The Doom of Malantai

[Caldera02]

An interesting dispute came up yesterday in our gaming group here as were pushed these new nid rules. The Doom has a special "Aura" that every shooting face he affects every unit within 6 inches. The instance that came under dispute was weather or not that "Aura" effects units inside vehicles or not. (I.E. Rhino) Same logic applies to -LD abilities to units inside vehicles. Example, does the broodlords -LD affect, say a rune priest inside said rhino?

Discuss.

[Jwolf]

No, the Doom of Malan'Tai can't kill guys in transports. That this is even a question(for anyone) is a product of poor comprehension of the overall ruleset.

Is the question logical? Absolutely.
Is there any basis in the rules for the question? Absolutely not.

[The.Justinian]

Your argument opens and shuts the case, applause.

I just formulated a similar argument about the wounds from the mawloc hole and how, in the absence of any sentence that says otherwise, cover saves can be taken against it...while the opposition hearkened to 'basis' in the fantasy reality of the universe, similar to the problem here.

I'm just afraid there are too many people that want to see it as a simulation, that want things to make sense...when as a finite game, it can't...it can only function.

I've played magic on and off (currently off) for the last fifteen years, and that seminal experience of a clearly defined, logical set of rules that can explain all circumstances has shaped the way that I play all games. They're abstractions--no more or less than chess, just with prettier peices and more possible combinations.

Now, what's being abstracted, in this case fantasy bugs, fantasy warrior monks, and fantasy space elves, adds a lot to the game. but we can't argue rules based on those ideals--there's a wall of abstraction between the two. We can't ask our plastic SM Captain how he's feeling today.

[crazyredpraetorian]

No, the Doom of Malan'Tai can't kill guys in transports. That this is even a question(for anyone) is a product of poor comprehension of the overall ruleset.

Is the question logical? Absolutely.
Is there any basis in the rules for the question? Absolutely not.

Go, Jwolf, Go Jwolf, Go!

I thought I was going to have a meltdown last night over that rule.

[Caldera02]

Let it be known, I agree. It's kinda ridiculous to hit guys in transports for the points cost of that character. Also, for simplicity sake it's just better to not think like that in game terms even though it makes sense logically. Part of our discussion was that yes if the guys can fire out of a vehicle then you should be able to target them but that just doesn't work with our ruleset. I've conceded that point because The Doom is just broken otherwise lol.

That still doesn't answer the other non damage abilities like the other one I listed however. What do you guys think?

[Ferro]

Hrm. Well I don't agree (yet). Mr. Wolf, can you elaborate? You haven't presented any argument or rationale, other than the voice of authority. And I admit, your Voice of Authority is very convincing. But, in what way can my 'poor comprehension of the overall ruleset' preclude this:

Soul Sucker is not a Psychic Shooting attack. No psychic test, no roll to hit. It's simply a special rule ability which works in every shooting phase. Translated from German, in which I'm almost fluent = "At the beginning of every Shooting Phase (also the enemy's) must every enemy Unit within 6" of the DOOM take a Leadership test (Moralwerttest) on 3d6. If the test is not passed, the Unit suffers 1 Wound for every point they failed the test by. Against these wounds no armor save allowed."

The way we played it, it killed four marines in a Rhino. Why? Because they were a Unit within 6". The overall ruleset can suck my new Codex.

The wording of Soul Sucker doesn't preclude its use if you're stuck in CC either. It says you "must" do this every shooting phase. (German "muss" from mussen, imperative - must.)

Yes, I agree it's stupid. Yes, it's broken. Yes, yes, yes. I know, and I feel dirty. But tell me why I'm wrong.

Happy faces and all that. Please don't break my leg.

And one meltagun shot to the face will take away all ten of his wounds. EDIT: ...unless of course I keep him locked in CC forever. If ever the DOOM could assault TWO units and keep them tied up... ooo the cheese!

[Jwolf]

Happy to elaborate. The basic rule is that units embarked in transports are removed from the board. Thus, they are not on the board to be affected by anything (of affect anything, for that matter). Specific rules do overwrite the general, so we have the case that an IG commander in a Chimera can give orders, and we have a rule that says you measure distance from anywhere on the hull. Now, clearly, the IG commander is not the size of a Chimera, so we're abstracting his location because a specific rule tells us to do so.

The Doom of Malan'tai has no such specific rule, which leaves us with the general case. Thus, for the purpose of the Soul Sucking, units in transports are off the table.

[Ferro]

If they are off the board, and can't effect anything, they couldn't shoot out of fire ports. Yet, they do shoot, and this does effect things.

p.66 Embarking: When the unit embarks, it is removed from the table and placed aside, making a note or otherwise marking that the unit is being transported (we find that placing one of the unit's models on top of the transport works well!).

You seem to assume that 'removed from the table' has the same consequences as being dead, or being in Reserve. But we both know they are not dead or in Reserve. They're in the transport.

I assume that it means, 'don't attempt to shove your models inside the transport, cause they won't fit and you'll break ****. Instead, set them aside and pretend they're all in there snug as a bug.'

'Removed from the table' is a logistical requirement, not a gameplay modifier. Thus, it Sucks their Souls if the hull of the vehicle is within 6".

[Caldera02]

Also, how can a troop inside a rhino capture objectives if indeed they are "off" the board?

[Ferro]

Careful Chris, don't get involved until the dust settles! :)

[Caldera02]

But where's the fun in that?! I'm leaning more towards it not affecting guys inside vehicles but still as Mkerr said last night, "nuh uhn" is not a valid argument haha.

[Jwolf]

Also, how can a troop inside a rhino capture objectives if indeed they are "off" the board?

By virtue of the specific rule (BRB,P.90, SCORING UNITS): "Units of Troops embarked in a Transport can control objectives (measure the distance to their vehicle's hull).

Again, a case of a specific rule modifying how we deal with the general case.

[Jwolf]

But where's the fun in that?! I'm leaning more towards it not affecting guys inside vehicles but still as Mkerr said last night, "nuh uhn" is not a valid argument haha.

"Nuh Uhn" is the valid counter argument to "Uhn Huh," which was the entire Affirmative case presented.

[Nabterayl]

I'll add on to JWolf's point by observing that nothing in the rulebook actually says that passengers in a transport can't be directly targeted by a shooting attack, yet we all agree that passengers may not be directly targeted. Why would this be, except as a consequence of the fact that for general purposes, passengers are not on the table (and thus no line of sight may be drawn to them)?

[Ferro]

Nab, that doesn't add anything. It's not that you can't draw LOS to passengers because they're off the table; you can't draw LOS to passengers because you can't see them in the transport. This is why you can't shoot them. Soul Sucker doesn't need LOS, it is not shooting, it has no target, it's just an area of effect (like Synapse). (Sounds a bit like the early JotWW arguments, doesn't it? The difference is that JotWW is a psychic shooting attack, and Soul Sucker is not.)

suppliment: Actually, it is in the rulebook that embarked units cannot be shot (it's just hidden in the Buildings section). It's a moot point though Nab, because Soul Sucker isn't a shooting attack anyway.

Mr. Wolf, I've made multiple points which are significantly more substantial than insisting "uh-huh." Quit trying to strawman my argument.

The entire Transport Vehicles section (p66-67) repeatedly and consistently says the embarked unit is in the transport. Passengers can shoot, they get in, they get out, they may not shoot out of the vehicle if it's shaken or stunned, they have to get out if it's destroyed. Your argument invalidates this entire section.

Because I am Relentless and Stubborn:
Embarking: "When the unit embarks, it is removed from the table and placed aside, making a note or otherwise marking that the unit is being transported."
Disembarking: "A unit that begins its Movement phase aboard a vehicle can disembark..."
Q: Where is the unit? A: aboard the vehicle.
Q: What does disembark mean? A: to get out of.
Logical conclusion: the unit was in it.

The models must be set aside because they won't fit in the little toy tank. This does not mean the unit is now out of play. By your own admission (and by consequence of the rules) embarked units can and do interract with the tabletop as if they were in the little toy tank, even though the models don't fit there and you've removed them from the table.

In fact, the only thing that comes even close to supporting your argument, Mr. Wolf, is:
Weapon destroyed & immobilised: These results have no effect on passengers.

If Soul Sucker was destroying vehicle weapons, you would have a strong case.

Uh-huh.

[Nabterayl]

Nab, that doesn't add anything. It's not that you can't draw LOS to passengers because they're off the table; you can't draw LOS to passengers because you can't see them in the transport.
Yes, but why not? If I put an ork physically in the bed of my trukk, you could see him. Would you then be able to target him? Surely not. Surely you can't see them in the transport because there is no model to draw LOS to?

If a vehicle explodes immediately adjacent to a transport with embarked passengers, do those passengers suffer a S3 AP- hit? By your logic, those models are in range, and the rule says "models in range suffer a Strength 3, AP- hit." How is that situation any different? For that matter, why doesn't a blast template that covers a transport vehicle affect the passengers of that vehicle? The unit is "there" under the template, isn't it?

EDIT: Unless your contention is that the unit has a location that bears no relation to the disposition of its models?

[Ferro]

Those are all good points Nab. You're right that the dang book never explicitly says you can't shoot at an embarked unit, but it comes close on p 79 about Buildings. It explains that you treat building like transport vehicles, and that "all the normal rules [for transport vehicles] apply," then that "units inside a building may not be attacked directly, but will be affected in the same manner as units inside a transport vehicle..."

This section explains it for buildings, and says it's the same way for transports. THAT's why you can't shoot an embarked unit, or that an embarked unit can't be hurt by the examples you listed. Yet, the unit counts as being there. I'm not suggesting that we can shoot an embarked unit. I just want to establish where the embarked unit is.

Everything indicates that the unit is in the transport, even if the models don't actually fit.

Also, you're not allowed to put the orks in the back of the truck! Maybe some people do this, but there's nothing in the Open-Topped section which says you actually put your models on the vehicle. You should defer back to the generic transport vehicle rules, which says to remove models from the table but perhaps set one model on top to remind you of what's embarked. That model is not really there and you cannot draw LOS to it, it's only a post-it note.

If Mr. Wolf wishes to maintain that 'removed from the table and placed aside' = out of the game in all respects, I'll allow it. I will also gladly accept killpoints for all the embarked units, which cannot disembark, shoot, give orders, or use psychic powers throughout the game. Hey, they're off the table.

[Nabterayl]

Those are all good points Nab. You're right that the dang book never explicitly says you can't shoot at an embarked unit, but it comes close on p 79 about Buildings. It explains that you treat building like transport vehicles, and that "all the normal rules [for transport vehicles] apply," then that "units inside a building may not be attacked directly, but will be affected in the same manner as units inside a transport vehicle..."

This section explains it for buildings, and says it's the same way for transports. THAT's why you can't shoot an embarked unit, or that an embarked unit can't be hurt by the examples you listed. Yet, the unit counts as being there. I'm not suggesting that we can shoot an embarked unit. I just want to establish where the embarked unit is.
That's a good point about buildings, but I think the actual language cuts both ways. Page 70 says "Units inside a building may not be attacked directly." Obviously that covers the situation of somebody trying to shoot a unit inside a building, and I agree that it implies that you cannot shoot a unit inside a true transport vehicle, either.

But suppose I have a Rhino with passengers that is right next to a Vindicator. The Vindicator is shot, and explodes, causing each model within d6" to take a S3 AP- hit. Obviously the Rhino takes that hit. Why wouldn't its passengers, though? An explosion is certainly not a "direct" attack, so page 79 doesn't apply. I see only two rationales:

The passenger unit's location is coextensive with the location of the Rhino, but none of the passenger models have a location at all, and thus no models are within d6" of the exploding Vindicator, even though the unit is present; or
The passenger unit has no location at all.

Of the two, I prefer option 2. Option 1 doesn't allow us to analyze any situations that option 2 doesn't already cover in a simpler way. Option 1 also seems to fly in the face of page 3, which says that when measuring distance between two units, we measure between the closest models. The transport rules nowhere actually state that passenger a unit has a location despite the fact that its models do not, and page 3, which is the default rule for determining the location of a unit, requires the presence of a model to work. So option 1 leaves us with a rules quandry that option 2 neatly sidesteps.

[gcsmith]

lol because it says all MODELS!!!! not units. The model is the rhino as its the only model withing 6 inches however the unit is there. just my 2 cents

[crazyredpraetorian]

Ferro, by your logic a heavy flamer shooting at a battlewagon would wound the models inside, the battle wagon being an open topped vehicle. That is not allowed in this ruleset.

[Jwolf]

If Mr. Wolf wishes to maintain that 'removed from the table and placed aside' = out of the game in all respects, I'll allow it. I will also gladly accept killpoints for all the embarked units, which cannot disembark, shoot, give orders, or use psychic powers throughout the game. Hey, they're off the table.

I wish to maintain that they are off the table and can only affect and be affected as rules the specify. All of those instances actually have rules covering why your positionregarding them is invalid. I wish to maintain this because that's what the rules say; I'm simple like that.

I have officially grown bored of the discussion; certainly I'm aware of the arguments you have presented, as well as those presented by others, and I do not find them indicitative of even intent for the Doom to work as you suggest.

The list of things that work poorly if the basic rule is that units in vehicles can be damaged by outside forces that do not harm their vehicle is fairly large; we have good indication that GW considers it a given that models in transports cannot be directly attacked, with no indication that they think indirectly attacking is any better. I would require a much more explicit permission to affect embarked units in a hostile manner to consider this viable.

[Caldera02]

Ferro, by your logic a heavy flamer shooting at a battlewagon would wound the models inside, the battle wagon being an open topped vehicle. That is not allowed in this ruleset.

Right because it's a double standard. You should totally be able to hit the guys in an Open Toped vehicle. But then again there are silly rules with open toped vehicles such as all flamers in the vehicle can fire from the same point. "I can touch 3 of your models with this template, I have 10 flamers. That's 30 hits sir!" Models in the game can do this but a flamer or big shell landing on the open space of the vehicle does nothing to them? riiggghhhhttttt........

I think we just have to accept the fact that things like this are not intended but happen. Doom affecting units inside a vehicle falls under this same category in my opinion. It's messed up sure but so is that flamer issue I just mentioned.

Furthermore I believe that this argument will only lead to The Doom being banned in at the very least our local Tournaments lol.

[Ferro]

Ferro, by your logic a heavy flamer shooting at a battlewagon would wound the models inside, the battle wagon being an open topped vehicle. That is not allowed in this ruleset.

John, that's not my logic; not my stated position at all. You can't shoot models embarked in a vehicle or building. Models embarked cannot be shot at or assaulted directly. In all cases the vehicle takes the hit, and not the embarked passengers. We all agree, and I have never said anything contrary to this.

Nab: "Why wouldn't its passengers, though? An explosion is certainly not a "direct" attack, so page 79 doesn't apply." --well I disagree about it not being a direct attack, but this is all beside the point. Nab, I agree with you in every way... in every example you've come up with, we're on the same page. The embarked unit isn't effected by these things. All I'm asking is, where is the embarked unit?

If it's on the table and within 6", it's effected by this power simply by virtue of its location.

---


I wish to maintain that they are off the table and can only affect and be affected as rules the specify. All of those instances actually have rules covering why your position regarding them is invalid.
That's not my position! Strawman again! Those are the necessary consequences of insisting that the unit is not on the table--precisely what you were arguing. Obviously that's nonsense, so obviously the unit is on the table.


I have officially grown bored of the discussion Boo.

