Switch Theme:

Unit special rules while embarked in open-topped vehicles question  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in us
Krazed Killa Kan





Denver, Colorado

So, this question has been bugging me for a while.

Lets say you have a unit of flash gitz in an open topped battlewagon with kaptin badrukk. The kaptin lets all flash gitz within 6" reroll 1s to hit.

The rules for transport clearly state that: "Unless specifically stated, abilities that affect other units within a certain range have no effect whilst the unit that has the ability is embarked."

So, Kaptin baddruk clearly doesn't affect other flash gitz. Does he affect himself? The rules say that he can't affect other units.

What about ammo runts? As part of the flash gitz unit, can they let their own unit reroll hits? Does the gun-crazy showoffs rule still potentially happen while embarked?

It seems to me that intrinsic unit abilities while embarked should still apply, though abilities from other units would not. Is that correct?

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/12/12 20:39:59


"Hope is the first step on the road to disappointment." Words to live by. 
   
Made in gb
Norn Queen






 Kap'n Krump wrote:
So, this question has been bugging me for a while.

Lets say you have a unit of flash gitz in an open topped battlewagon with kaptin badrukk. The kaptin lets all flash gitz within 6" reroll 1s to hit.

The rules for transport clearly state that: "Unless specifically stated, abilities that affect other units within a certain range have no effect whilst the unit that has the ability is embarked."

So, the kaptin clearly doesn't affect other flash gitz. Does he affect himself? The rules say that he can't affect other units.

What about ammo runts? As part of the flash gitz unit, can they let their own unit reroll hits? Does the gun-crazy showoffs rule still potentially happen while embarked?

It seems to me that intrinsic unit abilities while embarked should still apply, though abilities from other units would not. Is that correct?
Just to nitpick, the normal Kaptin doesn't allow for re-rolls, only Kaptin Badrukk does, and even then his rule is worded to only affect "Flash Gitz" (not the keyword).

Otherwise, good catch. Seems like thats another one for the list! I'm going to agree that anything that is an intrinsic part of the unit still applies when embarked, it's only rules that affect "other" units that don't work. So for Flash Gitz the "Ammo Runt" rule and "Gun-crazy Showoffs" rule still apply when embarked, it's just they will only matter if shooting from an open-topped vehicle.

Of course if they were accompanied by Kaptin Badrukk, his reroll ability isn't going to help because of the specific denial of abilities that affect other units. Kaptin is weird because his rule only affects models called "Flash Gitz", not the Kaptin, or the Ammo runts or himself.

As for whether an aura that affects a keyword like a Chapter Master does, that's a little more muddy. Obviously the aura is affecting "other" units, and the Chapter Master is an "other" unit, just one that happens to always be in range. But you could also argue that affecting themselves is not affecting an "other" unit. Interesting and definitely one for the FAQ list. However Open-Topped transports are a rarity so I don't think this issue is going to be overly common.

This message was edited 10 times. Last update was at 2017/12/12 17:32:59


 
   
Made in us
Krazed Killa Kan





Denver, Colorado

Oh, when I said the Kaptin, I meant kaptin badrukk, though that was unclear.

But kaptin badrukk does affect himself, as he does have the flash gitz keyword. Someone had to point that out to me.

"Hope is the first step on the road to disappointment." Words to live by. 
   
Made in gb
Norn Queen






 Kap'n Krump wrote:
Oh, when I said the Kaptin, I meant kaptin badrukk, though that was unclear.

But kaptin badrukk does affect himself, as he does have the flash gitz keyword. Someone had to point that out to me.
Except that's not what his rule says.

It says "Flashiest Gitz: You can re-roll hit rolls of 1 in the Shooting phase for friendly units of Flash Gitz within 6" of Kaptin Badrukk."

Flash Gitz is NOT Boldface and AllCaps. It's the name Flash Gitz, not the keyword FLASH GITZ.

GW have proved with errata to stratagems that the difference does matter.

The proof is in the errata to the Master of Ordnance's special ability, which changed "friendly <REGIMENT> Basilisks, Wyverns, Manticores or Deathstrikes" into "friendly <REGIMENT> BASILISKS, WYVERNS, MANTICORES or DEATHSTRIKES". There was another example I think from Forge World but I can't find it right now.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2017/12/12 17:44:11


 
   
Made in us
Krazed Killa Kan





Denver, Colorado

Ok, I've heard something to that tune before - do you have a link to an errata where that is defined?

Because it is a little confusing. What you said sounds like what I've heard before, but it doesn't make much sense for badrukk to even have the flash git keyword in that instance.

"Hope is the first step on the road to disappointment." Words to live by. 
   
Made in gb
Norn Queen






 Kap'n Krump wrote:
Ok, I've heard something to that tune before - do you have a link to an errata where that is defined?

