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.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 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...

Ah yes, because a reviewer that has gotten their official copy of the book straight from GW to review is going to go out of their way in video editing software (not photoshop) to painstakingly change the text of a specific rule frame by frame for... reasons?

Occam's Razor and all that.

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 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...

Ah yes, because a reviewer that has gotten their official copy of the book straight from GW to review is going to go out of their way in video editing software (not photoshop) to painstakingly change the text of a specific rule frame by frame for... reasons?

Occam's Razor and all that.

But it legit can no be verified, never mind that the final printing might be changed from the first run.

You can verify that it has happened before for any other book, or admit that you are reaching for conspiracy theories because that's the best you've got.

 DeathReaper wrote:
If I am wrong I will 100% admit it.

That is a lie.

 Jidmah wrote:


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.

1. Have you considered that maybe it doesn't work the way youthink it does?
2. Not that I've seen. You've provided a rules quote that doesn't work.
3. Citation please.

Please note that I'm arguing against your "proof" that you provided for your claim, not necessarily the claim itself (though I don't think it's as clearcut as you make it, given some of the occasional sloppiness in GW's rules writing, One could argue the rule you quoted could be one such rule, if you're trying to apply measuring from a model to itself.)

 doctortom wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:


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.

1. Have you considered that maybe it doesn't work the way youthink it does?
2. Not that I've seen. You've provided a rules quote that doesn't work.
3. Citation please.

Please note that I'm arguing against your "proof" that you provided for your claim, not necessarily the claim itself (though I don't think it's as clearcut as you make it, given some of the occasional sloppiness in GW's rules writing, One could argue the rule you quoted could be one such rule, if you're trying to apply measuring from a model to itself.)

Try to find a rule in the books that definitively doesn't affect the unit from which range is being drawn and also does not include the words "CORE units within" or "other units within".

I suspect you will be as unsuccessful as I have been.

When GW intends for area effects to be exclusive, they explicitly say that in the individual rule.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, wait, the "Within or wholly within" rules resolve this in the first sentence.

"If a rule says it applies within a certain distance, it applies at any distance that is not MORE than the specified distance"

A model is always within range of itself, "within and wholly within" do NOT require a second model to be measured to.

Yep, the way that is worded 2 MW (assuming the first didn't kill the unit!) to the initial unit is what it says.

It's entirely possible that they did not actually mean it that way, and it may get corrected later as part of a FAQ. However, as the fluff text mentions this as a 'splash' it seems not entirely unreasonable that they did indeed mean it to cause 2, as a unit of more than 1 model would likely be hit more than once if it was hit by a splash of noxious liquid.

what is the cost of this ability? If you can do 2MW to a target, for what I am guessing is 3CP with MWs to every model in 3", that isn't so bad....

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
what is the cost of this ability? If you can do 2MW to a target, for what I am guessing is 3CP with MWs to every model in 3", that isn't so bad....

It's a psychic power. And it's UNITS, not models. Big difference.

So that still makes it an amazing power.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
So that still makes it an amazing power.

Depends how cluttered your opponent is. Most auras are 6", so you could get two MW on a character and maybe a few MW on others, assuming it can be targeted.

That's... Not bad, certainly, but not what I'd call amazing.

 Jidmah wrote:
You can verify that it has happened before for any other book, or admit that you are reaching for conspiracy theories because that's the best you've got.

 DeathReaper wrote:
If I am wrong I will 100% admit it.

That is a lie.

Stop. This is not okay. (and frankly off topic, so please refrain from breaking rule #1 in the future).

There is, at absolute best, a thin implication that this isn't to include the original unit. But give they use the word "other" liberally elsewhere, I don't think your context argument holds DR

nosferatu1001 wrote:
There is, at absolute best, a thin implication that this isn't to include the original unit. But give they use the word "other" liberally elsewhere, I don't think your context argument holds DR

I agree.

Allow me to quote the Disgusting Force stratagem, from the Death Guard codex:

"After that model has shot, select one enemy unit that was hit by one or more attacks made with a Plagueburst mortar by that model this turn. Roll one D6 for each other unit within 3" (excluding NURGLE units) of the selected unit: on a 4+, that unit suffers 1 mortal wound."