[Nabterayl]

Nab: "Why wouldn't its passengers, though? An explosion is certainly not a "direct" attack, so page 79 doesn't apply." --well I disagree about it not being a direct attack, but this is all beside the point. Nab, I agree with you in every way... in every example you've come up with, we're on the same page. The embarked unit isn't effected by these things. All I'm asking is, where is the embarked unit?
Why do you agree with me? My reasoning is that these things don't affect the embarked unit because it has no location. What's your reasoning?

By the way, I think CRP's point about the heavy flamers was that the building rules say that when an access point or fire point on a "building" lies under a template, the passengers of the "building" take d6 hits from the template weapon. However, as we all know, the same is not true for vehicles. I think CRP was offering this as a reason to doubt that the building rules can apply backwards to vehicles after all. That's relevant because, if one were to accept that point, it would leave one with no reason that passengers in a vehicle cannot be attacked - except if the embarked unit had no location.

[Ferro]

I agree Nab that these things don't effect embarked units. However, the units absolutely do have a location on the board. The end result is the same though, and a hundred more examples won't change that.

Thank you for explaining the template + building logic, I totally missed that. However, it still doesn't apply to this argument. No one is claiming that all building rules apply to transports... actually the flow is the other direction. Some of the transport rules apply to buildings. Yes, there's an exception for template weapons shooting a unit embarked in a building. Ok, but it doesn't change the logic of anything else going on here. What matters to me is that the unit is IN the building, not out in space somewhere, or in some metaphysical limbo.



...Same logic applies to -LD abilities to units inside vehicles. Example, does the broodlords -LD affect, say a rune priest inside said rhino?

Discuss.

Anyone? The Broodlord power initiates in his assualt phase and lasts until the end of the next player turn (trans.). So it's unlikely to be relevant to an embarked unit even if it does effect them. Yet, can it affect embarked units? Also:

Death Leaper; It's after me! Pick an enemy character at the start of the game. They are at -d3 Ld as long as the Death Leaper is alive.

I pick an enemy character. Don't tell me this doesn't work if that character is embarked. Don't even.

[Nabterayl]

The difference I see with Death Leaper, Ferro, is that his power isn't range-dependent. You nominate a model at the start of the game, it's affected for the entirety of the game.

The Doom's power is different. It asks you to figure out whether a unit is within 6" of the Doom or not. My contention, and Jwolf's contention, is that a unit embarked on a vehicle cannot be measured to because it has no location, even though it has a suite of specific rules that allow it to interact with respect to a model that does have a location (its transport).

To put it another way, the only rule we have that tells us how to measure to a unit tells us to measure to a model in that unit. With no models on the table, an embarked unit cannot be within 6" of the Doom (or a KFF, or a Culexus' aura, or a pariah's aura, etc.), because you cannot measure to the models.

As for brood lords, I don't have the new tyranid dex, so I can't answer that - how is the power worded?

[Ferro]

Au contrair, Nab. p 66 Embarking: If the players need to measure a range involving the embarked unit (except for its [the embarked units own] shooting), this range is measured to or from the vehicle's hull.

Soul Sucker needs to measure a 6" range involving the embarked unit, so you measure to/from the hull to the base of the DOOM.

Seriously, how can you say the unit doesn't have a location? It's right there, in the transport, on the table. You see it, move it with your hands, shoot things out of its hatches.

--Someone walks up to you and sees that you've got Lysander and some termies on your side table (next to your Dr. Pepper and rulebook). He asks, "Hey, which land raider is Lysander in?" Do you answer a) <points a finger> "That one"; or b) "he's not in a land raider, he's over there next to my soda!"

:)

Broodlord; Aura of Despair: Use at beginning of assault phase, requires psychic test. If successful, all enemy units within 12" suffer -1 Ld until the end of the following player turn (i.e thru the enemies turn and expires at your own next turn). Ability stacks if multiple broodlords apply it.

[Nabterayl]

Fair enough; I did indeed overlook that.

So ... what's your rationale for a vehicle explosion not affecting an embarked unit, then? Would Hammer of the Witches affect embarked psykers, in your view? Or a kustom force field give embarked units a cover save?

[Ferro]

I thought we've covered this already. You don't need a rationale for a vehicle explosion not affecting embarked units. Embarked units are not affected by shooting attacks, as per the rules. (Destroyed-explodes! = a shooting attack, p.67) The explosion could affect the vehicle, if only it were strong enough.

I'm not familiar with Hammer of Witches, but why would any embarked unit ever need to take cover saves? Ordinarily, it could never happen.

In general though, my answer is always going to be that codex trumps core rules. Whatever crazy thing it says you can do, you can do. That's what makes one army distinct from another, and keeps everything interesting.

I certainly would argue that the Death Leaper's ability works on an embarked character. And if something can affect embarked models, it overturns certain arguments made earlier in this thread. We'll see.

[Nabterayl]

I thought we've covered this already. You don't need a rationale for a vehicle explosion not affecting embarked units. Embarked units are not affected by shooting attacks, as per the rules. (Destroyed-explodes! = a shooting attack, p.67) The explosion could affect the vehicle, if only it were strong enough.
No, they aren't. If a passenger unit's own transport explodes, it's a shooting attack, or near enough. If any other vehicle explodes, the profile of the attack is different (p. 61), and it affects "models" in range. That's hardly a direct shooting attack, even if we do use the building rules to infer vehicle rules. Just like the Doom's ability, it's not targeted at anything, let alone the embarked unit.


I'm not familiar with Hammer of Witches, but why would any embarked unit ever need to take cover saves? Ordinarily, it could never happen.
Sure it could. Suppose a unit is embarked, and its transport explodes - does it get a cover save? What about in the example above, where a unit is embarked, a vehicle other than its transport explodes, and that hit affects the embarked unit?

[Ferro]

How far are we gunna let this wander? I get the feeling you're just trying to back me into a corner. These are all rhetorical situations for you, aren't they?


No, they aren't. If a passenger unit's own transport explodes, it's a shooting attack, or near enough. If any other vehicle explodes, the profile of the attack is different (p. 61), and it affects "models" in range. That's hardly a direct shooting attack, even if we do use the building rules to infer vehicle rules. Just like the Doom's ability, it's not targeted at anything, let alone the embarked unit.

Again, it's transport rules which set the precident for buildings, not the other way around.
I see the distinction now, sorry I missed that. So it tells you that Models in range are hit, but the only 'model' present is the vehicle. GCsmith said as much a few posts ago, and I think that covers it. I agree, it's not a direct shooting attack, but it's own wording limits it effectiveness in this case.

The rules never say that embarked units are immune to all damage of any kind, we just play that way by general consensus. It is simply an assumption that no assaulting and no shooting = impossible to hurt or influence in any way. The rules do not say this. And even if they did, a special rule in a codex has the power to overrule.

You should reread that previous paragraph. That's it, in a nutshell.


Sure it could. Suppose a unit is embarked, and its transport explodes - does it get a cover save? What about in the example above, where a unit is embarked, a vehicle other than its transport explodes, and that hit affects the embarked unit?

We're talking past each other. I stand by my statement: A unit embarked in a transport has no need of a cover save because--ordinarily--nothing can wound it. You can't counter that by giving an example of a unit that is no longer in their transport. Apples and oranges.

To answer your oranges: Yes, I think Kustom Force Field would grant cover to any and everything within its area of effect. Once again, because the rules in codeci superceed the BRB.

Now, focus. Location! Where is the unit. If the unit had no location... I don't even know what that means. But it couldn't shoot out of hatches, because once you shoot out of hatches you define where you are. Say it! You know I'm right.

[Nabterayl]

I'm not trying to back you into a corner; my apologies if it sounded that way. I was just trying to get you to address the situation that most troubles me, which is passengers in vehicle A being affected by the explosion of vehicle B. I see that you've done that, by saying that you find it troubling too.

The reason that scenario troubles me also is because it seems so obviously wrong. If you're in a Rhino, and something next to you explodes which produces a S3 AP- hit - something which cannot hurt the Rhino, or any other vehicle, or even an AV9 building - I cannot believe that you, inside the Rhino, are at risk. And, as you say, this is the general consensus among players. But then we turn to the question of why.

If the models of the embarked unit are considered to be in a location coextensive with the transport vehicle, then unquestionably the passengers are affected by an adjacent exploding vehicle. For various reasons this seems like it cannot be the case.

If the models of the embarked unit are not considered to be in a location coextensive with the transport vehicle, but the unit itself is considered to be in a location coextensive with the transport vehicle, then the passengers are not affected by an adjacent exploding vehicle. However, this presents other irreconcilable oddities, such as with Hammer of the Witches*.

If it is a general rule that embarked units do not have a location except when a rule calls upon them to act, then neither the exploding transport nor Hammer of the Witches scenarios are problematic. I think this is the consensus viewpoint, though probably more legalistically worded than most players would articulate.

This isn't necessarily a question of codex trumps rulebook. If the general rule is that embarked units do not have a location with respect to outside actions, then it does not matter that the codex says "all units within 6"," because an embarked unit would not be within 6" to begin with, and the codex would not say otherwise.

* Hammer of the Witches is a witch hunter psychic power that causes D6 enemy psykers to pass a Leadership test or suffer a Perils of the Warp attack. It does not require line of sight, and affects enemy psykers starting with the one nearest the inquisitor who used the power, and working outwards from there. Suppose that the inquisitor who uses this power is directly in front of an enemy Land Raider. Now suppose that inside that Land Raider is an enemy librarian attached to a terminator squad, and another enemy librarian on foot, on his own, is alongside the Land Raider, positioned exactly halfway down its length. Which of the two librarians (both enemy psykers) takes the first Leadership test? If an embarked unit has a location, but the embarked models do not, it is impossible to tell.

Hence, I am inclined to reject the theory that embarked units have locations, but embarked models do not. This leaves me with either the theory that embarked models are located coextensively with their transport, in some kind of bizarre superposition (which seems obviously incorrect to me, and also leads to the absurdity of S3 AP- vehicle explosions penetrating transports to affect passengers), or a third option ... and the best one I can think of is that, generally speaking, embarked units have no position.

EDIT: Having no position is not, of course, the same as not being able to do anything, or having status. An embarked model could have a status, such as -d3Ld, even though we don't know where precisely it is. Similarly, the fire point rules tell us specifically that unless a codex says otherwise, a single passenger may fire out of a fire point, with ranges and line of sight measured from the fire point. None of that requires that the embarked passenger model or his unit have a position. All it requires is that the passenger and unit have the status of being transported by the vehicle to which the fire point belongs.

[Caldera02]

I'm not trying to back you into a corner; my apologies if it sounded that way. I was just trying to get you to address the situation that most troubles me, which is passengers in vehicle A being affected by the explosion of vehicle B.

The reason that scenario troubles me is because it seems so obviously wrong. If you're in a Rhino, and something next to you explodes which produces a S3 AP- hit - something which cannot hurt the Rhino, or any other vehicle, or even an AV9 building - I cannot believe that you, inside the Rhino, are at risk. And, as you say, this is the general consensus among players. But then we turn to the question of why.

It does affect the unit inside. The armor protects them. End of argument. How is that hard?



If it is a general rule that embarked units do not have a location except when a rule calls upon them to act, then neither the exploding transport nor Hammer of the Witches scenarios are problematic. I think this is the consensus viewpoint, though probably more legalistically worded than most players would articulate.

This isn't necessarily a question of codex trumps rulebook. If the general rule is that embarked units do not have a location with respect to outside actions, then it does not matter that the codex says "all units within 6"," because an embarked unit would not be within 6" to begin with, and the codex would not say otherwise.

* Hammer of the Witches is a witch hunter psychic power that causes D6 enemy psykers to pass a Leadership test or suffer a Perils of the Warp attack. It does not require line of sight, and affects enemy psykers starting with the one nearest the inquisitor who used the power, and working outwards from there. Suppose that the inquisitor who uses this power is directly in front of an enemy Land Raider. Now suppose that inside that Land Raider is an enemy librarian attached to a terminator squad, and another enemy librarian on foot, on his own, is alongside the Land Raider, positioned exactly halfway down its length. Which of the two librarians (both enemy psykers) takes the first Leadership test? If an embarked unit has a location, but the embarked models do not, it is impossible to tell.
Easy, you measure units inside transports from the hull of the vehicle so the one in side first.


Hence, I am inclined to reject the theory that embarked units have locations, but embarked models do not....

UNITS!!! AaaaHa, the key word. Doom effects units not models.

This argument is kinda silly in that with the counter arguments going on, troops inside transports could not be a scoring unit as they are not on the table.

[Ferro]

If it is a general rule that embarked units do not have a location except when a rule calls upon them to act, then neither the exploding transport nor Hammer of the Witches scenarios are problematic. I think this is the consensus viewpoint..."

You're over-thinking this. It is certainly not a "general rule that embarked units don't a have a location with respect to outside actions"... whatever the heck that's supposed to mean... it's simply that embarked units cannot be hurt by assaults or shooting attacks. They're still there. They're still 'located' in the transport, behind it's armor plating.

If, in your experience that's the consensus viewpoint, I humbly suggest to you sir that you are spending too much time among French existentialists. Read any Jean-Paul Sartre lately? Well I haven't for 15 years or so, but I recall similar themes. There is no reality but what I see with my eyes, the universe disappears when I'm not looking at it. Nothing exists until I experience it or call it to action. anyway...

The example with the exploding vehicle nearby is ambiguously worded, we both agree it's a stumper. There is no RAW to support that embarked models/units are immune to it, yet we play it that way. [EDIT]Revised opinion: it is the RAW itself, telling us that 'models' are hit, which prevent embarked units from taking damage. Secondarily, even though the exploding vehicle isn't explicitly an assault or shooting attack, it's a consequence of either assault or shooting, and is close enough in its nature to fall under the protections implicit in being embarked.

This is one of my other main points--there is nothing that says embarked units are immune to any-and-everything.
With respect to this issue, I don't see how the units/models location comes into it. Nobody says they don't get wounded because they aren't there. Nobody.

What do you mean by "Adj. 1. coextensive - being of equal extent or scope or duration"? Over-thinking. The unit is not in 'bizzare superposition' with the physical material of the vehicle--flesh, blood, wires and ceramite, covalent bonds and molecular bull****. The unit is in the transport; you measure to the hull. It's simple.

Try treating 'unit' and 'model' interchangeably for embarked units. Might make your brain untwist.

Then there are more interesting examples of how codeci provide rules which supercede the BRB. I don't have issue with this. I embrace it. Whatever Hammer of Witches tells you to do, do it. Incidentally, is it a psychic shooting attack, or just some power. If it's a PSA, you already have your answer.

There is no reason to walk this metaphysical 'is it there or is it not there' line of thinking. Your EDIT above has officially made my head pop. "...even though we don't know precisely where it is"??? I know precisely where it is. It's right there, in that little toy tank. Put down the keyboard and have a beer. I am.

Cheers sir, but I must respectfully wrap this up.

[Nabterayl]

It does affect the unit inside. The armor protects them. End of argument. How is that hard?
Rhino A has tac squad B embarked. Rhino A is caught in the explosion of Rhino C.

Rhino C's explosion inflicts a S3 AP- hit on Rhino A. You think it also affects tac squad B, even though B is inside the Rhino?


Easy, you measure units inside transports from the hull of the vehicle so the one in side first.
Why? The librarian is one model in a unit of six models. We've already established that models don't have locations when embarked.


This argument is kinda silly in that with the counter arguments going on, troops inside transports could not be a scoring unit as they are not on the table.
This goes back to JWolf's point about specific rules. See page 90: "Unit of Troops embarked in a transport can control objectives (measure the distance to their vehicle's hull)." Specific rule overriding the general case.