Because it is a little confusing. What you said sounds like what I've heard before, but it doesn't make much sense for badrukk to even have the flash git keyword in that instance.
It's not an errata? What I posted is what is in the index. There has been no errata changing it. You can't prove a negative.

Another example I found was the changing of Longstrike's special ability from "other friendly T’AU SEPT TX7 Hammerhead Gunships" to "friendly T'AU SEPT HAMMERHEAD units."

Is it an error they haven't fixed? Is it intended? Who knows. What we do know is that the RaW is crystal clear and has multiple precedents to confirm it.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/12/12 17:48:14


 
   
Made in us
Krazed Killa Kan





Denver, Colorado

Like, for example, what someone was explaining to me was that broodlords add 1 to hit rolls in the fight phase for genestealer units within 6", and broodlords have the genestealer keyword.

But because genestealer wasn't bold/caps, it's not a keyword, and therefore broodlords don't give themselves +1 to hit.

That seems incredibly confusing and counterintuitive. That doesn't make it incorrect, but even so, seems odd. Maybe I'll read up more on how keywords work.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
As for the errata question, you mentioned "GW have proved with errata to stratagems that the difference does matter." - was just wondering if you could be more specific. Thanks for the help in any case!

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/12/12 17:50:52


"Hope is the first step on the road to disappointment." Words to live by. 
   
Made in us
Storm Trooper with Maglight





Denver

Embarked rule from the Battle Primer PDF:

Unless specifically stated, abilities that affect other units within a certain range have no effect whilst the unit that has the ability is embarked.

That would seem to preclude his ability working at all while embarked.

Interested in gaming related original artwork?* You can view my collection of 40k, BattleTech, L5R and other miscellaneous pieces at https://www.comicartfans.com/GalleryDetail.asp?GCat=158415

*This means published works by professional artists, not me of course. 
   
Made in gb
Norn Queen






 Kap'n Krump wrote:
Like, for example, what someone was explaining to me was that broodlords add 1 to hit rolls in the fight phase for genestealer units within 6", and broodlords have the genestealer keyword.

But because genestealer wasn't bold/caps, it's not a keyword, and therefore broodlords don't give themselves +1 to hit.

That seems incredibly confusing and counterintuitive. That doesn't make it incorrect, but even so, seems odd. Maybe I'll read up more on how keywords work.
As for the errata question, you mentioned "GW have proved with errata to stratagems that the difference does matter." - was just wondering if you could be more specific. Thanks for the help in any case!
No worries.

Basically, some auras will buff a KEYWORD, which means the aura giver will benefit if they also have that keyword. Sometimes they will only buff a name, in normal font, not bold and caps. This means they only affect the units with that name on the datasheet. The GSC Patriarch is a great example, it only buffs "friendly Purestrain Genestealer" units, which isn't a keyword, so it doesn't buff itself.

The same is true for Kaptin Badrukk.

Compare this to Calgar's rule "Chapter Master: You can re-roll failed hit rolls for friendly ULTRAMARINES units within 6" of Marneus Calgar." Since ULTRAMARINES is a keyword, it will affect Calgar too because he is also an ULTRAMARINE.

It's only unintuitive if you're assuming all auras work the same. Not all auras are though and each one will depend on the wording of the individual aura.

Regarding examples, I gave two examples where a unit name was errata'd into keywords, proving they differ and matter.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Alpharius Walks wrote:
Embarked rule from the Battle Primer PDF:

Unless specifically stated, abilities that affect other units within a certain range have no effect whilst the unit that has the ability is embarked.

That would seem to preclude his ability working at all while embarked.
Did you read the OP? He mentions this. The rule says "abilities that affect other units" have no effect, not abilities that affect your own unit. It's not as cut and dried as you seem to make it. If the rule simply said "No special rules work when embarked", it would be another story.

I then pointed out there is a muddy grey area when it comes to auras affecting the model giving the aura.

This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2017/12/12 18:01:14


 
   
Made in us
Storm Trooper with Maglight





Denver

 BaconCatBug wrote:
The rule says "abilities that affect other units" have no effect, not abilities that affect your own unit.


Is there any support in the rules for the concept that an aura ability is two abilities, one that works on other units and one that works on the unit with the aura ability on its datasheet? The Transport/Embark rules say that such an ability does not work without any qualifier, not that it does not work on other units.

Interested in gaming related original artwork?* You can view my collection of 40k, BattleTech, L5R and other miscellaneous pieces at https://www.comicartfans.com/GalleryDetail.asp?GCat=158415

*This means published works by professional artists, not me of course. 
   
Made in gb
Norn Queen






Alpharius Walks wrote:
The Transport/Embark rules say that such an ability does not work without any qualifier, not that it does not work on other units.
No, it doesn't. That's the WHOLE POINT of this thread.

The full rule:
"Unless specifically stated, abilities that affect other units within a certain range have no effect whilst the unit that has the ability is embarked."

Let's break that down.