Emphasis mine. Very similar ability to the second half of Noxious Discharge, except that it explicitly doesn't affect the original target.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
There is, at absolute best, a thin implication that this isn't to include the original unit. But give they use the word "other" liberally elsewhere, I don't think your context argument holds DR

I clearly do not agree, but it is at best unclear.

Judging by the errata to Khârn the Betrayer's "The Betrayer" ability, I am going to guess that this will be FAQ'd to follow the same train of thought.

 DeathReaper wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
There is, at absolute best, a thin implication that this isn't to include the original unit. But give they use the word "other" liberally elsewhere, I don't think your context argument holds DR

I clearly do not agree, but it is at best unclear.

Judging by the errata to Khârn the Betrayer's "The Betrayer" ability, I am going to guess that this will be FAQ'd to follow the same train of thought.

The Betrayer says "another friendly unit" not "units within X"

Wholly within is also VERY explicit and clear, not sure why you're proving Jidmah's commentary right previously but uh, you are.

PoorGravitasHandling wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
There is, at absolute best, a thin implication that this isn't to include the original unit. But give they use the word "other" liberally elsewhere, I don't think your context argument holds DR

I clearly do not agree, but it is at best unclear.

Judging by the errata to Khârn the Betrayer's "The Betrayer" ability, I am going to guess that this will be FAQ'd to follow the same train of thought.

The Betrayer says "another friendly unit" not "units within X"

Wholly within is also VERY explicit and clear, not sure why you're proving Jidmah's commentary right previously but uh, you are.

I am absolutely not "proving Jidmah's commentary right" Why do you think I am?

The most current Codex for Chaos Space Marines is he 8th ed codex, so what dataslate are you looking at...

The Betrayer does not say "another friendly unit" It says "Those attacks automatically hit a friendly unit". A friendly unit includes Khârn the Betrayer.

The Errata makes it so he does not hit himself, because originally he hit himself.

Pleaselet me know what you are talking about because you aren't making much sense.

...so your arguement is that this Psychic Power doesn't deal 2MW to the taget unit because a different rule from 8th edition was FaQ'd to change the wording so that Kharne couldn't deal damage to himself?

So you've gone from "This doesn't work because of some nebulous context and I feel that it doesn't include the target unit" to "the wording of the rule might not be the finalised version and/or was faked by reviewers" and then further to "GW might change it in the future like they did this other rule, so it doesn't work" even though you have no way of knowing that and that wouldn't mean the Psychic Power doesn't currently deal 2 MW RAW either...
Which would also mean you are admitting that it does deal 2 MW to the target unit RAW and thus proving Jidmah's commentary right?

Um... yeah.

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
...so your arguement is that this Psychic Power doesn't deal 2MW to the taget unit because a different rule from 8th edition was FaQ'd to change the wording so that Kharne couldn't deal damage to himself?

So you've gone from "This doesn't work because of some nebulous context and I feel that it doesn't include the target unit" to "the wording of the rule might not be the finalised version and/or was faked by reviewers" and then further to "GW might change it in the future like they did this other rule, so it doesn't work" even though you have no way of knowing that and that wouldn't mean the Psychic Power doesn't currently deal 2 MW RAW either...
Which would also mean you are admitting that it does deal 2 MW to the target unit RAW and thus proving Jidmah's commentary right?

Um... yeah.

That is not at all what I was saying.

Can you read all of my posts next time, and then reply?

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
...so your arguement is that this Psychic Power doesn't deal 2MW to the taget unit because a different rule from 8th edition was FaQ'd to change the wording so that Kharne couldn't deal damage to himself?

So you've gone from "This doesn't work because of some nebulous context and I feel that it doesn't include the target unit" to "the wording of the rule might not be the finalised version and/or was faked by reviewers" and then further to "GW might change it in the future like they did this other rule, so it doesn't work" even though you have no way of knowing that and that wouldn't mean the Psychic Power doesn't currently deal 2 MW RAW either...
Which would also mean you are admitting that it does deal 2 MW to the target unit RAW and thus proving Jidmah's commentary right?

Um... yeah.

That is not at all what I was saying.

Can you real all of my posts next time, and then reply?

Just stop, please.

 DeathReaper wrote:

PoorGravitasHandling wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
There is, at absolute best, a thin implication that this isn't to include the original unit. But give they use the word "other" liberally elsewhere, I don't think your context argument holds DR

I clearly do not agree, but it is at best unclear.