[Ferro]

sucked me back in


You think it also affects tac squad B, even though B is inside the Rhino?
Ignore Caldera, he's drunker than me.


Why? The librarian is one model in a unit of six models. We've already established that models don't have locations when embarked. We have established no such thing. This is your assertion, not our consensus.



This goes back to JWolf's point about specific rules. See page 90: "Unit of Troops embarked in a transport can control objectives (measure the distance to their vehicle's hull)." Specific rule overriding the general case.

This is not a specific rule overriding the general case, as Mr. Wolf claimed. This is simple logical flow: Troops control objectives by being within 3"; Troops can still control objectives if they're in a transport; ranges involving embarked units are measured to/from the hull (p66); therefore, measure the distance to their vehicle's hull to determine if the Troops are controlling the objective. There is no override here.

The vehicle with Troops inside it is scoring by virtue of the fact that there are Troops inside of it. Say it with me, "Where are the Troops? INSIDE THE TRANSPORT!"

I know where they are.

[Caldera02]

Rhino A has tac squad B embarked. Rhino A is caught in the explosion of Rhino C.

Rhino C's explosion inflicts a S3 AP- hit on Rhino A. You think it also affects tac squad B, even though B is inside the Rhino?

If it can get through the armor sure.


Why? The librarian is one model in a unit of six models. We've already established that models don't have locations when embarked.

The whole unit counts as being measure from closest spot on the hull. Burna boys all shooting from the same point on a battlewagon is any different? no, it isn't. So he's in the back of the rhino when it's convienent? and the front also?



This goes back to JWolf's point about specific rules. See page 90: "Unit of Troops embarked in a transport can control objectives (measure the distance to their vehicle's hull)." Specific rule overriding the general case.

by that very logic they are affected by a rule that says every unit within 6". And that is not a specific rule if it's in the general rulebook. Special rules being codex specific rules that supercede BRB. So thank you for proving my point sir.

[Nabterayl]

If it can get through the armor sure.
That makes no sense. By your logic, the passengers are within the range for the explosion, embarked or not. So why should only the Rhino get hit, and the passengers only take a hit if the Rhino is destroyed?

[Caldera02]

Because we studied physics in high school?

[Nabterayl]

If you're suggesting that the common sense rule should be that hostile effects can't affect units in transports, I agree. But that is not the implication of saying that units in transports count as being located in the same place as their transports.

[Drakkan Vael]

Can we just return to a normal discussion? Sartre won't help here. Common sense and applied physics won't either (soldiers in a tank can be injured even if the tank is not damaged by the way. If you like to try it out, take the local bus without looking out stand in the middle an don't hold fast to anything. The next corner will prove my point. :D ).
The Doom has a special abilty. It is neither a shooting nor a psychic nor a close combat ability. Therefore until GW clarifies this, no rules concerning those will help here as they don't cover special abilities.

It might work on troops within a transport and it might not. The wording does not enlighten us.

Because the Doom is a psyker I'd guess it is a psychic attack and as we all know, psychic abilities cannot be used on a unit embarked on a transport except if the psyker is with them.
But that is only a guess. And only my guess at that.

[AbusePuppy]

Ferro, can you name even a single example of a unit embarked in a transport that is affected by something on the outside?


This is not a specific rule overriding the general case, as Mr. Wolf claimed. This is simple logical flow: Troops control objectives by being within 3"; Troops can still control objectives if they're in a transport; ranges involving embarked units are measured to/from the hull (p66); therefore, measure the distance to their vehicle's hull to determine if the Troops are controlling the objective. There is no override here.

If that was true, there would be no need for that sentence; it's no more necessary than one that says "troops standing underneath an awning can still control objectives if they're within 3"" or "troops whose names are anagrams of Owen C. Rickenbacker can still control objectives if they're within 3"", because we already know both of those things. Your interpretation of that rule is entirely redundant.


The example with the exploding vehicle nearby is ambiguously worded, we both agree it's a stumper.

Only your side of the argument considers it "a stumper;" the other side takes it as a clear and obvious case of support of their argument, and I agree. Units that embark on a transport are removed from the table; they do not grant KP or any other such nonsense because they have not been destroyed. There are explicit rules governing several actions they may take (shooting and using psychic powers if the vehicle has fire points; claiming objectives if within 3" of the hull), but in game terms they are no longer on the table. They are not "inside the tank" because models are not allowed to coexist on the table; only certain specified actions, as noted above, measure from the tank's hull. In no other way are they present on the table. Many units affect the game while off-table, such as those in reserve; your stubborn insistence that this is impossible and illogical is at odds with the stated rules of the game.

Consider the following situation:
A Tau Ethereal dies; do Tau squads embarked in transports have to make morale checks? I contend no, because they are not on the table (units in reserve also do not have to make the check); your side would have to say yes, since they are- and so what happens when they fail? Do they have to exit the transport? Does the transport begin falling back?

Similar situations could occur with a Nightmare Shroud or other such effects. The example of vehicle explosions has already been pointed out, but consider also the absurdity of Jaws of the World Wolf- if, as you say, the squad's location is measured by the hull of the vehicle, JotWW should hit EVERY member of the squad by passing through any portion of the vehicle (although, of course, it will not affect the vehicle itself, as per the power's description).

Your position that embarked squads are still somehow on the table is fundamentally untenable. Only two rules- fire points and scoring- count them as such, and only in specific ways.

[Ferro]

Excellent rebuttal, AP, thank you.


Ferro, can you name even a single example of a unit embarked in a transport that is affected by something on the outside?
No. :)
[EDIT]: Yes I can. See later in the thread about Eldar Fortune and Wraith Sight tests, and especially the new Tyranid power "The Sarge is acting strange..."


...it's no more necessary than one that says "troops standing underneath an awning can still control objectives if they're within 3"... Your interpretation of that rule is entirely redundant.
Redundancy is the status quo in this ruleset, so that's hardly a point against the interpretation. Nevertheless, "Troops can score::Troops in transports can score" is redundant; "Awnings cannot score::Troops under Awnings can score" is an assertion. But my point was that the statement on p.90 is not a special rule overriding a general rule; it is in fact the general rule itself.


but in game terms they are no longer on the table.
You assert this as fact, but it is the fatal assumption of your position. Where are you getting this idea? it's not consistant with a clean reading of 5th ed. rules.


They are not "inside the tank" because models are not allowed to coexist on the table
GW Rulebook FAQ:
Q. Must passengers fire at the same target that
their vehicle is firing at?
A. No, they are a separate unit (albeit they are
temporarily co-existing with the vehicle) and so
can fire at a different target.


...only certain specified actions, as noted above, measure from the tank's hull. In no other way are they present on the table. Many units affect the game while off-table, such as those in reserve; your stubborn insistence that this is impossible and illogical is at odds with the stated rules of the game.
Slow your roll AP, I never said models in Reserve can't affect the game while off-table... they certainly do. Yet, models that are in Reserve can't shoot out of vehicles, etc, etc. Models in Reserve can't do any of the things detailed in the Transport Vehicles section.

Just to clarify, I'm not suggesting that when you embark you go into Reserve. Here's what happened: Mr. Wolf said embarking = off the table; I said that off the table = dead or in Reserve. Since dead or in Reserve can't do what embarked units can do, embarked units are not dead or in Reserve. Instead, they count as being in the vehicle, even though their models don't fit. The unit is protected from all (or perhaps most) injury by virtue of the embarking rules.

I play the game the same way you do.


Consider the following situation:
A Tau Ethereal dies; do Tau squads embarked in transports have to make morale checks? I contend no, because they are not on the table (units in reserve also do not have to make the check); your side would have to say yes, since they are- and so what happens when they fail? Do they have to exit the transport? Does the transport begin falling back?
Excellent example, this looks like checkmate. I have no rule to fall back on saying that embarked units are immune to Leadership checks; OTOH if there were such a rule it would thwart the DOOM's ability. Either way I lose.

EDIT: The thing is, there is no such rule. You contend 'no, because they are not on the table'; I contend that your contention is not valid. So, what happens if they fail? Yes, they have to exit the transport. The transport itself never has to take morale checks and will never fall back because the 'crew' is essentially fearless. The passenger unit may very well fail their test and disembark. Nothing in the rules precludes this. See the huge new post, below...


consider also the absurdity of Jaws of the World Wolf- if, as you say, the squad's location is measured by the hull of the vehicle, JotWW should hit EVERY member of the squad by passing through any portion of the vehicle (although, of course, it will not affect the vehicle itself, as per the power's description). This one at least, is not the trouble to my case that you think it is. I say again, embarked units cannot be shot. JotWW is a psychic shooting attack. Dismissed.


Your position that embarked squads are still somehow on the table is fundamentally untenable. Only two rules- fire points and scoring- count them as such, and only in specific ways.
Untenable? When 99% of the rulebook uses language which refers to the unit being in the vehicle and 'on the table'; and only two sentences--which are not phrased like Rules--tell you to remove the models and set them aside...
I say again, the only reason it tells you to set them aside is because it is entirely impossible to actually put them in the vehicle. We are left with an abstraction of the unit inside. This is perhaps the last 'abstraction' the rules hang on too... remember how many there were in 4th?

In all sincerety, thank you for your thoughtful and elegant reply in this thread.

EDIT: after a little searching, I found the same topic was discussed about six months ago on B&C, again with no resolution: http://www.bolterandchainsword.com/index.php?showtopic=171412&st=0

[Jwolf]

I'm very pleased to see both sides being forceful without being giant douchebags. This is a good discussion of an issue that at least some consider thorny. I consider it obnoxious, because there isn't a rule that spells out my case unambiguously, but rather dozens of rules that (at least to me) make it clear that units in vehicles can't be hurt without their vehicle suffering some form of destruction is a basic assumption - and we know what happens when we assume...

[entendre_entendre]

okay, just me throwing my pocket change in, but according to the GW MRB FAQ the embarked unit is "temporarily co-existing" with the transport. wouldn't this make them one unit (well at least until disembarkation or a destroyed result)? this is why they are not why they are effected by nearby explosions as they are temporarily "the vehicle". the only thing preventing frrom being one unit is that the embarked squad can shoot at a different target (only if the vehicle has fire points*). this technically makes them two units. so when a unit is embarked in a transport they are "one" unit, but actually two.
...
AAGH! MY HEAD!

*on a side note: if the only way a unit onboard a transport can affect the TT is through fire points (speaking generally as there's always an exception), would a unit aboard a vehicle with no fire points (like a land raider) be treated in context of the rules and my argument above actually be "one" unit?

[Vince]

If they are part of the same coexisting unit can I put the wounds on the rhino?

[gcsmith]

Does no one see any difference in the wordings. The psychic power says units not models. While the models are off the table the unit isn't. However the explosion says models. However there are no models to hurt. So by wordings the psychic power should be able to hit them as the unit is IN the rhino, same way a unit is In a building.

Also there is a power that specifically affects units in vehicles while not hurting the vehicle. The parasite 'sirs acting strange' rule. So while there is evidence on your side JWolf, men can be hurt without their vehicle suffering.

[Ferro]

Thank you gcsmith. So here's one power that explicitly can KILL an embarked model:

The Parasite of Mortrex: "The Sarge is acting strange..." If the enemy has any units that arrived by outflank, one model in each outflanking squad must take a T test at the end of the movement phase (model chosen my owner). If the test is failed, the model dies, and the Tyranid player places a squad of d6 Ripper Bases within 6" of the victem. If the victem was in a Transport, it should be assumed that the victem staggered out or was thrown out just before he died.

There's the explicit permission you requested.

Doesn't change much though. All we have is one case where codex > BRB.

@gcsmith: note, the DOOM's power is not a psychic power. While the DOOM is a Psycher, and does have different power which is in fact a psychic shooting attack, the power this thread is about--Soul Sucker--is simply a special rule for this creature. This is precisely why I think it can effect embarked units, whereas if it where a psychic shooting attack we wouldn't be having this discussion.

[Nabterayl]

For the record, AbusePuppy said essentially what I've been saying, albeit apparently in a clearer way =P

As for the whole "coexisting" thing, I think it's clear we can't take that too far. After all, if you charge a Rhino, you can't assault its passengers because you are in base to base with a model they "coexist" with.

[Ferro]

As for the whole "coexisting" thing, I think it's clear we can't take that too far. After all, if you charge a Rhino, you can't assault its passengers because you are in base to base with a model they "coexist" with.
Nab, for the ninth time, we all know and agree and accept that an embarked unit cannot be assaulted directly. It's 'coexisting' or status as 'off the table' does not change that.


Brace for Wall-o-Text!
So, in an attempt to clarify my own thoughts and their presentation, what follows is the entirety of 5th ed rules relevant to this dispute, interspersed with my comments. Based on a cold reading of 5th ed, I can see nothing which indicates that embarked units are universally immune to injury or to Leadership tests.

I know everyone plays that embarked units are immune, but does anyone know why? If it’s in 5th ed, I can’t find it. I believe it may be a hold-over concept from previous rules-sets, but if that’s the case, it’s no longer valid.

GW Rules:
Models & Units:
A unit will usually consist of several models that fight as a group, but it can also be a single, very large or powerful model… In the rules that follow, all of these things are referred to as ‘units’. P3
A model may not move into or through the space occupied by another model (which is represented by its base or by its hull). P11
--yet, the FAQ says that embarked units ‘temporarily co-exist with the vehicle’. Embarked units are clearly an exception to the above rule, in that they retain their identity as a separate unit from the transport even though they occupy the same space as the transport model, and despite the fact that you have placed the embarked models off the table.

Transport Vehicles:
--there is nothing in this section that mentions Leadership or Morale.
Some vehicles can carry infantry across the battlefield, providing speed and protection. Of course if the transport is destroyed, the passengers risk being burnt alive in the explosion. P66
--this is not actually a rule, but it implies that being in a transport is somehow safer than being out in the open. To me, the ‘protection’ refers to immunity from assaults and shooting attacks implied in the building rules.
Models firing from a vehicle count as moving if the vehicle moves… p66
--implies the unit and vehicle are together/share same status
[Access points] are the doors, ramps and hatches that passengers use to get in and out of the vehicle. P6
--this is cut and dry. Where is the unit? -in the vehicle.
When the unit embarks, it is removed from the table and placed aside, making a note or otherwise marking that the unit is being transported (we find that placing one of the unit’s models on top of the transport works well!).
--this is the big one for the opposition case. All I see here is a logistical requirement, not a gameplay modifier. We all know that ten space marine models will not actually fit in the Rhino model. In a game where the actual physical placement of models down to the millimeter is often critically important (come up short on assault distance, anyone?), it should be expected that embarking would require literally moving the infantry models through the little hatches and into the vehicle—but no. GW here asks us to make an abstraction. See ‘buildings’ and ‘ruins’ below…
--furthermore, suggesting to put a model on top of a vehicle is also against all normal rules. That sergeant on top of the rhino is not literally there, does not block LOS, etc. He is part of the abstraction, reminding us that his unit is inside.

If the players need to measure a range involving the embarked unit (except for its shooting[--which is measured from fire points]), this range is measured to or from the vehicle’s hull. P66
--what is this referring to? Obviously controlling objectives, but the language is inclusive of anything and all circumstances.
A unit that begins its Movement phase aboard a vehicle can disembark… p67
--more language which shows the embarked unit is in the vehicle, not off the table.
When the unit disembarks, each model is deployed within 2”… p67
--The use of ‘deploy’ seemed odd to me at first. Deploy usually refers to initial placement on the game table (as on p92), but a secondary meaning is simply to move.
The only limitation of a dedicated transport is that when it is deployed it can only carry the unit it was selected with… p67
--more language stating the embarked unit is inside, not off in limbo.
(paraphrase) When a transport is destroyed, passengers can be wounded and must pass a Pinning test [and could potentially have to take a morale test for losing 25%]. P67
--so passengers are subject to injury and Leaderships tests immediately after their transport explodes. Could enemy Leadership modifiers affect this? sure.

