kind.

The book has not been released, so you can not be sure of what you claim.

But from the way it sounds, the context would dictate that the part that says "All units within 3" of that unit" is talking about other units, and not the target unit.

So only 1 MW.

 Jidmah wrote:

 doctortom wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
MEASURING DISTANCES
Distances are measured in inches (") between the closest points of the bases of the models you’re measuring to and from.

WITHIN AND WHOLLY WITHIN
If a rule says it applies ‘within’ a certain distance, it applies at any distance that is not more than the specified distance. For example, within 1" means any distance that is not more than 1" away.

Stop trolling p5freak.

Your quotation for Measuring Distances talks about models plural, not model singular. It doesn't talk about measure the closest point between a base and the same base.

So you're saying models can never, ever target themselves with their own ability because they are out of range? Cool story, but absolutely and indisputably wrong.
Oh, and you're also claiming that nothing can move ever, because you are not measuring to "models plural" when moving.

Seriously, I wonder why people who fail to understand even basic logic keep entering rules discussions.

If you're going to quote a rule to back your position, the rule should actually support what you're saying. As techsoldaten pointed out, by RAW that rules quote you gave doesn't apply to single models. If you say we know what they meant for measuring one model's distance or range, then how is that different than someone else saying that we know that GW meant for units other than the target also take 1 MW damage, and that the target unit takes only 1 MW? I suspect that is what they meant to say, but if you wish to put it on a RAW basis please have some actual RAW that applies.

And lay off making personal attacks against anyone disagreeing with you. I could find fault with your basic reading comprehension skills as easily as you're finding fault in other people's basic logic skills, and just passing insults back and forth doesn't do anything to enhance your argument.

Very interesting. Does the 1 Mortal Wound crowd suppose that a psyker cannot cast buffs on themselves, or that a Chapter Master or Mortarion cannot target themselves with their own reroll abilities? If they cannot be said to be within 6" or 18" (say) of themselves.

Not aura abilities, but abilities which tell you to select a unit within a certain range.

 doctortom wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

 doctortom wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
MEASURING DISTANCES
Distances are measured in inches (") between the closest points of the bases of the models you’re measuring to and from.

WITHIN AND WHOLLY WITHIN
If a rule says it applies ‘within’ a certain distance, it applies at any distance that is not more than the specified distance. For example, within 1" means any distance that is not more than 1" away.

Stop trolling p5freak.

Your quotation for Measuring Distances talks about models plural, not model singular. It doesn't talk about measure the closest point between a base and the same base.

So you're saying models can never, ever target themselves with their own ability because they are out of range? Cool story, but absolutely and indisputably wrong.
Oh, and you're also claiming that nothing can move ever, because you are not measuring to "models plural" when moving.

Seriously, I wonder why people who fail to understand even basic logic keep entering rules discussions.

If you're going to quote a rule to back your position, the rule should actually support what you're saying. As techsoldaten pointed out, by RAW that rules quote you gave doesn't apply to single models. If you say we know what they meant for measuring one model's distance or range, then how is that different than someone else saying that we know that GW meant for units other than the target also take 1 MW damage, and that the target unit takes only 1 MW? I suspect that is what they meant to say, but if you wish to put it on a RAW basis please have some actual RAW that applies.

And lay off making personal attacks against anyone disagreeing with you. I could find fault with your basic reading comprehension skills as easily as you're finding fault in other people's basic logic skills, and just passing insults back and forth doesn't do anything to enhance your argument.

Read my entire comment.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
We already have seen all parts of that book, there is none of the kind.

The book has not been released, so you can not be sure of what you claim.

I literally linked a video of a guy flipping through every single page of the book as source. You are making an argument in bad faith.

But from the way it sounds, the context would dictate that the part that says "All units within 3" of that unit" is talking about other units, and not the target unit. So only 1 MW.

And here we see another instance of DeathReaper's famous "I add stuff to a rule that completely changes its meaning so I'm right"-move


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 doctortom wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

 doctortom wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
MEASURING DISTANCES
Distances are measured in inches (") between the closest points of the bases of the models you’re measuring to and from.