Judging by the errata to Khârn the Betrayer's "The Betrayer" ability, I am going to guess that this will be FAQ'd to follow the same train of thought.

The Betrayer says "another friendly unit" not "units within X"

Wholly within is also VERY explicit and clear, not sure why you're proving Jidmah's commentary right previously but uh, you are.

I am absolutely not "proving Jidmah's commentary right" Why do you think I am?

The most current Codex for Chaos Space Marines is he 8th ed codex, so what dataslate are you looking at...

The Betrayer does not say "another friendly unit" It says "Those attacks automatically hit a friendly unit". A friendly unit includes Khârn the Betrayer.

The Errata makes it so he does not hit himself, because originally he hit himself.

Pleaselet me know what you are talking about because you aren't making much sense.

Spoiler:

Straight from the most recent CSM errata:

"You cannot re-roll or modify hit rolls of 1 made for Khârn the Betrayer in the Fight phase. Instead, those attacks automatically hit another friendly unit within Engagement Range of Khârn. Randomly determine which unit is hit if there is more than one. If there are no other friendly units within Engagement Range of Khârn, the hits are discarded"

So they changed it to explicitly exclude Kharn.

Because before it explicitly included Kharn via Wholly Within or the equivalent 8th edition rule.

So what is even your point here.

 DeathReaper wrote:

PoorGravitasHandling wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
There is, at absolute best, a thin implication that this isn't to include the original unit. But give they use the word "other" liberally elsewhere, I don't think your context argument holds DR

I clearly do not agree, but it is at best unclear.

Judging by the errata to Khârn the Betrayer's "The Betrayer" ability, I am going to guess that this will be FAQ'd to follow the same train of thought.

The Betrayer says "another friendly unit" not "units within X"

Wholly within is also VERY explicit and clear, not sure why you're proving Jidmah's commentary right previously but uh, you are.

The Betrayer does not say "another friendly unit" It says "Those attacks automatically hit a friendly unit". A friendly unit includes Khârn the Betrayer.

The Errata makes it so he does not hit himself, because originally he hit himself.

Exactly.

The fact that they HAD TO change Kharn to prevent him from hitting himself is an argument in favour of Noxious Discharge dealing 2 mortal wounds to its initial target. Right? If not, why would they have changed Kharn's ability?

This is a "Looks like an apple, therefore it is an apple." argument.

The rulebook doesn't clarify whether abilities that LOOKS LIKE/WRITTEN LIKE aura abilties are indeed aura abilties.

At best, it's a typo (omission of 'Aura' distinction). At worst, you don't have permission to treat it as if it is aura ability.

RAW is undeterminable, therefore apply HIWPI/RAI interpretation and discuss before game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 MinMax wrote:
Exactly.

The fact that they HAD TO change Kharn to prevent him from hitting himself is an argument in favour of Noxious Discharge dealing 2 mortal wounds to its initial target. Right? If not, why would they have changed Kharn's ability?

It doesn't matter because that's specific to Kharn and Kharn only. Precedents can only provide circumstantial evidences.

 skchsan wrote:
The rulebook doesn't clarify whether abilities that LOOKS LIKE/WRITTEN LIKE aura abilties are indeed aura abilties.

All 9th edition books clearly distinguish between aura and non-aura.

 Jidmah wrote:

 skchsan wrote:
The rulebook doesn't clarify whether abilities that LOOKS LIKE/WRITTEN LIKE aura abilties are indeed aura abilties.

All 9th edition books clearly distinguish between aura and non-aura.

That's precisely the point. 9th edition Aura abilities are distinctly indicated as [Aura]. Note that non-aura abilities are not distinguished as [~Aura], therefore you cannot assume the opposite is true; it's not a case of "all abilities are either aura abilities or ~aura abilities". Thus, we can reasonably conclude that aura ability is a specific subset of abilities, and not a binary condition. Saying "if an ability is not indicated as [aura], then it is non-aura ability" falls under the 'all rectangles are squares' fallacy.

You cannot determine that Noxious Discharge psychic power, which expressly is not indicated as an [Aura] ability, is in fact an aura ability based on the nature of the written text, no matter how same or similar it is to abilities that ARE auras precisely because it lacks the [Aura] distinction. Thus, it is fallacious to claim that the psychic power affects the main target twice because "a model is always in range of its own aura ability".

 skchsan wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

 skchsan wrote:
The rulebook doesn't clarify whether abilities that LOOKS LIKE/WRITTEN LIKE aura abilties are indeed aura abilties.