  • Unless specifically stated,

  • abilities that affect other units within a certain range

  • have no effect whilst the unit that has the ability is embarked.


  • Only "abilities that affect other units within a certain range have no effect", not "abilities" or "all abilities".

    I will agree that auras shouldn't work, but one can easily use semantics and the imprecise nature of the English language to argue the other way. That's why I said it's a grey area. If a model has an aura, and the only one it is affecting is itself, is that aura really affecting "other" units? Or does it come down to "can this rule at any point affect a model other than the model it is a rule for"? It's things like these that are the reason why 40k should have hired a technical writer for their rules.

    This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2017/12/12 18:28:20


     
       
    Made in gb
    Grim Dark Angels Interrogator-Chaplain





    Cardiff

    Once again, this is pretty self-evidently not a loophole to most, and indeed the Tenets of YMDC has a section on the weird and wonderful nature of GW's language.

    Suffice to say the aura does not work when embarked and any "weelllllll it's a grey area" is clutching.

     Stormonu wrote:
    For me, the joy is in putting some good-looking models on the board and playing out a fantasy battle - not arguing over the poorly-made rules of some 3rd party who neither has any power over my play nor will be visiting me (and my opponent) to ensure we are "playing by the rules"
     
       
    Made in us
    Krazed Killa Kan





    Denver, Colorado

     JohnnyHell wrote:
    Once again, this is pretty self-evidently not a loophole to most, and indeed the Tenets of YMDC has a section on the weird and wonderful nature of GW's language.

    Suffice to say the aura does not work when embarked and any "weelllllll it's a grey area" is clutching.


    Well, for the sake of argument, lets say that the aura doesn't affect the source of the aura, in addition to not affecting other units. Because, at least for me, that is a complete non-issue.

    What about unit special rules that affect a unit's shooting (e.g. gun-crazy showoffs, ammo runts). Can a unit's own special rules assist it in shooting out of an open-topped vehicle? If not, why not?

    This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/12/12 20:38:38


    "Hope is the first step on the road to disappointment." Words to live by. 
       
    Made in gb
    Grim Dark Angels Interrogator-Chaplain





    Cardiff

     Kap'n Krump wrote:
     JohnnyHell wrote:
    Once again, this is pretty self-evidently not a loophole to most, and indeed the Tenets of YMDC has a section on the weird and wonderful nature of GW's language.

    Suffice to say the aura does not work when embarked and any "weelllllll it's a grey area" is clutching.


    Well, for the sake of argument, lets say that the aura doesn't affect the source of the aura, in addition to not affecting other units. Because, at least for me, that is a complete non-issue.

    What about unit special rules that affect a unit's shooting (e.g. gun-crazy showoffs, ammo runts). Can a unit's own special rules assist it in shooting out of an open-topped vehicle? If not, why not?


    If a unit is allowed to shoot from a vehicle follow the rules on the Transport's Datasheet. If it doesn't restrict in any way, sure, that unit can use its own abilities.

     Stormonu wrote:
    For me, the joy is in putting some good-looking models on the board and playing out a fantasy battle - not arguing over the poorly-made rules of some 3rd party who neither has any power over my play nor will be visiting me (and my opponent) to ensure we are "playing by the rules"
     
       
    Made in ca
    Hardened Veteran Guardsman





     BaconCatBug wrote:
    Alpharius Walks wrote:
    The Transport/Embark rules say that such an ability does not work without any qualifier, not that it does not work on other units.
    No, it doesn't. That's the WHOLE POINT of this thread.

    The full rule:
    "Unless specifically stated, abilities that affect other units within a certain range have no effect whilst the unit that has the ability is embarked."

    Let's break that down.

  • Unless specifically stated,

  • abilities that affect other units within a certain range

  • have no effect whilst the unit that has the ability is embarked.


  • Only "abilities that affect other units within a certain range have no effect", not "abilities" or "all abilities".

    I will agree that auras shouldn't work, but one can easily use semantics and the imprecise nature of the English language to argue the other way. That's why I said it's a grey area. If a model has an aura, and the only one it is affecting is itself, is that aura really affecting "other" units? Or does it come down to "can this rule at any point affect a model other than the model it is a rule for"? It's things like these that are the reason why 40k should have hired a technical writer for their rules.


    Except, how is say, a Chapter Master gaining his ability to re-roll? By qualifying as a friendly unit within 6" of himself. Regardless of semantics, he's affected by his aura in the exact same way as a Tac Squad 5.5" away.

    Transports says, "abilities that affect other units within a certain range", which a Chapter Master's ability very much is. I don't see how it would work, even on himself.

    Though of course fluff-wise, it wouldn't be the shooting out of a vehicle that suddenly inhibits the Chapter Master's ability to motivate himself, so I think it should apply, but can't by way of (probably clumsy) wording.
       
     
    Forum Index » 40K You Make Da Call
    Go to: