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.

 p5freak wrote:

Aash wrote:

the rule doesn't require measuring of 0", as you say, the rule is

...all units within 3" of that unit.

So you measure 3" from the unit in question and anything inside that distance is within 3" as per the rules definition of "within".

Measuring is done between bases and models, its impossible to measure between a base.

So you are asserting that 2 bases are required for measuring? On to measure from and one to measure to?
Then how, pray tell, does movement work? How can you measure the distance? Are you required to measure to another model's base to determine how far you can move?

Wow...
1) To me and most of the community the answer seems to be both obvious and unargueable that unless the target unit is Nurgle it satisfies the requirements for both conidtions so takes 2MW.
2) of all the topics that I'd have thought would get to 4 pages this isnt' one of them

Can we stop with the No true Scotsmen of "I and everyone else thinks..." There is no possible way to justify that and it smacks of snarky jerk. Perhaps you are right, but don't act like everyone agrees one this. I honestly don't know the answer, however, as with the majority of threads on this subforum, discuss before hand with your opponent and flip for it on major contention.

 p5freak wrote:
If those psychic powers or abilities are auras, they can target themselves. Thats what the aura abilities rule says. Assuming (Aura) means that those psychic powers and abilities are aura abilities, the rules dont explain this. However, Noxious Discharge is not an aura.

A psychic power like Miasma of Pestilence, in which you choose a single unit with 18", say. Could the psyker nominate themselves as the target? Or the ability of a Chapter Master, to allow a single friendly CORE or CHARACTER unit within 6" to reroll hit rolls. Would you argue that these abilities cannot be used on themselves, as you cannot measure the distance from their base to their own base?

U02dah4 wrote:
Well it is an aura it meets the criteria which are very specific

"Some abilities affect models or units in a given range – these are aura abilities." Thats the definition

Yes, thats the definition. However, on p. 202 it says 6. Abilities, and under that aura abilities. And on p. 203 is a 6 right next to the box with the headline abilities. So only abilities written on a datasheet in that box can be aura abilities.

U02dah4 wrote:

We know some psychic abilities are auras there is unequivocal precedent on this. E.g. Vox Espiritum, psychic fortress, nullzone

We know ? How ? There is nothing in the rules defining what this term (Aura) means.

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:

So you are asserting that 2 bases are required for measuring? On to measure from and one to measure to?

Thats what the rules are saying, or dont they ? Distances are measured in inches between the closest points of the bases of the models you are measuring to and from.

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:

Then how, pray tell, does movement work? How can you measure the distance? Are you required to measure to another model's base to determine how far you can move?

We know because if you want to look at the psychic powers they are literally tagged with "AURA" could not be more explicit

https://spikeybits.com/2020/10/new-rules-space-marines-relics-litanies-psychics-more.html

as to vox espiritum it increases the range of auras and specifically says "it does not increase the range of "psychic powers that are aura abilities" again prooving auras can be created by psychic powers otherwise why add a convoluted wording.

and yes there is a definition of aura as quoted

"Some abilities affect models or units in a given range – these are aura abilities."

it couldn't be any clearer that it is a definition

You can't just declare there is no definition in response to the definition being quoted at you and the fact thats what you did proves your argument has no legs because as you said


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 p5freak wrote:

 MinMax wrote:

I'll reiterate one of my questions from earlier in the thread - do you also claim that a psyker cannot cast psychic powers on themselves, or that a Chapter Master/Mortarion cannot target themselves with their own reroll abilities?

If those psychic powers or abilities are auras, they can target themselves. Thats what the aura abilities rule says. Assuming (Aura) means that those psychic powers and abilities are aura abilities, the rules dont explain this. However, Noxious Discharge is not an aura.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Can we stop with the No true Scotsmen of "I and everyone else thinks..." There is no possible way to justify that and it smacks of snarky jerk. Perhaps you are right, but don't act like everyone agrees one this. I honestly don't know the answer, however, as with the majority of threads on this subforum, discuss before hand with your opponent and flip for it on major contention.

1) Dude this is a rules thread and some things are common knowledge within the community and it's a perfectly reasonable RAI argument to say that. An example would be 8th ed assault weapons which by RAW couldn't fire when advancing. The community have a shared understanding that it could and you can argue till your blue in the face that RAW it couldn't advance and fire - that's not how it's played by anyone. The answer here is obvious at a community level and i can guarantee 100% on how every TO would rule in this case. (Now that's not the case in every situation it is in this one)

2) if you don't know the answer then don't contribute, its perfectly reasonable to not understand the argument or not to come down on either side but every i don't know clouds the thread

3) as stated on other forums role off and discuss with opponents beforehand are not good answers on a rules forum - its an acceptable way to manage an in game dispute you are not expecting, or to acknowledge a contentious issue that cannot be resolved. It is not the solution to a problem on a rules forum unless their is proven ambiguity. As this is outside a game and there is as long as we want to discuss it.