All 9th edition books clearly distinguish between aura and non-aura.

That's precisely the point. 9th edition Aura abilities are distinctly indicated as [Aura]. Note that non-aura abilities are not distinguished as [~Aura], therefore you cannot assume the opposite is true; it's not a case of "all abilities are either aura abilities or ~aura abilities". Thus, we can reasonably conclude that aura ability is a specific subset of abilities, and not a binary condition. Saying "if an ability is not indicated as [aura], then it is non-aura ability" falls under the 'all rectangles are squares' fallacy.

You cannot determine that Noxious Discharge psychic power, which expressly is not indicated as an [Aura] ability, is in fact an aura ability based on the nature of the written text, no matter how same or similar it is to abilities that ARE auras precisely because it lacks the [Aura] distinction. Thus, it is fallacious to claim that the psychic power affects the main target twice because "a model is always in range of its own aura ability".

Auras are NOT related to the current issue.

Is a unit within the range measured from itself, as determined by "Within/Wholly Within"?

The answer is yes, as W/WW says, very plainly, in no uncertain terms whatsoever, that if you're aren't beyond the max range then you're within. There is no minimum distance, there is no zero distance, you aren't measuring between two models, and it doesn't relate in any relevant way to auras.

A unit is within range of itself for Noxious Discharge and takes an additional MW.

 skchsan wrote:
That's precisely the point. 9th edition Aura abilities are distinctly indicated as [Aura]. Note that non-aura abilities are not distinguished as [~Aura], therefore you cannot assume the opposite is true; it's not a case of "all abilities are either aura abilities or ~aura abilities". Thus, we can reasonably conclude that aura ability is a specific subset of abilities, and not a binary condition. Saying "if an ability is not indicated as [aura], then it is non-aura ability" falls under the 'all rectangles are squares' fallacy.

Citation please where it says that rules marked with (Aura) are aura abilities. Actually dont bother, there is nothing in the rules saying that.

On p. 202 it says :

6. ABILITIES
Many units have one or more special abilities; these will be described here.

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).

There is the definition of aura abilities. If its on a datasheet, in the box named abilities, and it affects models or units in a given range, its an aura ability. There are a lot of rules which fit this description, and many of those rules dont have (Aura). And it doesnt say anything what this (Aura) actually means. We can assume that it means aura ability, but the rules dont say that. GW introduced a new term, but didnt define it.

 p5freak wrote:
There is the definition of aura abilities. If its on a datasheet, in the box named abilities, and it affects models or units in a given range, its an aura ability. There are a lot of rules which fit this description, and many of those rules dont have (Aura). And it doesnt say anything what this (Aura) actually means. We can assume that it means aura ability, but the rules dont say that. GW introduced a new term, but didnt define it.

Which is precisely why I've mentioned that you either take it as though GW made a mistake and didn't slap [Aura] on it and pretend it is effectively one, or you take it at face value and not consider it [Aura] ability. It's a HIWPI. RAW is clear in that it is not clearly defined.

GW should really work on expanding their keyword system. It's working but it's not fully implemented. They can easily apply something like [Chain Effect] - Some abilities have secondary effect after resolving it's effect against the primary target. Unless otherwise noted, do not apply the effects of [Chain Effect] against the primary target.

Its a psychic power, not an ability.

There is no ambiguity, it is not an aura, auras are not relevant to the rule.

PoorGravitasHandling wrote:
Its a psychic power, not an ability.

There is no ambiguity, it is not an aura, auras are not relevant to the rule.

You're over extending that definition. The whole 'wholly within' and 'within' distinction is to define the cut off points.

You're arguing "This strawberry is red, so this red apple must be a strawberry".

 skchsan wrote:

PoorGravitasHandling wrote:
Its a psychic power, not an ability.

There is no ambiguity, it is not an aura, auras are not relevant to the rule.

You're over extending that definition. The whole 'wholly within' and 'within' distinction is to define the cut off points.

You're arguing "This strawberry is red, so this red apple must be a strawberry".

What the hot holy feth are you talking about.

"If a rule says it applies ‘within’ a certain distance, it applies at any distance that is not more than the specified distance. "

Is the targeted unit more than the specified distance away from itself? That's the only question here. The answer may shock and surprise you.