Vehicles and Morale:
Vehicles never take Morale checks for any reason. It is assumed in all cases the vehicle’s crew has unshakeable faith in their vehicle and their orders. Any occasional lapses that do occur are represented by the crew shaken and stunned results on the Damage table. P63
--so vehicle crew is not the same as vehicle passengers. ‘Crew’—which don’t physically exist and are for all purposes the same thing as the vehicle, are immune to Morale tests. There is no reference to passengers. No mention of Leadership at all.
Note: Vehicle drivers, gunners and other crew are killed if their vehicle suffers either Destroyed results. P 61
--passengers are not killed outright, as they exist separately from the pretend ‘crew.’

Morale:
--there is nothing in the Morale section which precludes an embarked unit having to test.
(paraphrase) Morale and Leadership are two different things, and the terms are not used interchangeably. p43
A unit losing 25% or more of its models during a single phase must pass a Morale check at the end of that phase, or else it will fall back. Do not count casualties caused by CC. p44
--note that this rule is usually assumed to refer only to 25% casualties due to shooting, but the rule does not specify this. Some crazy power killing models in the movement phase should trigger a Morale test too.

Buildings:
--there is no mention of Leadership or Morale with regards to buildings or units inside them. The rulebook is silent.
--yet, Ruins are a kind of building, and everyone knows units must take tests inside them.
--Therefore, if you must test in Ruins, and Ruins are a kind of Building, and Buildings use many aspects of Transport rules.... hahaha.

..you can imagine your models entering them and using them as a firing position from which to repel the enemy. P77
re: Ruins: Players can place their models inside and move them around to show their position. No abstractions are required—both players will be able to see the models for themselves. P77
--this is an important window into the GW’s rationale. We are told to imagine that our unit is inside the building. Because of the explicit correlation between buildings and transports, we should assume that we are supposed to imagine them in transports too.

Buildings of all types use aspects of the transport vehicle rules. P78
Moving into or out of a building works the same as embarking or disembarking from a vehicle. P79
All of the normal rules apply…p79 --referring to Transport rules
Models entering a building are removed from the table—you can either note down where they are on a piece of paper or use another suitable reminder. P79
--practically identical language as when embarking in transports.
Just like some transport vehicles, building have fire points…p79
Units may shoot at or assault an occupied building just as if it was a vehicle. P79
--there’s six statements in a row (above) which correlate buildings and transports. I think it’s safe to assume that this next one correlates as well…
Units inside a building may not be attacked directly, but will be affected in the same manner as units inside a transport vehicle should the building be damaged, and so may suffer damage and/or be forced to ‘disembark’. P79
--This is another key piece of the opposition case. We all agree that since building = transport, an embarked unit cannot be shot or assaulted. But what does ‘attacked directly’ mean? Is it universally inclusive of all attacks of any kind, or does it only refer to the previous sentence, which mentions assaults and shooting? Grammatically, ‘attacked directly’ is an antecedent for ‘being shot or assaulted’. Extrapolating that into universal protection from harm and immunity from Leadership tests is unjustified.
Template weapons…can attack models even if they are inside a building. P80
--this is an exception to the normal rules granting immunity to shooting attacks, and it applies only to buildings, not transports. Yet, would a unit suffering wounds from a flamer be subject to a Morale test? The rules never say either way. I would assume yes, and the flamed unit could conceivably have to fall back out of the building.

The case against rests on the phrase 'removed from the table', insisting that based on this alone, embarked models aren't subject to injury or Leadership tests simply because embarked units are not actually there. This, despite the fact that the rest of rulebook constantly and consistantly refers to an embarked unit as being IN the transport; refers to the unit coexisting with the transport; refers to the abstraction required of having the unit in the transport even though the models are set aside. Nowhere in the rules does it say anything, for or against, about Leadership tests.

I still feel the position that embarked units are immune to all injury, and all Leadership tests, is based on false assumptions and poor logic.

On the downside, if I'm correct about this, then my entire local gaming community is playing 40k incorrectly. I don't really wanna be THAT guy...
[EDIT]: upon further consideration, I retract the above. The consequences are much more limited; allow me to re-phrase... my entire gaming community shares the firm knowledge that embarked units are protected from any and all shooting attacks and assaults. Mr. Wolf is wrong to assert that embarked units are protected from absolutely everything.

[Jwolf]

If you come to the conclusion that everyone is doing it wrong, you've generally made an error in your base assumptions.

This reminds me of when Dilbert's computer model predicted that evil squirrels would enslave us all and put us to work in the nut mines.

[Caldera02]

The only reason we would all be doing it wrong it there is a very finite amount of things currently in the game that can affect units inside transports in this manner. This newest one being very powerful is the only reason we are having this conversation. The argument of well everyone is doing it this way does not inherently make them right.

[Ferro]

I humbly, respectfully suggest you start by re-examining your own assumptions...


...there isn't a rule that spells out my case unambiguously, but rather dozens of rules that (at least to me) make it clear that units in vehicles can't be hurt without their vehicle suffering some form of destruction is a basic assumption - and we know what happens when we assume...

[Jwolf]

It would be rather impossible for me to have written the quoted post without examining my own assumptions rather thoroughly.

[Vorlon]

Isnt this a bit like the argument over whether or not a culexus assassin gets +x assault for being within 12" a chimera loaded with a pysker battle squad?

Just my two cents.

[Ferro]

Incidentally, was that Culexus issue ever officially resolved? It does sound like the same kind of issue as the DOOM, but I'm not familiar with it. I'm betting it was never resolved and is still often contentious.

Furthermore, we're on page six and my sparring partners have not offered a rebuttal to any of my actual points or arguments. You have rebutted Caldera's, but frankly they were secondary/supporting points only. All I get are snide comments and assertions of self-confidence, or a re-statement of your own initial assumption. A position fails when it can only justify itself by referring back to its own starting point.

I'm not stopping until someone can ENGAGE and rebut my points. Start with this one: When a unit inside a building gets wounded by template weapons, is it immune to Morale tests? Why?


From the Eldar FAQ:
Q: If you have Wraithguards embarked in a Wave Serpent, do they still have to make the Wraithsight roll? If yes, can a friendly psyker within 6" prevent them from having to make this roll?
A: Yes, and yes.

Here is another example of an embarked unit being affected by game mechanics and interracting with other units on the table by simple virtue of their proximity to each other. Like the Doom.

Also, can an Eldar expert tell me how Fortune works? Can you Fortune an embarked unit, or the transport itself?

[Deathtyrant]

I have been reading the continueing debate on this forum as well as 2 other forums for the past couple of days now.. and for the most part I have been agreeing with the people that say that the Doom of Malan'Tai can affect units in transports. But this post was just made by a guy named Bassline on the Warseer forums.

Ok I know this is GW hot line and they are all ways changing there mind if a something works or not but i just phoned them and asked 3 different people there and they all agree that it works on embarked units because the rule states. One also said he has been getting this question alot on the phone line so they all give the same answer (they not find it weird english people asking about this before english day release?! :O)

"If the players need to measure a range involving the e,barked unit (expect for its shooting) this range is measured to or from the vechiles hull."

This is for both players and not just for the person who owns the unit. They also confirmed if inside a transport you can take a LD test. So it will also work (also means get hot! would work i guess) and that makes all the requirements for soul socking to work.


With more people going for it working then smurfs saying it does not I will be using it my self as it can with no if's or buts. It is clear cut it is simple its just a LD test end of the day the rest it just extra!

http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=239270&page=7

Now as he said (albeit his spelling is somewhat wanting) GW's rule support team is being told to tell people that it does work on units in transports.

Take that as you will

[Jwolf]

Deathtyrant - A report of someone's alleged conversation with GW phone support is, as it ever has been, no evidence whatsoever.

I believe allowing the Doom of Malan'tai to affect units in transports is both unbalancing and terribly problematic in addition to unsupported by the rules in general. I also believe that an argument can be made that, if held to be valid, changes a lot of the GAP of how units in transports should be played.

[gcsmith]

Jwolf how is it ever unbalancing? its in an army with very little anti transport, apart from Hive guard, And most troops worth killing should be able to kill it after

[Ferro]

Mr. Wolf, I have made a thorough effort to show that it is supported by the rules in general, but since you won't respond to any of that...

...can I ask you to elaborate on the game-changing consequences you referred to? Just how bad would it be? And remember, I've already pointed out at least three existing special rules which DO affect embarked units, and so far the WH40k game isn't ruined.

[Jwolf]

A few bad things that the Doom hitting units in transports would unlock:

Njal's Stormcaller effects on units in a radius. Guys in transports would be taking morale tests and getting hit with Crack Missiles. Neither is a psychic shooting attack.

Ethereal dies; all Tau everywhere disappear (not that anyone should take an Ethereal, ever...)

Now that we're hurting squads in transports, squads are breaking and running out of the transports, too.

That should be enough for any sane person.

Mr. Ferro, I responded to that before you wrote any of it, but in the long bull session last Thursday. I almost went insane then, so please don't ask me to repeat all of it.

gcsmith - Which army is it that has very little anti-transport ability? If you mean that every squad doesn't have anti-transport ability I can agree with you, but the Tyranid army, as a whole, has perfectly fine transport killing ability, and has the most effective anti-AV14 shooting attack outside of Apocalypse. I certainly can't go for a guy that can drop in front of a line of Chimeras and kill or break everyone inside the Chimeras before they get to act as some sort of balancing for not having Squad AT weapons.

I'm sure we'll get an FAQ from GW in not too long,and either I'll be right or they'll be insane. Or maybe both. ;)

[Ferro]

Sure, Njal's Lord of Tempests is not a shooting attack, but it does explicitly require LOS to a target. There is no LOS to an embarked unit. Dismissed.

"when an Ethereal dies, at the beginning of the next movement phase, all Tau units not falling back and not in close combat take a Morale check." -rules paraphrase

Well I agree it sucks to be Tau, but them's the rules and you yourself implied that almost no one, ever, takes an Ethereal. They could have added protection for embarked units into that rule, but they didn't. I agree that the tiny fraction of Tau players out there who actually lose an Ethereal in game would be upset to hear that embarked units have to Morale test along with the rest of their losing, soon-to-be-dead army. --assuming they didn't already know this.

This single example is not game-breaking. This is not 'cats and dogs living together/mass hysteria.' Do you have any other examples?

I should add that logically, this is not the way to refute my position. It is only an interesting exercise. The rationale of: "but if that were true all hell would break loose" does nothing to refute a premise, it only shows it's results. It's in the same vein as, "But if the world were really round, everything would fall off!"

I'm sorry for starting to douchebag you. I apologize and will try to dial it back a notch. But seriously, you haven't actually rebutted any of my points. Start with this one: when a unit inside a building gets wounded by template weapons, is it immune to Morale tests? Why?

[Drakkan Vael]

No psychic Power may be used on units within a transport, except if the psyker himself is embarked in the transport.
Njal's power therefore does not work on embarked enemy units.

Tau ethereal: If he's not on his own within the transport, the unit he has joined with is fearless. Chances to kill the ethereal along with a complete unit with him are slim at best.

There is no universal rule that prevents units (or models) within a transport from taking harm. That they cannot be targeted with shooting attacks due to lack in LOS is not the same as being immune to taking damage.

Ferro proved that there are several abilities that can affect units within transports.

The RAW in the description of the DOOMS soul-sucker power does not exclude units/models within transports. The power is neither shooting, nor psychic nor close combat. Rules concerning these simply do not apply here.

All agruments so far made that compare the DOOMS abilty with another have been made regarding either shooting or psychic or close combat. That's looking at apples and oranges.

The problem most of you are having with Ferro's line of thought is, that he may be right and it would harm the mechlists out there (which is a good thing in my account).

In regarding the rules beeing broken if this is allowed: What if the answer to the question simply is: Soul-Sucker does work on units/models within transports? That changes absolutely nothing for any other power out there.

[jspyd3rx]

If they are off the board, and can't effect anything, they couldn't shoot out of fire ports. Yet, they do shoot, and this does effect things.

p.66 Embarking: When the unit embarks, it is removed from the table and placed aside, making a note or otherwise marking that the unit is being transported (we find that placing one of the unit's models on top of the transport works well!).

You seem to assume that 'removed from the table' has the same consequences as being dead, or being in Reserve. But we both know they are not dead or in Reserve. They're in the transport.

I assume that it means, 'don't attempt to shove your models inside the transport, cause they won't fit and you'll break ****. Instead, set them aside and pretend they're all in there snug as a bug.'

'Removed from the table' is a logistical requirement, not a gameplay modifier. Thus, it Sucks their Souls if the hull of the vehicle is within 6".


Ohhh.. kinda convincing. The models are physically off the table, yet for rules sake are still onboard and in game. Transport blows up, passengers can get hurt. Can shot from transport and the one I hate; JOTWW from transport. Wasn't there also an article not too long ago that said an imperial super assassin could take out models in a transport? One more thing, If a rhino with a rune priest pulls up next to a squad of pariahs does his leadership go down? If the rhino also pulled up next to a synapse model with Shadows of the warp, is he affected on his perils test? This is the same situation except they may take a greater amount of damage. Think of it as a a psychic test where you stand a chance of losing multiple wounds.

[Mortifis]

Ladies and Gentlemen, may I present a summary of the case for the defendants, allowing the use of "Spirit Leech", also known as "Soul Suck", against enemy units that may be embarked inside transport vehicles.

All quotes are entered exactly as they are printed in books "Warhammer 40,000" and "Codex: Tyranids", with page numbers and paragraph references for easy use. I've highlighted in bold my comments to make them more readily identified. :)


"Warhammer 40,000", The Rules Section, page 3, "Models & Units"
Under the title "Models", first paragraph:
The Citadel miniatures used to play games of Warhammer 40,000 are referred to as 'models' in the rules that follow. Each model is an individual playing piece with its own capabilities.
Under the title "Units", third paragraph:
A unit will usually consist of several models that fight as a group, but it can also be a single, very large or powerful model, such as a battle tank, a monstrous alien creature or a lone hero. In the rules that follow, all of these things are referred to as 'units'.

Unlike how a lot of people may talk and think about the rules, "model" and "unit" are not entirely interchangeable.


"Warhammer 40,000", The Rules Section, page 66, "Vehicles"
Under the sub-title "Embarking" under main title "Embarking and Disembarking". Whole paragraph here quoted for reference:
A unit can embark onto a vehicle by moving each model to within 2" of its access points in the Movement phase. The whole unit must be able to embark - if some models are out of range, the unit must stay outside. When the unit embarks, it is removed from the table and placed aside, making a note or otherwise marking that the unit is being transported (we find that placing one of the unit's models on top of the transport works well!). If the players need to measure a range involving the unit (except for its shooting), this range is measured to or from the vehicle's hull.

The stated rules indicate that all range measurements involving the unit, except for that unit's own shooting, is measured to the vehicle's hull. Therefore any abilities or effects that require range be measured to or from a unit, by definition, will include that unit if any part of the transport's hull is within that range.


"Codex: Tyranids", page 58, "The Doom of Malan'Tai"
Under the "Special Rules" main heading, "Spirit Leech":
At the beginning of every Shooting phase, including the foe's, every non-vehicle enemy unit within 6" of the Doom of Malan'Tai must take a Leadership test on 3D6. If the test is failed the unit suffers a single wound for each point they failed by, with no armour saves allowed.