4) It is also not required here as there is no ambiguity. It has been shown to be an AURA by RAW for which the proponent of the opposite view has already contested that if it is an AURA he is wrong. He also has no answer other than to ignore the definition that has been clearly stated to him along with the precedent that psychic powers can produce AURAs.

As entertaining as this back and forth is, what does it have to do with Noxious Discharge?

Because if noxious discharge is an AURA as it has been proven to be. Then P5freak has admitted he is wrong and the problem is resolved.

2 MW on the target 1 on everything else within range (excluding nurgle)

With no argument against.

 p5freak wrote:

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:

So you are asserting that 2 bases are required for measuring? On to measure from and one to measure to?

Thats what the rules are saying, or dont they ? Distances are measured in inches between the closest points of the bases of the models you are measuring to and from.

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:

Then how, pray tell, does movement work? How can you measure the distance? Are you required to measure to another model's base to determine how far you can move?

There are rules how to measure in the movement phase. Whenever it comes to movement you measure like this. When it comes to measuring distances you measure between bases.

The distance a model moves is measured using the part of the model’s base (or hull) that moves furthest along its path (including parts that rotate or pivot).

That isn't what that says though, is it? Just that you measure using the parts that moves furthest. No where does that actually explicitly break the "must measures between two models/bases" rule you're so hung up on. You still "measure" after all.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Can we stop with the No true Scotsmen of "I and everyone else thinks..." There is no possible way to justify that and it smacks of snarky jerk. Perhaps you are right, but don't act like everyone agrees one this. I honestly don't know the answer, however, as with the majority of threads on this subforum, discuss before hand with your opponent and flip for it on major contention.

No, this is not fething both sides. P5Freak dismisses arguments by claiming that "science" has no place, then dismisses another argument because "science" means you can't measure a base to itself for some reason. I guess no one taught them the value of 0.

Another person I can't even call right on this because their reasoning is somehow even more absurd than the above.

Then you have four pages of other people quoting verbatim rules and coming down firmly on Within/Wholly Within. There appears to be a pretty clear consensus now at least.

U02dah4 wrote:
We know because if you want to look at the psychic powers they are literally tagged with "AURA" could not be more explicit

https://spikeybits.com/2020/10/new-rules-space-marines-relics-litanies-psychics-more.html

Spikeybits isnt rules.

U02dah4 wrote:

as to vox espiritum it increases the range of auras and specifically says "it does not increase the range of "psychic powers that are aura abilities" again prooving auras can be created by psychic powers otherwise why add a convoluted wording.

Yes, vox espiritum does say that. But we dont know which psychic powers are aura abilities. The term (aura) is undefined in the rules. Can you explain to me why no psychic power from the librarius or obscuration discipline have (aura) ? Many of them fit the description of an aura ability. Litanies of battle have (aura), but psychic powers dont. Why ?

U02dah4 wrote:

and yes there is a definition of aura as quoted

"Some abilities affect models or units in a given range – these are aura abilities."

it couldn't be any clearer that it is a definition

You can't just declare there is no definition in response to the definition being quoted at you and the fact thats what you did proves your argument has no legs because as you said

I never said there is no definition, there is one. But again, only abilities inside the box named abilities on a datasheet can be aura abilities, as defined on p. 202/203.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

PoorGravitasHandling wrote:

No, this is not fething both sides. P5Freak dismisses arguments by claiming that "science" has no place, then dismisses another argument because "science" means you can't measure a base to itself for some reason. I guess no one taught them the value of 0.

I was told that science has a place in gaming, and now it doesnt have ? Please make up your mind what it is.

I'm not sure why you keep insisting

The term (aura) is undefined in the rules

Aura is defined in the Rules Terms Glossary:

Aura: A rule that is classified as an aura can affect multiple models or
units that meet its criteria and are within a set distance of the model
it is on (including that model itself). If a model is within range of
multiple auras with the same name, it can only be affected by one of those rules at any one time (pg 202).

This article provides screenshots:
https://www.belloflostsouls.net/2020/07/40k-new-editions-fantastic-rules-glossary.html

Aash wrote:
I'm not sure why you keep insisting

The term (aura) is undefined in the rules

Aura is defined in the Rules Terms Glossary:

Aura: A rule that is classified as an aura can affect multiple models or
units that meet its criteria and are within a set distance of the model
it is on (including that model itself). If a model is within range of
multiple auras with the same name, it can only be affected by one of those rules at any one time (pg 202).

Ok, it is. And it says p. 202. I already explained what those rules say. Noxious Discharge is not in the box named abilities on a units datasheet(Neither does it have the (Aura) tag, if we assume that means aura ability). So its not an aura ability.

 p5freak wrote:

U02dah4 wrote:
We know because if you want to look at the psychic powers they are literally tagged with "AURA" could not be more explicit

https://spikeybits.com/2020/10/new-rules-space-marines-relics-litanies-psychics-more.html

Spikeybits isnt rules.

U02dah4 wrote:

as to vox espiritum it increases the range of auras and specifically says "it does not increase the range of "psychic powers that are aura abilities" again prooving auras can be created by psychic powers otherwise why add a convoluted wording.

Yes, vox espiritum does say that. But we dont know which psychic powers are aura abilities. The term (aura) is undefined in the rules. Can you explain to me why no psychic power from the librarius or obscuration discipline have (aura) ? Many of them fit the description of an aura ability. Litanies of battle have (aura), but psychic powers dont. Why ?

U02dah4 wrote:

and yes there is a definition of aura as quoted

"Some abilities affect models or units in a given range – these are aura abilities."

it couldn't be any clearer that it is a definition

You can't just declare there is no definition in response to the definition being quoted at you and the fact thats what you did proves your argument has no legs because as you said

I never said there is no definition, there is one. But again, only abilities inside the box named abilities on a datasheet can be aura abilities, as defined on p. 202/203.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

PoorGravitasHandling wrote:

No, this is not fething both sides. P5Freak dismisses arguments by claiming that "science" has no place, then dismisses another argument because "science" means you can't measure a base to itself for some reason. I guess no one taught them the value of 0.

I was told that science has a place in gaming, and now it doesnt have ? Please make up your mind what it is.

Spikey bits published the relevant rules page to support my statement without me breaking copyright. Saying it's not rules when literally they show you the relevant rules page in its entirely is just dumb.

You have had the aura definition quoted twice.
I can't believe anyone is that dumb that you can have a direct rules quote twice and still ignore what it says

You have had rules quoted showing psychic powers and littanys both not in your box are auras. We know this as they are tagged AURA. It is irrefutable. Furthermore nowhere in the definition does it specify they have to be in the box. That's just made up.

Ignoring the rules as quoted to you only proves your argument deeply stupid as it contradicts the RAW either wrong or that as I suspected earlier that you are a troll and are making no attempt to engage with the rules

U02dah4 wrote:

You have had the aura definition quoted twice.
I can't believe anyone is that dumb that you can have a direct rules quote twice and still saay it doesn't exist.

Ignoring it only proves your argumenf deeply stupid as it contradicts the RAW either wrong or that as I suspected earlier that you are a troll and are making no attempt to engage with the rules

Its you who ignores rules. P. 202/203 clearly shows that only abilities inside the box named abilities on a units datasheet can be aura abilities.

No it doesn't don't lie

you are 100% unable to provide a quote to support that. No where on that page does it say that, which is why you write a page number rather than provide a quote


Just because things in that box are abilities does not mean abilities can't exist outside the box (as proven by auras and littanys contradicting your hypothesis)

U02dah4 wrote:
No it doesn't don't lie

and you are unable to provide a quote to support that. No where on that page does it say that which is why you write a page number rather than provide a quote

Here is your quote from p. 202.

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).

The red 6 is on p. 203. Right next to the box named abilities. This means that this text refers to that abilities box.

U02dah4 wrote:

Just because things in that box are abilities does not mean abilities can't exist outside the box (as proven by auras and littanys contradicting your hypothesis)

Thats true. But there is no rules basis for that. If psychic powers are aura abilities, why dont they have that (Aura) tag, when they are aura abilities ? None of the SM psychic powers have (Aura). Why do have litanies (Aura), but not psychic powers ?

Yes I see your red 6 I acknowledge that it shows that things written on 6 are abilities

Saying something will be something is not proof it can't also exist elsewhere. it is permissive not restrictive

We have provided irrefutable proof that psychic powers located elsewhere have the aura tag as an example of where this happens. With the quoted rules page giving them the aura tag.

