Canoptek Plasmacyte question

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.

**Blndmage**

Ok, so these two rules:

Evasion Protocol: While this model is within 3" of a friendly <DYNASTY> DESTROYER CULT unit, enemy models cannot target this model with ranged weapons unless it is the closest eligible target. In addition, this unit cannot perform actions.

Recall Protocol: In the Unit Coherency Checks step of the Morale phase, if this model is not within 6" of any friendly <DYNASTY> DESTROYER CULT units, this model is destroyed.

Does that mean if I keep it between 3.5" and 5.5" from a Destroyer Cult unit, the Plasmacyte can do actions?

The "this unit cannot perform actions" only kicks in within 3", right?

I only have, like 1 Destroyer and 2 D-lords, but I like the little plasmacytes, and have a huge fondness for Canoptek models.

**alextroy**

No. They cannot do actions is a separate part of the rule that is not distance dependent.

**Blndmage**

alextroy wrote:
No. They cannot do actions is a separate part of the rule that is not distance dependent.

That doesn't make any sense though.
You can't just cut a sentence out of a rule, that starts with explicitly saying when it's active, and decide, "no, that's it's own thing...because"

Only when the Evasion Protocol rule is active the "in addition, this unit cannot perform actions " line is true. It's aditional part of that rule.

**p5freak**

I agree with Blndmage.

**Slipspace**

Blndmage wrote:
alextroy wrote:
No. They cannot do actions is a separate part of the rule that is not distance dependent.

That doesn't make any sense though.
You can't just cut a sentence out of a rule, that starts with explicitly saying when it's active, and decide, "no, that's it's own thing...because"

Only when the Evasion Protocol rule is active the "in addition, this unit cannot perform actions " line is true. It's aditional part of that rule.

It's not a well written rule, but it does look like the no actions is not related to the first sentence. Both rules are part of the "Evasion Protocol" rule but they are not dependent on one another. For that to be the case the "no actions" provision would need to be part of the same sentence.

**nosferatu1001**

The first sentence sets a range restriction, with a while condition. The "in addition" is completely isolated from the "while" condition, by the rules of grammar it is not related to being within 3" and so the model can. Never do actions.

**JNAProductions**

Put me in the “can’t do actions ever” camp.
It’s definitely not worded the best, though.

**DeathReaper**

nosferatu1001 wrote:
The first sentence sets a range restriction, with a while condition. The "in addition" is completely isolated from the "while" condition, by the rules of grammar it is not related to being within 3" and so the model can. Never do actions.

This.

Evasion Protocol is basically two rules.

The first rule is something about range, and the second rule says basically that In addition to the rule in the first sentence, this unit cannot perform actions.

**alextroy**

GW has a bad habit of placing non-conditional sections of rules after the conditional sections of the rule. It can easily be confusing.

**Blndmage**

DeathReaper wrote:
nosferatu1001 wrote:
The first sentence sets a range restriction, with a while condition. The "in addition" is completely isolated from the "while" condition, by the rules of grammar it is not related to being within 3" and so the model can. Never do actions.
This.

Evasion Protocol is basically two rules.

The first rule is something about range, and the second rule says basically that In addition to the rule in the first sentence, this unit cannot perform actions.

This is so confusing and convoluted.
Why can't it simply do what it says.
Make another rule if need be.

I shouldn't have to parse linguistics to play this game.

**DeathReaper**

Blndmage wrote:

This is so confusing and convoluted.
Why can't it simply do what it says.
Make another rule if need be.

I shouldn't have to parse linguistics to play this game.

Confusing, Yes, that is GW for you.

Convoluted, Yes, that is GW for you.

But for literally every game you need to parse linguistics to play. Some games are very clear with the linguistics. 40K is more complicated than most games, so it is tougher to parse.

**Blndmage**

DeathReaper wrote:
Blndmage wrote:

This is so confusing and convoluted.
Why can't it simply do what it says.
Make another rule if need be.

I shouldn't have to parse linguistics to play this game.

Confusing, Yes, that is GW for you.

Convoluted, Yes, that is GW for you.

But for literally every game you need to parse linguistics to play. Some games are very clear with the linguistics. 40K is more complicated than most games, so it is tougher to parse.

It's a game, not a legally binding document. I shouldn't have to pay closer attention to this than the rates for my credit card (which I'm currently doing, and 40k is harder to understand).

**DeathReaper**

Well the rules for 40K are more complicated than rates for your credit card. so there is that.

That is GW for you.