So, on the face of it, it is fairly simple to determine how to apply this effect.

* When - At the beginning of all Shooting phases, even the enemy's.

* Who - Enemy units.

* Where - Within 6" of any part of the base of the model representing "The Doom of Malan'Tai".

** Sub-check - is any part of the hull of the Transport vehicle within range of "The Doom of Malan'Tai"?

*** If yes, by stated transport rules, then the unit transported is within range of "The Doom of Malan'Tai"'.

* How - The enemy units within range of the effect take a Leadership test.

** Sub-check - Did the unit fail its Leadership test?

** If yes, by stated rules of the special ability, that unit suffers a number of wounds equal to the amount they failed that test by, with no armour saves allowed. Invulnerable saves are allowed.

* What Now? - At the end of the phase, if any enemy units lost 25% of their number in casualties, they will require a Morale test. ("Warhammer 40,000", The Rules Section, p44, "Taking Morale Tests")

** Sub-check - Did the unit fail its Morale test?

*** If yes, by rules stated p45, "Fall Back!", the unit will immediately make a fall back move as appropriate to their unit type.

**** Further sub-check - do units forced to Fall Back that are inside transports dismount and then fall back? Or are they simply destroyed as the transport model is a friendly unit that stops them from moving?


Important things to note:

* The ability is not a shooting attack.

* The ability is not a psychic power.

* By inference, then, it is most definately not a psychic shooting attack.

* The ability affects units, not models.

* It does not target the unit, because "target" requires line of sight, while "effects" do not.

* "Vehicle destroyed - explodes" does not affect an embarked unit, because it states "all models" within range, not "all units"

* The unfortunate demise of a Tau Ethereal does not affect embarked units, because the ability specifically requires Tau units within line of sight of the Ethereal, and line of sight cannot be drawn through a vehicle.


In the light of logic, reason, and cold-hard facts, it can be seen, not just beyond reasonable doubt, but beyond any shadow of doubt, that the rules of the game would support the case for the defendant.

The case of what happens to units forced to fall back from inside their own transport units is a separate, though related, incident, to be discussed at a future date and time.

Please excuse my melodrama :)

[gcsmith]

The question is weather a unit in a transport is a vehicle unit or not, if it does then the power has no affect.

[Bean]

Yeah, Mortifis is basically right, and he's right for the right reasons.

While the models in the unit (and, indeed, the unit itself) are off the table, the rules for embarking clearly note that if it is necessary to determine any range to or from the unit, you measure to or from the hull of that unit's transport, instead.

Since you do need to know the range between the Doom of Malantai and each other unit (or at least determine whether each of those units is within 6" of the Doom) you measure from the doom to the transport for each unit which is being transported.

Nothing about being embarked protects units from the Doom.

As for falling back as a result of wounds from the Doom, I have no idea what happens to the unit, and I haven't found anything yet which seems to resolve it.

My suspicion is that the unit does not disembark and does not die, but that each model moves towards the nearest table edge from the point on the hull closest to that edge, adjusting their path as described in the rules for falling back. That is, when you fall back you don't disembark, but neither does the transport actually prevent you from falling back. Instead, you'd just measure the unit's fallback 'range' from the transport.

[Sir Biscuit]

Page 45:
"If a unit cannot make a full fall back move in any direction without doubling back, it is destroyed."

So, if a unit in a transport has to take a moral test and fails, they will be unable to move, and certainly be unable to make a full fall back move, so I'm pretty sure they're destroyed, no?
However, that's not why I'm posting, it's actually this:

If we are assuming that units in vehicles can be hit normally by... things, is there any reason why you couldn't shoot units inside a vehicle with Hive Guard? The only restriction I see that prevents units inside transports from being targeted is that you can't draw line of sight to them. Since Hive Guard need no LOS, they seem to circumvent this restriction, and can thus target units in vehicles, no?

[Bean]

Both of those are reasonable points, Biscuit, and I don't have anything which contradicts either, off the top of my head. I'll look into it further, though.

[Ferro]

If we are assuming that units in vehicles can be hit normally by... things, is there any reason why you couldn't shoot units inside a vehicle with Hive Guard? The only restriction I see that prevents units inside transports from being targeted is that you can't draw line of sight to them. Since Hive Guard need no LOS, they seem to circumvent this restriction, and can thus target units in vehicles, no?
We are not assuming anything of the sort. The DOOM's power is not shooting, and doesn't technically 'hit' anything; it is a special rule with a 6" radius area of effect.

Yes, there is a solid and established reason Hive Guard cannot shoot embarked units. Regardless of LOS issues, an embarked unit cannot be shot at--it's built into the embarkation rules. The only exception is that template weapons CAN shoot into a building (but not a transport) and cause wounds. The rules never mention what to do when models are wounded this way, and it's reasonable (though not certain) that they may have to Morale Check, etc. The mechanic of Falling Back from an Embarked position is never covered in the rules.


Page 45:
"If a unit cannot make a full fall back move in any direction without doubling back, it is destroyed." So, if a unit in a transport has to take a moral test and fails, they will be unable to move, and certainly be unable to make a full fall back move, so I'm pretty sure they're destroyed, no?
That seems unreasonably harsh to me. Personally, I favor an interpretation that does not destroy the embarked unit, but lets them make a full fallback move as measured from their vehicle's/building's hull. Of course, if the vehicle is fully surrounded, I suppose a 'Trapped!' result could be possible.

[Sir Biscuit]

We are not assuming anything of the sort. The DOOM's power is not shooting, and doesn't technically 'hit' anything; it is a special rule with a 6" radius area of effect.

Quite. I agree.


Yes, there is a solid and established reason Hive Guard cannot shoot embarked units. Regardless of LOS issues, an embarked unit cannot be shot at--it's built into the embarkation rules.

Oh, really? You wouldn't mind telling me what page it's on then, because I can't seem to find ANYTHING in the rules that states that you cannot shoot at an embarked unit. (Well, declare shooting anyway, you'll certainly lose your shooting when it comes time to draw LOS... unless you're a Hive Guard.)


The only exception is that template weapons CAN shoot into a building (but not a transport) and cause wounds. The rules never mention what to do when models are wounded this way, and it's reasonable (though not certain) that they may have to Morale Check, etc. The mechanic of Falling Back from an Embarked position is never covered in the rules.

That seems unreasonably harsh to me. Personally, I favor an interpretation that does not destroy the embarked unit, but lets them make a full fallback move as measured from their vehicle's/building's hull.

It's what the RAW says. You cannot disembark from a transport or building unless it's your movement phase, and if you cannot make your full fall back move without doubling back, the unit is immediately and completely destroyed. This does seem to be an entirely RAW argument we are having here, eh?

Also, I'm not doing this to try and break more rules, I'm doing it to make a point. OBVIOUSLY Hive Guard shouldn't be allowed to shoot units that are embarked on vehicles, but by RAW they are. OBVIOUSLY units that fail a moral check in a transport shouldn't be completely destroyed, but they are. Does that mean that it's the way the game should be played? Of course not. But it's what the rules say and it's absurd.

In my opinion, units that are inside transports should not be affected by the DOOM. It's only because transports are obviously meant to protect their passengers from danger. I don't care that the attack is sucking out their souls, there's no more reason for that to effect a unit in a transport than ten flamer attacks on an opened topped one affecting the passengers inside. Transports provide PROTECTION, from all direct damage, (save when it explodes :P) and I think that's pretty obviously the intent.

As for units off the table/units in the transport, I'm all in favor of units off the table. Why? Because it doesn't make a giant mess of the rules, and create a whole ton of questions about things like JOTWW. If units in transports can be hit by stuff, there's a huge mess of things, and I doubt the game was designed with that mess in mind. I think it was pretty clearly designed with UNITS IN TRANSPORTS CANNOT BE ATTACKED in mind.

That being said, by RAW, the DOOM effecting units in transports does seem to be well supported. I doubt this will really be cleared up until a FAQ is out, but until then, I always veer on the side of "less powerful" in these kind of situations until the question has a clear answer.

EDIT: Oh, and a few EVEN BETTER questions. Does the DOOM's power effect fearless units, who always pass moral tests? What if your oppenent has Calgar, and his marines choose to pass, can they be effected? What if, for some suicidal reason, he chooses to FAIL the test? How many wounds does the unit take then? (EDIT AGAIN: I'm dumb see following two posts.)

[gcsmith]

it is not a moral test, it is a stat test against their leadership, moral test cause falling back and this doesnt, therefore fearless units are not immune.

[Sir Biscuit]

Ah, you are correct. I did not realize that a leadership test (pg 8) differs from a moral check/test (pg 43, where I was looking). Thank you for the correction.

[Ferro]

Oh, really? You wouldn't mind telling me what page it's on then, because I can't seem to find ANYTHING in the rules that states that you cannot shoot at an embarked unit.
See post #50, in this thread.

It's what the RAW says. You cannot disembark from a transport or building unless it's your movement phase, and if you cannot make your full fall back move without doubling back, the unit is immediately and completely destroyed. This does seem to be an entirely RAW argument we are having here, eh?
Ok fair enough. Still seems harsh to me, but you're right about it being a RAW dispute. No need for that tone.


Also, I'm not doing this to try and break more rules, I'm doing it to make a point. OBVIOUSLY Hive Guard shouldn't be allowed to shoot units that are embarked on vehicles, but by RAW they are.
You will likely retract this after you've studied the rules in the Buildings section more thoroughly. Embarked units cannot be directly attacked through shooting or assault, as per the rules.

As for units off the table/units in the transport, I'm all in favor of units off the table. Why? Because it doesn't make a giant mess of the rules, and create a whole ton of questions about things like JOTWW. If units in transports can be hit by stuff, there's a huge mess of things, and I doubt the game was designed with that mess in mind. I think it was pretty clearly designed with UNITS IN TRANSPORTS CANNOT BE ATTACKED in mind.. a) Again, JotWW is a psychic shooting attack, and as such cannot be used against embarked units. b) Again, units in transports cannot be 'hit by stuff.' c) I'm glad to hear your opinion of the game design is the same as mine. Embarked units cannot be 'attacked' by shooting or assault.
The DOOM forces a Ld test. There are precidents for Ld tests in embarked units, there are precidents for special abilities affecting embarked units. The DOOM is not inconsistent with these. The only twist is that the test can make models die.

That being said, by RAW, the DOOM effecting units in transports does seem to be well supported. I doubt this will really be cleared up until a FAQ is out...
Thank you. And I agree about the FAQ.

[Bean]

So, your assertion is that embarked units can't be attacked directly (i.e. shot at) because units in buildings can't be attacked directly? Despite the occasional parallel between vehicles and buildings, this seems a little sketchy--and I couldn't find anything else in post #50 that supported the notion that units in vehicles can't be attacked directly.

Note that, in general, I think I'm with you on this one: I think that the Doom can and does affect units in transports.

Biscuit seems arguing against this position by reductio ad absurdum--pointing out that if we follow this reasoning to its logical conclusion, we get some absurd consequences. I don't agree with this because I don't see the consequences as absurd.

[Sir Biscuit]

Ok fair enough. Still seems harsh to me, but you're right about it being a RAW dispute. No need for that tone.

Sorry, didn't mean to be so snarkey.


You will likely retract this after you've studied the rules in the Buildings section more thoroughly. Embarked units cannot be directly attacked through shooting or assault, as per the rules.

I disagree. The rules specifically state that "units inside a building may not be attacked directly" but it is treated as a transport for purposes of damage. However, no where does it say that units inside a transport may not be targeted for shooting. Shooting simply always fails because you cannot draw line of sight to any part of any model in the squad you're shooting at, which hasn't been a problem because there have been no standard weapons that don't require LOS... before now. I understand the corollaries you brought up in post 50, but the fact remains the buildings are NOT transports and vice versa, and they each have their own governing ruleset despite being similar. BY RAW units inside transports can be targeted for shooting.

As for JotWW, it actually brings up an interesting point... in that the models are not actually on the table, and not actually considered to be in the transport for purposes of attacks like this. Instead, they do actually exist "in limbo", off to the side. They are allowed to interact with the table, still, in a couple of ways:
1.) They can fire from fire points, in which case instead of drawing line of sight and range from where they actually are (in limbo, which I imagine would severely limit their targeting options) they draw them from the vehicles fire point. The firing model is still shooting from limbo.
2.) If the players need to measure a range involving the embarked unit, (except for its shooting) it is measured to or from the vehicles hull.

The bit about them being in limbo is important, because it means that they're not assumed to still be on the board. So, things like Jaws can't hit them, because it is impossible for it to touch any of the units bases, because those bases are not assumed to be actually literally inside the transport model.


Embarked units cannot be 'attacked' by shooting or assault.
In addition, the DOOM's ability is an attack. ATTACK. (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/attack) We're most interested in definition 3: "To begin to affect or to act upon injuriously". Just because it's not shooting or assault doesn't mean it's not an attack, and just because it has no target that is defined by the controlling player doesn't mean it's not an attack. If units in transports can indeed not be attacked, than it is pretty clear that the DOOM does not affect them. Of course, the BRB only says that units in buildings may not be attacked directly, not transports, so I suppose it still works.


The DOOM forces a Ld test. There are precedents for Ld tests in embarked units, there are precidents for special abilities affecting embarked units. The DOOM is not inconsistent with these. The only twist is that the test can make models die.

I would argue that the DOOM is VERY inconsistent. Of other things that effects units in vehicles... well, there are only two I can think of. The Parasite of Mortrex and a summoned Greater Daemon. Both of these actually have a large portion of their description set aside to explain exactly how they interact with transports, which seems to indicate to me that it is generally assumed that units inside transports are generally considered to be immune to the things that happen on the battlefield. If there is another example, please, bring it forward and let it be examined.


Biscuit seems arguing against this position by reductio ad absurdum--pointing out that if we follow this reasoning to its logical conclusion, we get some absurd consequences. I don't agree with this because I don't see the consequences as absurd.

I'm arguing that it's absurd because it can't possibly be the design intent that Hive guard be able to shoot units inside vehicles. And believe it or not, I'm not here to try to "win" this "debate". I'm here to have an intelligent conversation about the rules. I think it's silly to look at these things as a debate, since we're all on the same side. Hopefully that side is figuring out exactly how the rules are supposed to work. My posts are long, my points are curt, but I am not a stubborn man and if you can refute the things I say I will gladly agree with you. Until then, these seem to be the facts, so that's what I'm sticking by. Me saying it is absurd is not an offensive maneuver, I'm simply stating that reasonable players don't play that way, despite RAW.

[Bean]

Until then, these seem to be the facts, so that's what I'm sticking by. Me saying it is absurd is not an offensive maneuver, I'm simply stating that reasonable players don't play that way, despite RAW.

Oh, well, that's fine. I rarely give much thought to statements about the way people play, since that's a matter for statistics and I don't have a significant amount of data on the subject. I'm usually just talking about what the rules actually say, and as long as we agree about that, then you're right in that we don't really have a debate, here.

[Mortifis]

Pardon me if I seem abrupt, but the rules for buildings are irrelevant. The relevant rules are found on page 15, "The Shooting Sequence".

The sequence for "shooting attacks" is

1 - Check line of sight & pick a target.

2 - Check range. At least one target model must be within range or the weaponry of your firing models.

3 - ... oh wait.


The rules I've quoted previously that prove that the Doom still affects units in a vehicle also proves that you cannot affect models inside a vehicle. Again, "unit" and "model" are not interchangeable.

So since shooting requires range checked against models, no shooting at units that are embarked.

If something affects or is affected by a "unit" in a transport vehicle, you measure from the hull of that vehicle, because that's where the unit is.

If something affects or is affected by "models", it cannot affect a unit inside a transport vehicle, because the models are not there.

[Sir Biscuit]

Brilliant. It does indeed say models, and I think we all agree the models are not actually in the transport, so it seems Hive Guard cannot shoot embarked units. The DOOM still has the RAW totally for it.

I guess we've wrapped up nicely then?

[Bean]

Nice catch, Mortifis.

[BuFFo]

Brilliant. It does indeed say models, and I think we all agree the models are not actually in the transport, so it seems Hive Guard cannot shoot embarked units. The DOOM still has the RAW totally for it.

I guess we've wrapped up nicely then?

Page 66. under Embarking.

When your opponent places a Model from the unit ontop of the Transport, you just got the model you can shoot at :)

Of course you don't have to mark the transport with a model, but if you do.... Watch out! :eek:

- edit -

This is a sarcastic post FYI....

[Jardin]

OK, so I really don't want this to be my first post to this forum, and I sure don't want to wade into this arguement, but it would seem to me, that this concept of the models being measured by unit to the vehicle would change quite a few tactics. For example, does this mean that my Farseer can Doom a unit inside a transport using RAW?

According to the Eldar codex, the power does not effect vehicles, but pg. 28, "...do not require the Eldar Psyker to have line of sight to the target." and "The Farseer can target any non-vehicle unit within 24"." So if the unit is in the transport which is within 24", and powers that effect the unit are measured to the hull of the transport, and I do not require LOS, and I am targeting a unit, then I can choose the unit in the transport?

I'm liking this new nid codex.

[Sir Biscuit]

Doom is not a psychic shooting attack, so it doesn't follow the same rules as normal shooting attacks, so yes, you can cast Doom on a unit that is currently embarked on a transport, in the same way that the Doom of Malan'tai can affect units that are embarked. It should also be noted that this has a particularly brutal effect on guard squads whose transport subsequently explodes.

[Sir Biscuit]

In addition, I've gone through the codices and compiled a list of all abilities that can affect units in transports (and some wargear/specials I just happened to look at):

Chaos Daemons: I don't have the codex, but I think a fair assumption is "none".

Chaos Space Marines: None

Daemonhunters: None

Dark Eldar: None

Eldar: Doom

Imperial Guard: None

Necrons: None

Orks: None

Space Marines: None

Space Wolves: Storm Caller, for all the good it does you. Also, very important to note that units in transports benefit from Ragnar's War Howl.

Blood Angels: None, also note that Dante's mask does not affect units in transports.

Dark angels: None

Tau Empire: None

Tyranids: Only The Doom of Malan'tai's special power.

Witch Hunters: Hammer of the Witches

[Ravener]

In addition, I've gone through the codices and compiled a list of all abilities that can affect units in transports (and some wargear/specials I just happened to look at):

Chaos Daemons: I don't have the codex, but I think a fair assumption is "none".

Chaos Space Marines: None

Daemonhunters: None

Dark Eldar: None

Eldar: Doom

Imperial Guard: None

Necrons: None

Orks: None

Space Marines: None

Space Wolves: Storm Caller, for all the good it does you. Also, very important to note that units in transports benefit from Ragnar's War Howl.

Blood Angels: None, also note that Dante's mask does not affect units in transports.

Dark angels: None

Tau Empire: None

Tyranids: Only The Doom of Malan'tai's special power.

Witch Hunters: Hammer of the Witches

Also note that the Tyranid Unit: Parasite of Mortrex can affect units within transports that are outflanking. The codex specifically mentions this.

[Mortifis]

Actually, Storm Caller specifically doesn't affect units inside a transport, because it is a psychic power. And the Warhammer 40,000 faq states that psychic powers may only affect units in transports if that psyker is in the transport with them.

[Sir Biscuit]

Ah, so it doesn't. I had been using the 2008 FAQ, as that's the one that pops up on Google.

Actually, that means that none of these psychic powers work on units in transports. The Doom of Malan'tai's soul suck, and Ragnar's War Howl, still affect units in transports though, as they are just special abilities.

[whitestar333]

GW better come out with a FAQ about this soon because there are a lot of upset people out there who demand seeing it in the FAQ before they believe it.

[Drakkan Vael]

GW better come out with a FAQ about this soon because there are a lot of upset people out there who demand seeing it in the FAQ before they believe it.

The problem with that is, what do we do in the meantime?
I think this is another case where the most important "rule" should be used: Find a solution that both players find satisfying and do not argue about the exact wording of this and that.

As for my gaming group: We are still thinking about the Doom and are going to put this to a vote. After that we'll play it according to the decision untill we get the FAQ. Then we discuss that again and vote again if we are going with GW's ruling or not.

As this is our game, our time and our money spent on the hobby, we play it however we like. Even if "against" GW's rules.

[BuFFo]

The problem with that is, what do we do in the meantime?

While you wait for House Rules to be written by non GW gamers, you can make your own you know, but since you want someone else to come up with an answer, let me help you and your group!

Tyranid FAQ

Can the Doom of Malantai's 'Aura' be used against units inside transports?

Yes it can. Thinking that being inside a box of metal is enough to protect you from a creature that destroyed an entire Eldar craftworld by itself is pretty daft!


GW would like to thank BuFFo and his FAQ Ruling Council for their help




There you go. Same thing as a FAQ that appears on GW's site. A gamers opinion that you will now blindly follow. :)

[Drakkan Vael]

While you wait for House Rules to be written by non GW gamers, you can make your own you know, but since you want someone else to come up with an answer, let me help you and your group!

Tyranid FAQ

Can the Doom of Malantai's 'Aura' be used against units inside transports?

Yes it can. Thinking that being inside a box of metal is enough to protect you from a creature that destroyed an entire Eldar craftworld by itself is pretty daft!


GW would like to thank BuFFo and his FAQ Ruling Council for their help




There you go. Same thing as a FAQ that appears on GW's site. A gamers opinion that you will now blindly follow. :)


You just made my day. :D
How very generous of you to be my guide. Why don't you just write down answers to all our unsolved questions that we can humbly stare at your genious in wonder.
"How the hell did he do that?" (Anyone seen visual comedy?)
That would save us hundreds of postings. As you know so well what it is all about.
:eek:

[BuFFo]

The irony in this is that you don't have the slightest clue how close my answer is to the one you seek....

GW FAQs are not written by GW. They are written by people like me. Regular gamers with no internal balancing done. Just what sounds right according to my opinion. Nothing more, nothing less.

[Bean]

That's just not true at all, Buffo. While it is true that most of the FAQs (not all) do acknowledge Jon Regula and his group for their input, the conclusion that he or other gamers actually authored every FAQ document is entirely baseless.

EDIT: Last sentence was a useless personal attack. Jon's name corrected.

[Jardin]

[QUOTE=Bean;50430]That's just not true at all, Buffo. While it is true that most of the FAQs (not all) do acknowledge Jon Regula and his group for their input, the conclusion that he or other gamers actually authored every FAQ document is entirely baseless.

Yes, however the GW website states:

http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/content/article.jsp?aId=3400019

"The Errata have the same level of 'authority' as the main rules, as they effectively modify the published material. They are 'hard' material... The FAQs on the other hand are very much 'soft' material.... In other words, you might prefer to skip the FAQs altogether and instead always apply the good old 'roll a dice' rule whenever you meet a problematic situation."

So, if it is not in the RAW or an Errata, it is still your right to disagree per GW.

[Bean]

Sure. We know the FAQ's aren't intended to carry much (if any) official "weight."

That's a far cry from saying that they weren't written by GW writers, though.

[BuFFo]

Sure. We know the FAQ's aren't intended to carry much (if any) official "weight."

That's a far cry from saying that they weren't written by GW writers, though.

Most of them aren't.

Read the bottom of any most of the FAQs since around 2006. It is explicit as to who writes the FAQs.

But hey, if you want to follow the word of' Yakface' as gospel, yet put no value on your own, that's your choice kind sir. ;)

GW does NOT care about the rules/FAQs initially. GW is a business that creates a hobby that you buy into. Models, paints, converting, collecting. The game itself, is secondary.

I am grateful that GW at least has allowed Yakface and his buddies to put up FAQs for everyone to share (otherwise, as we all know, GW would put up one FAQ/Errata every 4 years if left to their own devices), but what they write is not biblical.

Your opinion should be and IS as valid as Yakfaces. What you and your group decides to come up with the Doom of Malantai is what you guys should be doing. In my local area, most of us use the FAQs up on the GW site, but, some of us don't, and those of us who DO, NEVER forces the FAQs on those who don't. That would be wrong and arrogant of us to do so.

Case in point, in my area, IG Reserve Bonuses stack. We don't care what some guy named Bob in Chicago thinks.

Same with the Doom. One Nid player says it affects units in transports, while the other doesn't. When I play either of them, I play it the way they want to. Thats life lol. :D

[Bean]

So, let's see:

Six FAQ documents have the following note at the end:



The questions answered in our FAQs have been gathered from
many sources. Some have been submitted by members of the
public, others by representatives of the online gaming
community and more still are the result of face to face
meetings with keen and inquisitive players at a myriad of
gaming events. We are always happy to consider more
questions, and aim to update these FAQs as frequently as is
practical. See the Contact Us page of the Games Workshop
website for the address to which you can send your questions.
Thanks to all those who have done so already!

These are:
- FAQ Space Wolves (January 2010)
- FAQ Planetstrike: (October 2009)
- FAQ Imperial Guard: (August 2009)
- FAQ Space Marines (November 2009)
- FAQ Dark Angels (October 2008)
- Witch Hunters FAQ (2004-2008)


Seven have the following note at the end:

Thanks to Jon ‘yakface’ Regul and his FAQ ruling council

These are:
- FAQ Orks (2007)
- Necrons FAQ (2004-2008)
- Dark Eldar FAQ (2004-2008)
- Daemonhunters FAQ (2004-2008)
- Tau Empire FAQ (2006-2008)
- Eldar FAQ (2008-05)
- Chaos Space Marines FAQ (2008-05)


Four have no such note at the end at all. These are:
- Tyranids FAQ (2006-2008)
- Blood Angel's Codex and FAQ (2007-2008)
- Black Templars FAQ (2006-2008)
- 40k Rule Book (March 2009)


And that's all of them.

Are you right? Nope. Not one of these documents notes by whom it was written. Only seven of seventeen mention Jon Regul at all. Again, there is just no basis for your claim.

That being said, I agree that GW should take more seriously the task of cleaning up their rules.

[Ferro]

Please try to stay on topic. You guys are in a downward spiral.

[MarshalAdamar]

I don't play Nids and I've never faced "Doom" but it sounds like a psychic attack that the creature passes automatically more or less.

But if I had a model that had a psychic power that said all units with in d6 inches must make a Ld check at -10 or fall back would you think that your 10 man nobz squad should test?

And if they fail they disembark and fall back? I don't think so. So why should Doom be able to so essentially the same thing?

Even if you look at weapons that do not need line of sight, they cannot affect units that are inside their transports.

In every case presented the rules as they are seem to side with units embarked with in a vehicle are immune to any affect UNLESS the vehicle is destroyed and the Doom doesn’t specifically say that it can affect units embarked with in a vehicle.

[Bean]

First off, Marshal, it's not a psychic power. If it were a psychic power, embarked units would be specifically immune (see the BRB FAQ document on GW's site). However, it is not. It requires no psychic test. There is nothing in the rule itself which states or even implies that it's a psychic power. Thus, it is not. Treating it as a psychic power is an obvious error.

Further, what cases in the rules support the notion that embarked units are completely inviolate? I've been through those rules pretty carefully, and nowhere does it say that embarked units can't be affected by anything.

As it works out, being embarked is sufficient to ensure that embarked units are not affected by most things, but they are not granted any sort of blanket immunity, and there are no rules which protect them from the Doom--even though there are rules which specifically allow for them to meet the requirements for being affected by the Doom.


Edit:

Ferro, you're right. Frankly, I didn't figure it'd matter if we were off topic, because I had the distinct impression that this topic had been resolved satisfactorily and was effectively over.

Clearly, I was mistaken. =(

[BuFFo]

Topics on this forum rarely, if ever, stay on topic.

The Dooms ability is not a psychic test at all. It just happens.

I see no logic/make-sense reason why units inside a transport remain unaffected by it's ability.

[gcsmith]

well there is one reason, it says non vehicle units, so if a unit in a vehicle is a vehicle unit then no it cant hurt them, if they aint then yes it can

[Bean]

A unit in a vehicle is not a vehicle unit. It is whatever type of unit it was before it embarked. Embarking does not change it, and there is really no reason at all to think otherwise.

[Jardin]

A unit in a vehicle is not a vehicle unit. It is whatever type of unit it was before it embarked. Embarking does not change it, and there is really no reason at all to think otherwise.

I agree, but as they did specifically state that the power does not effect vehicles, I can see that there could be an argument made that the "intent" is to not effect units in vehicles.

The RAW can only be interpereted as the unit inside the vehicle is effected as it says unit and not model, but RAI might intend that units in vehicles are not effected as vehicles are not effected, such as the clarification in the 40K rules FAQ did with Psychic powers like Doom (setting the precedent that just becasue a rule says unit, does not mean that it circumvents a vehicle). Ultimately they need to clarify what their intent was.

If it effects living beings to the exclusion of inanimate objects, then that sure sounds like a psychic power to me. Although this is not a Psychic power (as the rules do not clarify what the heck it is, do they need a new power attack type for not blast measured AOEs? Before this there were attacks be they melee, psychic or shooting, and hence had rules), to say that the power magically skips the intervening vehicle and hits the unit inside sounds like a pretty far stretch on the RAI side of things if it is not psychic, and if the intent was that it was psychic, then the rules FAQ would say it couldn't. My thought is, "What the heck type of attack is it?", as logically if it is an attack it would have to have a type.

[Bean]

It's not an attack at all. It's just an ability that does damage. That's not outside the scope of the rules--stuff like Dangerous Terrain functions in a very similar manner (Dangerous Terrain isn't an attack, after all).

[sebi81]

the aura of a culexus is another example. the main difference is, that the doom causes damage, but thats not an argument to call it an anttack. there are also attacks that don´t cause damage, lash for example.
the doom is just an ability.
but i don´t really know how i would handle it depending on embarked units. i usually would say no, you can´t kill them... but the rules... let´s hope there will be a faq or an errata soon.

[Bean]

The real question is: what happens to an embarked unit when it loses 25% of its models to the Doom, fails its morale test, and has to fall back?

I'm perfectly willing to let it hurt my embarked guys, but I don't think the rules actual cover an embarked unit falling back.

[Ferro]

...what constitutes an attack and what doesn't?... Those are good points. Some people simply assume 'if it's hurting my army' it must be an 'attack.' The rulebook is rather vague about it, but what it does say does not support such a broad meaning. On p79 'Attacking Buildings' is the language, 'Units inside buildings may not be attacked directly..." but the word attacked is referring back to the previous sentence, in which shooting and assault are specifically mentioned.

There's another example: p80, Parapets and Battlements; "[the embarked unit up on the battlements] still count as being in the building...so cannot be shot or assaulted directly."

The meaning of attack--at least in the specific context of embarked units--constitues shooting attacks and assaulting attacks. There is no justification for adding additional meaning to the term, and the rulebook does not provide a blanket of immunity to embarked units.


The real question is: what happens to an embarked unit when it loses 25% of its models to the Doom, fails its morale test, and has to fall back?