WITHIN AND WHOLLY WITHIN
If a rule says it applies ‘within’ a certain distance, it applies at any distance that is not more than the specified distance. For example, within 1" means any distance that is not more than 1" away.

Stop trolling p5freak.

Your quotation for Measuring Distances talks about models plural, not model singular. It doesn't talk about measure the closest point between a base and the same base.

So you're saying models can never, ever target themselves with their own ability because they are out of range? Cool story, but absolutely and indisputably wrong.
Oh, and you're also claiming that nothing can move ever, because you are not measuring to "models plural" when moving.

Seriously, I wonder why people who fail to understand even basic logic keep entering rules discussions.

If you're going to quote a rule to back your position, the rule should actually support what you're saying. As techsoldaten pointed out, by RAW that rules quote you gave doesn't apply to single models. If you say we know what they meant for measuring one model's distance or range, then how is that different than someone else saying that we know that GW meant for units other than the target also take 1 MW damage, and that the target unit takes only 1 MW? I suspect that is what they meant to say, but if you wish to put it on a RAW basis please have some actual RAW that applies.

And lay off making personal attacks against anyone disagreeing with you. I could find fault with your basic reading comprehension skills as easily as you're finding fault in other people's basic logic skills, and just passing insults back and forth doesn't do anything to enhance your argument.

1. The plural thing doesn't work as you think it does.
2. I have proven your claim wrong by providing multiple counter-examples.
3. Nothing prevents the model you are measuring from and the model you are measuring to from being identical.

 Jidmah wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
We already have seen all parts of that book, there is none of the kind.

The book has not been released, so you can not be sure of what you claim.

I literally linked a video of a guy flipping through every single page of the book as source. You are making an argument in bad faith.

I am not, as things can change from test copies of books...

 Jidmah wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
But from the way it sounds, the context would dictate that the part that says "All units within 3" of that unit" is talking about other units, and not the target unit. So only 1 MW.

And here we see another instance of DeathReaper's famous "I add stuff to a rule that completely changes its meaning so I'm right"-move

I literally didn't add anything to the rule, I never do. That is not my move at all.

Do not be like that man, that is not okay to falsely attribute stuff to people.

I always debate in good faith. You claiming I do not is not okay at all man.

In the real world, these videos aren't made using test copies, DeathReaper.

 Jidmah wrote:
In the real world, these videos aren't made using test copies, DeathReaper.

Prove it.


P.S. I know you can not, so this is a moot point.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof

You claim that there are changes between the books used in previews and those release a week later. Show proof of that happening in even a single instance, otherwise your argument is null and void.

 Jidmah wrote:
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof

You claim that there are changes between the books used in previews and those release a week later. Show proof of that happening in even a single instance, otherwise your argument is null and void.

I didn't make the claim that "these videos aren't made using test copies" you did. So prove it...

The burden of proof is on you since you made the claim. But you cant prove it, so it is not my argument that is null and void...

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof

 DeathReaper wrote:
I am not, as things can change from test copies of books...

Original claim, right here. Provide proof or shut up.

I'm no longer responding to you on this topic, you are clearly - as usual - arguing in bad faith since you won't ever admit that you are wrong.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
We already have seen all parts of that book, there is none of the kind.

The book has not been released, so you can not be sure of what you claim.

If that's your position why are you even arguing here? According to you there are no rules for us to use because they haven't been released and we can't be sure of anything about these rules.

As for the original question, it would certainly seem like the target suffers 2MW as it will be within 3" of itself. I would guess that isn't the intention but it is what the rules say.

 Jidmah wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
I am not, as things can change from test copies of books...

Original claim, right here. Provide proof or shut up.

I'm no longer responding to you on this topic, you are clearly - as usual - arguing in bad faith since you won't ever admit that you are wrong.

Yea, I dont have to prove that a book that has not been released can be changed. Because if it has not been released we cant be sure it is not photoshopped...

Check and mate...

And you are lying about me, I never argue in bad faith. Stop being toxic and claiming things that are just not true.

If I am wrong I will 100% admit it.