Which given we are talking about psychic powers is the only relevant area we have to establish


As proven some psychic powers do have the aura tag because the space marine ones as quoted to you on spikey bits with the actual rules page do. (Psychic fortress and nullzone) saying they don't is just stupid when faced witha direct quote of the rules source

but as usual GW is inconsistent in its writing. Their is no rules requirement for auras to have an aura tag. Just that they meet the definition.

Why are we even bothering talking about Auras? The pertinent rule is for what counts as within, which is:

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

0 is not more than 3, therefore Noxious Discharge does 2MW to the target. The whole Aura discussion just seems completely irrelevant when there's a simple rule that doesn't require arguing about the definition of a poorly defined rules term.

I've directly asked p5freak twice now whether they think 0 is more than 3 and they have ignored that question both times.

Because as stated if Its an aura he conceads your point

However he won't answer your question because he can't as he does not have a credible answer

Noxious Discharge is not an aura ability. Its neither in the box named abilities on a datasheet, nor does it have the (Aura) tag (if we assume that actually means aura ability). Can we end this aura talk now ?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slipspace wrote:
Why are we even bothering talking about Auras? The pertinent rule is for what counts as within, which is:

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

0 is not more than 3, therefore Noxious Discharge does 2MW to the target. The whole Aura discussion just seems completely irrelevant when there's a simple rule that doesn't require arguing about the definition of a poorly defined rules term.

I've directly asked p5freak twice now whether they think 0 is more than 3 and they have ignored that question both times.

I already told you that a 0" distance is non existent. Your rule cannot apply because it requires a distance. If there is no distance, you cant be within that distance.

 p5freak wrote:
I already told you that a 0" distance is non existent.

That is wrong, and can be proven. The science you claim that does not apply is math, by the way.

For a circle c1 with a radius of r1 and the coordinates (x1,y1) and a circle c2 with a radius of r2 and the coordinates (x2, y2) the distance d between the closest point of those two circles is
d = sqrt((x2 − x1)^2 + (y2 − y1)^2) − (r2 + r1).

This formula is solvable for d = 0 if both circles have the same coordinates and radius.

Oh, and for the "0 is not a distance!" strawman, math also has a solution. If something is non-existent, you cannot add anything to it. However, 0"+1" = 1", therefore 0" exists.

So, I ask you once more - do you think that math does not apply to Warhammer 40k? Do not answer with anything but yes or no.

P5 - just quit. You're arguing an absurd position.
0" is absolutely not more than 3". Prove otherwise, or concede.

Indeed it has been proven to be an aura as a tag and being within 6 are not requirements. You have conceded auras can effect themselves

your position is absurd you have been given two different proofs proving your wrong prove otherwise on both or concede

I am not arguing an absurd position, and i dont concede to anything. You are wrong. Lets agree to disagree. This is going nowhere.

 p5freak wrote:
I am not arguing an absurd position, and i dont concede to anything. You are wrong. Lets agree to disagree. This is going nowhere.

You're arguing 0 is not less than 3. Your definition of absurd is different to literally everyone else's.

 p5freak wrote:

i dont concede to anything

Which is the problem with trying to debate you. You're so desperate not to be wrong you're invoking atomic structure and outright absurdities just to avoid having to admit that your position is incorrect. There's no point in debating someone like that.

Couldn't agree more

 p5freak wrote:
I am not arguing an absurd position, and i dont concede to anything. You are wrong. Lets agree to disagree. This is going nowhere.

You have argued you cannot measure 0", when within the limits of acceptability in this game you can, same as you can measure 3". You're claiming that 0" doesn't exist, when you have been proven wrong on that as well. You're unable to refute that 0" is less than 3", meaning you are wring on that rule as well. And so on

Your position is untenable.

 skchsan wrote:
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.

There hasn't been a reasonable post in this thread since this one

HIWPI, the power does 2 wounds to the main target. However, I really don't think it's clear RAW. In order for that to be true, you'd have to prove one of two things, and I don't think anyone has done that:
- Noxious Discharge is an aura ability
- The rules permit you to measure the distance between a model's base and that same model's base outside of aura abilities

In what way does it not meet the aura definition

" Some abilities affect models or units in a given range – these are aura abilities"

It affects units -yes

it has a given range -yes within 3"

Is it an ability - yes psychic powers are abilities (as proven by the other psychic powers auras that are stamped)

They are the only three requirements of an aura.