I'm perfectly willing to let it hurt my embarked guys, but I don't think the rules actual cover an embarked unit falling back.
You're exactly right, the rulebook does not cover how to fall back from an embarked position, and it should. But let's change your example just a little bit. Whether the Doom can even hurt embarked units is contentious and is the whole purpose of this thread, so let's leave that part out and use a concrete example provided directly in the rulebook itself, p80.
Template weapons
Template weapons such as flamers are designed to attack enemies hidden behind defensive terrain, and can attack models even if they are inside a building. ...[the number of hits are randomized on the embarked unit.]

Interesting! An explicit exception to the normal immunity from shooting attacks. But what happens to the embarked unit if it loses 25% of it's models? The rulebook doesn't say how to fall back out of a building.

What's particularly relevant though, is the rulebook ALSO doesn't say that an embarked unit is immune to Morale checks. So falling back is a logical possibility.

A few days ago, Sir Biscuit said this regarding having to fall back from an embarked position:
You cannot disembark from a transport or building unless it's your movement phase, and if you cannot make your full fall back move without doubling back, the unit is immediately and completely destroyed.
His meaning was that it is impossible for an embarked unit to fall back due to the disembarkation restrictions, so if ever an embarked unit is made to fall back that unit is destroyed.
I disagreed with him, but it's taken me a while to formulate exactly why. First off, the above quotation is all correct, but it's incomplete. A unit may only voluntarily disembark in its own movement phase, but we all know disembarkation can be forced when the transport/building explodes, and this happens in other phases. See p67.

But more importantly, a fall back is not the same as a disembark and the two should not be equated. Obviously there are similarities, but a fall back move is not voluntary like a normal disembark is. I maintain that an embarked unit may make a full fall back move as measured from their vehicle's/building's hull. Trapped! results are still possible due to other terrain and models.

[david5th]

Correct me, but does'nt say every non-vehicle enemy unit in the entry?

It does not affect vehicles so cannot affect those transported in them.

[Shavnir]

Correct me, but does'nt say every non-vehicle enemy unit in the entry?

It does not affect vehicles so cannot affect those transported in them.

That's quite an interesting logical leap. Care to qualify how not affecting vehicles prevents it from affecting those being transported?

[david5th]

If it cannot be used against a vehicle how can it affect those inside.

The test requires a leadership test, Vehicles do not have a leadership value. They cannot be affected . If it were able to affect those inside and they failed then what would happen with regards to falling back etc.
To my knowledge flamer and template weapons affectt hose inside as well. In fact i have not read anywhere in the rule book that says you may target crew or passengers seperately.

If you have please post and let us all know.



I will be back tomorrow as carling cup is on and i like watching football fans get angry or cry.

[Bean]

An embarked unit doesn't become a vehicle. The power can't affect vehicle units because it specifically says it cannot, and the fact that it does say this has no bearing whatsoever on the question of whether it can affect embarked units.

Template and blast weapons cannot affect embarked units because none of the models in the unit are actually on the table. In order for a template or blast weapon to affect a unit, it must be positioned so that it is over one or more of the models in the unit. However, if the models are not on the table, this cannot be done.

Note that this is completely different than saying that the unit is not in the transport. The unit is in the transport. The range to the transport is the range to the unit. But, none of the models are in the transport. This is possible because unit and its constituent models are distinct, separate entities within the rules. The Doom can measure range to a transport to see if it's within 6" of a unit embarked in that transport, but whether it is or not, none of the models in the embarked unit will ever be within 6" of the Doom, because they are all off the table. The position of the models and the "position" of the unit are not the same thing, as long as the unit is embarked.

Ranged weapons, including blasts and templates, fail to hit embarked models because of this distinction. The Doom, however, affects units, not models, and so is not restricted in this way.

[Shavnir]

If it cannot be used against a vehicle how can it affect those inside.


Right, its very clear that it doesn't affect vehicles but it can affect those inside by having that unit be in range of the doom. Its this assertion that things that don't work on vehicles can't affect things inside that has me wondering where you came up with it.


The test requires a leadership test, Vehicles do not have a leadership value. They cannot be affected . If it were able to affect those inside and they failed then what would happen with regards to falling back etc.
To my knowledge flamer and template weapons affectt hose inside as well. In fact i have not read anywhere in the rule book that says you may target crew or passengers seperately.

If you have please post and let us all know.


That is an interesting question regarding falling back in a situation where there is no rules to cover how it works.

Also flamer and template weapons refer to models underneath the template. Clearly only the vehicle model would be underneath it in a transport vehicle with embarked unit scenario. Because the Doom's special rule refers to units instead of models this isn't a problem.

[Bean]

Ferro: About the embarked unit falling back:

That about sums it up. I also found Sir Biscuit's position to be convincing up until the point where you rested it on the assertion that units can only disembark during the movement phase. As you point out this is not actually correct, since they can be forced to disembark by destroying the vehicle, as well.

Personally, I'm inclined to say that the unit doesn't disembark at all. The rules for falling back moves the unit a certain distance in a certain direction. Thanks for the rules for measuring range to and from embarked units, we can find a spot on the table which is a certain distance in a certain direction from a unit. I think the appropriate response is simply to find that spot by measuring from the vehicle's hull and place the models in the unit around that spot as though they had simply moved from a position just inside the vehicle's hull, in the correct direction, roughly the correct distance.

This isn't explicitly supported by the rules, but, then I don't think anything is. Despite Sir Biscuit's assertions, the notion that the unit is destroyed isn't even supported, since there's nothing which actually prevents it from making the sort of movement I described here.

The substantial problem is that the rules for falling back applies to units, rather than models. Normally, this doesn't matter, since the position of the unit is the same as the position of the model. As I said above, though, that is not true for embarked units. Thus, we're left trying to move a unit--essentially an imaginary entity--from a position which is clearly marked by a transport to a position which isn't marked by anything, without accompanying rules for moving the models to mark its new position.

[Ferro]

...Thus, we're left trying to move a unit--essentially an imaginary entity--from a position which is clearly marked by a transport to a position which isn't marked by anything, without accompanying rules for moving the models to mark its new position.
I don't see it as being that complicated. You know how when Vehicle-Explode happens you remove the vehicle and try to put the unit down in the same size area that the vehicle used to occupy..? Let's assume it's 10 marines in a Rhino: The ten models are now on the table in roughly the same size and orientation that the vehicle used to be in...

So, when a unit must fall back out of a vehicle, pretend for a moment that the vehicle is removed and unit is now standing there in it's place. This is the presumed starting place for it's fall back move. Roll 2d6 and move the unit, etc etc. No model may be placed farther than the distance rolled, and unit should be in a roughly box-shaped grouping at the end of it's fall back.

Makes sense to me, anyway.

[Bean]

Yeah, that's basically what I was saying I would do. But, you have to admit, the rules don't actually say to do that--or say to do anything at all. It's pretty much speculation.

[BuFFo]

I don't see it as being that complicated. You know how when Vehicle-Explode happens you remove the vehicle and try to put the unit down in the same size area that the vehicle used to occupy..? Let's assume it's 10 marines in a Rhino: The ten models are now on the table in roughly the same size and orientation that the vehicle used to be in...

So, when a unit must fall back out of a vehicle, pretend for a moment that the vehicle is removed and unit is now standing there in it's place. This is the presumed starting place for it's fall back move. Roll 2d6 and move the unit, etc etc. No model may be placed farther than the distance rolled, and unit should be in a roughly box-shaped grouping at the end of it's fall back.

Makes sense to me, anyway.

I would go with this, personally.

Vehicles aren't magical prisons that keep then unit inside immune to the effects of the outside world. If a unit has to fall back out of a vehicle, it just does.

This is just my opinion, and I could play it either way honestly. Even though I think a unit should fall back out of a vehicle, it is so rare, that if my opponent wanted to make the unit immune to falling back, I would be okay with that.

[david5th]

I stand by what i posted. There is to my knowledge nothing in the rule book that gives any prelude to targeting vehicle crew or passengers seperatelt and the Doom entry does not state including those embarked on transports.

I can however see the 'Real world' logic that those inside should be affected as it makes total sense. they are organic and would be affected as well as everyone else.howver by that extension all 'organic' terrain - trees, bushes etc would wither and die and have to be reomeved

However this a fictional world.

It has been created for us to enjoy and participate in, including forums such as this.'Real world logic' does'nt apply here in this fictional world or any other. If it did computers games and movies would be significantly shortet. Bond would die the first time someone pointed a semi-automatic at him and fired and games such as Soul Calibur would be over instantly due to dimemberment.

Unfortunately no rule set can accoutn for every possible combination of factors, occurences etc. This is why we have FAQs albeit not very good ones at times.

This is hobby to be enjoyed and discussed, not have the very fabric of it's existence picked at like some thing that gets picked at. ( I admit at this point i am losing any kind of verbal momentum.)

PS - Just in case people are going to say anything, I AM NOT A MAN CITY FAN. I did however enjoy the games form a neutral perspective.

Thankyou.

[Ferro]

You're not making any sense, david5th.
1) I'm not applying real-world logic or examples. I agree that they are inappropriate.
2) It's ok to pick apart the rules on an online rules forum. The better we all understand the rules, the easier the game becomes to play. This is the place to do it.
3) I agree that this hobby is to be enjoyed and discussed. I am doing both.
and the main point:
4) reread the thread, since you have missed the seven or eight times this has already been explained. But here we go again: You are correct that the rules do not allow you to target passengers. This means that passengers may not be shot or assaulted. The Doom's Spirit Leech is not a shooting attack and has no target. It affects enemy units within a certain range by forcing a Ld test.

The open question in this thread is this: WHERE is an embarked unit?

If an embarked unit counts as being in the transport, then they must test if they are in range.

The only counter-argument is that an embarked unit is not actually on the table, and somehow is magically immune to all damage of any kind from any source. I have spent the last few weeks showing why this position is wrong.

Literally no one is suggesting that passengers can be targeted. When you try and use that logic all you're showing is that you stopped reading on page one. If you would like to make a significant contribution, please research whether an embarked unit retains a distict identity of its own, or whether the embarked unit becomes one with and indistinguishable from the transport. Tell me where the embarked unit is.

I apologize in advance for my tone. I'm frustrated because all my original opponents have withdrawn from the field without giving a concession. Have they changed their minds, or is this topic not worth a rebuttal?

I'm please to note that this thread has shot ahead to the highest view-count of any in the rules forum. I certainly believe that the location of embarked units and the degree of their interaction with the rest of the tabletop is an important and relevant issue. Where are you, Mr. Wolf? I miss you!

[david5th]

Ferro

I would like to apologise for my tone and any offence this has caused.

I used the real world examples to try show my view on what a rule says and how it should work.
i totally agree that rules should be discussed and maybe my use of 'picked apart' was too strong. i however too believe that rules can be over analyised and this can lead to confusion reigning.

I have read the thread and ws merely adding my opinion, not trying to undermine anyone elses. if i have done this i apologise again.

I understand your frustration of having people give their point and walk away. I face this everyday in my job.


If you would like to make a significant contribution, please research whether an embarked unit retains a distict identity of its own, or whether the embarked unit becomes one with and indistinguishable from the transport. Tell me where the embarked unit is.

With regards to the above the only thing i could find was on the 40K rulebook march FAQ which states with regards to firing from a transport:

No, they are a separate unit (albeit they are temporarily co-existing with the vehicle) and socan fire at a different target.

I hope you may find this useful.

david5th

[Ferro]

Brother, you have nothing to apologize for. /handshake


EDIT: BuFFo, I have a love/hate relationship with you.

[BuFFo]

I apologize in advance for my tone. I'm frustrated because all my original opponents have withdrawn from the field without giving a concession. Have they changed their minds, or is this topic not worth a rebuttal?

Bingo.

[david5th]

Handshake accepted.:)

compare the meerkat. simples;)

Additional - has the FAQ shed any light on the subject?

[BuFFo]

Brother, you have nothing to apologize for. /handshake


EDIT: BuFFo, I have a love/hate relationship with you.

Trust me.... I am far more unbearable in real life than I seem online.... :eek:


Additional - has the FAQ shed any light on the subject?

Actually, a FAQ about this very subject was released some days ago.

Doom of Malantai FAQ (http://www.lounge.belloflostsouls.net/showpost.php?p=50383&postcount=90)

[Drakkan Vael]

Trust me.... I am far more unbearable in real life than I seem online.... :eek:



Actually, a FAQ about this very subject was released some days ago.

Doom of Malantai FAQ (http://www.lounge.belloflostsouls.net/showpost.php?p=50383&postcount=90)


As if we wouldn't belief that. :eek:

What a great and utterly useless answer.

The point stays open for interpretation regardless of what you claim to know.
Everyone will play it differently.

[Nabterayl]

The open question in this thread is this: WHERE is an embarked unit?

If an embarked unit counts as being in the transport, then they must test if they are in range.

The only counter-argument is that an embarked unit is not actually on the table, and somehow is magically immune to all damage of any kind from any source. I have spent the last few weeks showing why this position is wrong.

I apologize in advance for my tone. I'm frustrated because all my original opponents have withdrawn from the field without giving a concession. Have they changed their minds, or is this topic not worth a rebuttal?

Speaking as one of those who has withdrawn from the field, it's not so much that the topic isn't worth a rebuttal as that I've satisfied myself that there is no good answer. As I see it, we have four options for how to answer the "where are the passengers?" question:
Passenger models are located inside the transport; presumably each passenger model is treated as co-extensive with the transport model's hull.
Passenger models are not located anywhere, but the passenger unit's location is co-extensive with the transport model's hull.
Passenger models are not located anywhere, and passenger units are not located anywhere, except for purposes of effects they generate.
Passenger models are not located anywhere, and passenger units are not located anywhere, except for purposes of effects they generate, but for purposes of Spirit Leech a passenger unit's location is co-extensive with the transport model's hull.
In my view, 1 and 2 quickly lead to obviously wrong conclusions. I don't think anybody advocates for 1, so no more need be said about that. 2 leads to the problem of passengers Falling Back out of transports, which at least in my mind is an obvious absurdity.

3 is my best articulation for how I think most people play the game, even if they've never thought about the issue of passenger location before, but it suffers from the obvious problem that page 66 nowhere specifies this kind of one-way location. The obvious fix for that is to move to 2, which has the problem of passengers Falling Back out of transports.

4 is, in my opinion, the best fit with the fluff, but if suffers from the obvious problem that the tyranid codex doesn't seem to think it's creating a special exception to a general rule, and the general answer to "where is an embarked unit located?" probably shouldn't include mention of a specific power.

My personal preference for how to play is 4, and I came to that conclusion a week or two ago. But that is not really an answer to the question, "Where is an embarked unit located?" That question, I'm pretty well satisfied, doesn't have a satisfactory answer.

[BuFFo]

As if we wouldn't belief that. :eek:

What a great and utterly useless answer.

The point stays open for interpretation regardless of what you claim to know.
Everyone will play it differently.

So wait a second.... You'll follow a FAQ written by strangers who don't work for GW that you'll never meet, but not mine?

This makes no sense. You'll accept house rules pulled out of thin air from a nameless source, but not house rules pulled out of thin air by someone you are actually conversing with?

(I have helped with some of the FAQs on the GW site, if that means anything to you)

[Bean]

Again, Buffo, the assertion that the GW FAQs are written by non-GW writers is just baseless. I've already demonstrated your error--how long are you going to keep trying to perpetuate this myth?

[Ferro]

Bean please! Regardless of who wrote the FAQs, they are the equivalent of houserules. GW says so themselves.

As I see it, we have four options for how to answer the "where are the passengers?" question:
Passenger models are located inside the transport; presumably each passenger model is treated as co-extensive with the transport model's hull.
Passenger models are not located anywhere, but the passenger unit's location is co-extensive with the transport model's hull.
Passenger models are not located anywhere, and passenger units are not located anywhere, except for purposes of effects they generate.
Passenger models are not located anywhere, and passenger units are not located anywhere, except for purposes of effects they generate, but for purposes of Spirit Leech a passenger unit's location is co-extensive with the transport model's hull.
In my view, 1 and 2 quickly lead to obviously wrong conclusions. I don't think anybody advocates for 1, so no more need be said about that. 2 leads to the problem of passengers Falling Back out of transports, which at least in my mind is an obvious absurdity.

3 is my best articulation for how I think most people play the game, even if they've never thought about the issue of passenger location before, but it suffers from the obvious problem that page 66 nowhere specifies this kind of one-way location. The obvious fix for that is to move to 2, which has the problem of passengers Falling Back out of transports.

4 is, in my opinion, the best fit with the fluff, but if suffers from the obvious problem that the tyranid codex doesn't seem to think it's creating a special exception to a general rule, and the general answer to "where is an embarked unit located?" probably shouldn't include mention of a specific power.

My personal preference for how to play is 4, and I came to that conclusion a week or two ago. But that is not really an answer to the question, "Where is an embarked unit located?" That question, I'm pretty well satisfied, doesn't have a satisfactory answer.

Welcome back Nab. I agree with the list of four possibilities, and your assessment of 1, 3, and 4. :)
1 is impossible. The models are not actually in there, etc.
I'll get back to 2.
3 is the way JWolf plays it, and is a common viewpoint.
The problem with 4 is exactly as you stated above; I couldn't have put it better myself.

So right away, 1 and 4 are out. You say 2 is out because it leads to the absurd, and yet you also mention that 3 is not actually supported by the rules... 4 is just 3 plus some extra assumptions, so it's not supported either. So I have to ask you, why do you favor a viewpoint which isn't supported by the rules? 3 has two problems: first, as you said, the rules don't say or even suggest to play it this way, though it is an obvious extrapolation of 'remove the models from the table and set them aside'; and secondly, interpretation 3 does not allow for interactions with the gametable that initiate from the outside, like Shadows in the Warp, a Librarian's Hood, Eldar Runes of Warding, Eldar Wraithguard testing, Fortune, Ragnar's War Howl, Culexus Assasin's Soulless aura, etc. (Can IG issue orders to an embarked squad?) Anyway, 3 is not supported by the rules.

I would like to examine just what's so absurd about 2...
First of all, falling back out of a transport is not absurd. Absurd is having to run around the table three times quacking like a duck. Falling back is a simple game mechanic, and despite the fact that its occurrance with embarked units is so near to zero percent that people assume it's a myth, there is nothing in the rules which prevent it.
Consider: 1) an embarked Librarian dies to perils of the warp; 2) plasma guns overheat when firing out of firepoints; 3) a unit in a building takes wounds from template weapons.

These three examples hardly ever happen, but all of them could trigger a Morale test if 25% casualties occurs.
A unit losing 25% or more of its models during a single phase must pass a Morale check at the end of that phase, or else it will fall back. Do not count casualties caused by CC.
Please note that the rule does not limit the 25% casualties to results of shooting; it can happen by any means in any phase (close combat excluded). (***interesting aside: If a blast marker scatters onto a CC and kills 25%, that should trigger the test too. Wierd.)
Add to those three examples two more from the new Nid codex: 4) The Sarge is acting strange... a special rule which can kill embarked models inside outflanking transports; 5) the Doom's Life Leach.

There's five things which cause wounds to embarked units. What's so absurd about having to Morale test when that's exactly what the rules are telling you to do?

Mr. Wolf's assertion that embarked units are totally immune to all damage is demonstrably false.

So Nab, which of your four viewpoints are looking the most reasonable now?

[BuFFo]

;)

[Nabterayl]

I don't think 2 is absurd because I imagine that units inside a transport are immune to damage. There's a difference between being immune to outside effects and being immune to damage, which I'm pretty sure is what JWolf meant to say.

Instead, I have two rules problems and one common sense problem with Falling Back out of transports. The first is that there's no provision in the Fall Back! rules for disembarking, and no provision in the disembarking rules for Falling Back. Indeed, Falling Back is consistently referred to as making a "move," which disembarking clearly is not (although units that disembark count as moving for purposes of shooting weapons).

We might overlook that difficulty in the way that people have described earlier in the thread, by treating disembarking as part of the Fall Back move, but that leads us to the second problem I have, which is that units that have to double back are destroyed. So suppose we have an eldar transport facing its own table edge, and the unit inside fails a Morale test and must Fall Back. The only way out of the transport is out the back hatch (this could be the case as well with other transports, given certain table configurations, but the one-hatch eldar transports provide a cleaner example). The back hatch is facing directly away from the table edge toward which the passengers must Fall Back. Thus, in order to Fall Back toward the prescribed table edge, the passengers must double back, and are destroyed - but if it happened that the transport had been facing another way, they would have Fallen Back instead.

These two difficulties combined convince me that 2 is not the right answer either. By themselves they are sufficient for me, but they are bolstered by the common sense fact that vehicles are immune to Morale tests in 40K because the crews are considered to have an unshakable faith in their vehicle (page 63). This fits with a pretty well-established wargaming trope, which is that vehicles provide an unreasonable sense of safety to the human beings inside them; indeed, 5th edition conspicuously lost the silly rule that passengers fled a vehicle at the first sign its armor had been penetrated. If vehicle crews cannot be convinced to abandon their vehicles, then I don't see any common sense reason why passengers could be, either.

So in short, 2 seems to break the Fall Back mechanic, which comes up (or could come up) fairly often. This is why I conclude that none of 1, 2, 3, or 4 is the correct answer. However, 3 only seems to me to break the Doom, and only then if you assume 3 and then beg the question. I'm actually willing to do that in this case given the Doom's inferrable fluff, which is why I favor 4 as the most reasonable (but technically incorrect) position.

[Jardin]

Some people simply assume 'if it's hurting my army' it must be an 'attack.'

No, dangerous terrain is not an attack, but the damage is also not generated by my opponent's units, but rather by a terrain feature.

Alot of the discussion here has revolved around people stating that "because a piece of terrain's rule does x..." or "because a building's rule is treated as x" that these should somehow apply to vehicles.

I have a problem with the logic of applying building or terrain rules to vehicles, these other rules do not make precedents for rules about vehicles as they are about an entirely different type of entity.

Rulebook p. 56 "Because vehicles do not fight in the same manner as creatures of flesh and blood, their rules differ from other models in a number of ways, detailed here.

Now, what I brought up earlier that no one responded to is the fact that we have a very clear president for this very situation, and that is the power Doom from the Eldar. This power can be targeted at a unit within 24", but may not effect vehicles. The logic for the RAW of Doom effecting embarked units is completely sound, however Psychic attacks effecting units in vehicles were clarified in the rules FAQ, which had to be ammended to say Psychic powers do not effect embarked units. Why does anyone think the Doom of Malantai's wording was anything other then an error? No the rules do not specifically state that units in vehicles cannot be attacked, however when powers in the past have been able to circumvent a vehicles protection, the clarification has been that they cannot. If this is not the case, please point out where a rule or rules clarification specifically allowed someone to do damage to an embarked unit.

As for all this talk about Morale, why would an embarked unit be afraid of anything?

Rulebook p. 63 "Vehicles and Morale: Vehicles never make morale checks for any reason. It is assumed that in all cases the vehicle's crew has unshakeable faith in their vehicle and their orders. Any occasional lapses that do occur are represented by crew shaken and stunned results on the Damage table."

As passengers on a transport vehicle are also effected by crew shaken and stunned results:

Rulebook p. 67 "Effects of Damage Results on Passengers: Crew Shaken & Crew Stunned: Passengers may not shoot from the vehicle in their next Shooting phase, but are otherwise unaffected."

The Rules would seem to indicate that passengers are treated in a manner very similarly to crew in regards to Morale, and hence would not be effected by those things requiring a morale test as "It is assumed that in all cases the vehicle's crew has unshakeable faith in their vehicle and their orders."

[Jardin]

Passenger models are located inside the transport; presumably each passenger model is treated as co-extensive with the transport model's hull.
Passenger models are not located anywhere, but the passenger unit's location is co-extensive with the transport model's hull.
Passenger models are not located anywhere, and passenger units are not located anywhere, except for purposes of effects they generate.
Passenger models are not located anywhere, and passenger units are not located anywhere, except for purposes of effects they generate, but for purposes of Spirit Leech a passenger unit's location is co-extensive with the transport model's hull.


Although 2 leads to the absurd, it would appear to be the most technically correct as it appears to most accurately portray the RAW.

However, for the reasons in my last post, I firmly believe that although not explicitly stated in the RAW, the RAI is that nothing effects units in transports without first getting through the Armor.

[Ferro]

I don't think 2 is absurd because I imagine that units inside a transport are immune to damage. There's a difference between being immune to outside effects and being immune to damage, which I'm pretty sure is what JWolf meant to say.
I don't understand. Embarked units are not immune to outside effects, nor are embarked units immune to damage. What are you trying to say?

Also, your understanding of falling back and the Trapped! result are different than mine. IIRC there is no provision against 'doubling back' anymore. The rules and FAQs are pretty lenient about letting a falling-back unit move in any direction to get around obstacles, as long as they return to their direct perpendicular movement as soon as possible. Trapped! only happens if a unit is literally completely surrounded and the models can't fit out in any direction.


...vehicles are immune to Morale tests in 40K because the crews are considered to have an unshakable faith in their vehicle (page 63). ...If vehicle crews cannot be convinced to abandon their vehicles, then I don't see any common sense reason why passengers could be, either.
Respectfully, common sense does not come into it. What do the rules say? Yes, the crew is 'fearless', but then again there are no models for the crew so they wouldn't be falling back anyway. The crew is synominous with the vehicle; the crew is assumed to exist. But for all practical purposes, crew do not exist at all; any reference to 'crew' is a reference to the vehicle itself. However, the unit of passengers are distinct from the vehicle in every (or perhaps almost every) way. From a cold rules perspective, the vehicle being 'fearless' does not imply that the passengers are fearless. For that matter, vehicles don't have a Ld value to test against--but passengers do.


So in short, 2 seems to break the Fall Back mechanic Please examine this a little more closely and get back to me.

...and 3 breaks a lot more than just the Doom. Everything I listed couple posts ago would fail with #3. It's obviously wrong.

[Nabterayl]

I don't understand. Embarked units are not immune to outside effects, nor are embarked units immune to damage. What are you trying to say?
I'm proposing that the general rule is that embarked units are subject only to effects they generate themselves. Buildings plainly enough have an exception for template weapons, and the Parasite plainly represents another exception. Gets Hot! and Perils of the Warp would not.


Also, your understanding of falling back and the Trapped! result are different than mine. IIRC there is no provision against 'doubling back' anymore. The rules and FAQs are pretty lenient about letting a falling-back unit move in any direction to get around obstacles, as long as they return to their direct perpendicular movement as soon as possible. Trapped! only happens if a unit is literally completely surrounded and the models can't fit out in any direction.
Not true. "If the unit cannot perform a full fall back move in any direction without doubling back, it is destroyed" (page 45). In the case I presented, assuming we allow Fall Back moves to compass disembarking (which I'm not prepared to do except for the sake of argument), the passengers would have to begin moving away from their table edge owing to the nature and heading of the transport. That is allowed. However, having begun moving away from the table edge, the passengers would then be forced to reverse course in order to move "directly towards their own table edge by the shortest possible route" (page 45). Provided the unit rolled enough distance for its Fall Back move, this would require them to make a U turn in a single Fall Back move, which is not allowed, and would result in the destruction of the unit.


Respectfully, common sense does not come into it. What do the rules say? Yes, the crew is 'fearless', but then again there are no models for the crew so they wouldn't be falling back anyway. The crew is synominous with the vehicle; the crew is assumed to exist. But for all practical purposes, crew do not exist at all; any reference to 'crew' is a reference to the vehicle itself. However, the unit of passengers are distinct from the vehicle in every (or perhaps almost every) way. From a cold rules perspective, the vehicle being 'fearless' does not imply that the passengers are fearless. For that matter, vehicles don't have a Ld value to test against--but passengers do.
Agreed on all points. If you aren't curious about my feelings on the common sense of the matter, I'll refrain from adding them.


...and 3 breaks a lot more than just the Doom. Everything I listed couple posts ago would fail with #3. It's obviously wrong.
Which post is that? 3 coexists happily with Gets Hot!, Perils of the Warp, and the building rules for template weapons, as I tried to better explain at the start of this post.

[Ferro]

I'm proposing that the general rule is that embarked units are subject only to effects they generate themselves.
But that's not true. You're ignoring Shadows in the Warp, a Librarian's Hood, Eldar Runes of Warding, Eldar Wraithguard testing, Fortune, Ragnar's War Howl, Culexus Assasin's Soulless aura, etc. (Can IG issue orders to an embarked squad?) Things DO get in from the outside, even without considering the two new Nid examples. The FAQ does say that psychic powers can't get in from the outside, but the authority level of FAQ is not the same as RAW. In any case, at least five of the above examples are not psychic powers.

The whole 'doubling back' phrase is never explained. Your interpretation is (loosely) consistent with the RAW, but I can give you a RAW interpretation that makes much more sense (to me!) and is in my opinion more playable. I don't mind exploring this tangent with you. Consider the following:
Double back: to retrace your steps; to return to the starting place. The meaning is not to perform a U-turn, and it cannot refer to a direction change happening in a single movement phase. We know this because rules encourage the unit to move around obstacles blocking them, by the shortest path possible, but without limit on which heading they take. A U-turn is movement around, and is endorsed by the rules. A legal fallback move starts at position A, moves through waypoints B and C; where A, B & C can be in any position on the table top--as long as they represent the shortest possible path to their own table edge. The positions A, B, & C are defined as waypoints at the start of each fallback move.

Doubling back requires movement from A to B, then in the enemy turn the enemy blocks the path, so now the only possible direction to move is from B back to A again (or at least, an initial 180 retracing at least part of the path back towards A). This is the implication of 'double'--it's a reversal and retrace of a previous path... traveling that path for the second time. And it has to be over two consecutive turns to make any sense at all. In a single movement phase it is not possible to walk the same path twice.

[Bean]

Ferro's right about doubling back. While that language is included in the rule for falling back, the nature of doubling back means that it will virtually never happen. Certainly, it requires much, much more than a simple U turn to be considered doubling back. That line could not be in the rules at all, and it would probably fail to ever change how the rule actually works.

It could, but it's just very, very unlikely for a unit to actually be required to double back.

[BuFFo]

(Can IG issue orders to an embarked squad?)

No they cannot. A unit embarked that can issue orders cannot even give themselves an order. This cannot happen because the IG book specifically says units in vehicles cannot receive orders.

The way I see it, Robbin wrote BOTH codexes, and in one codex he specifies that units inside a vehicle cannot recieve orders from an ability that has range that does not require line of sight.

The doom's aura is essentially the same thing as Orders mechanic wise, yet Robbin put no such restrictions.

So going by the intent of the author, because I am sure if he didn't want the Doom to effect embarked troops he would have said so, I see no reason as to why the Doom cannot effect units enbarked.

Also, the FAQ I released pretty much resolved this issue.

[Jardin]

I am a great fan of quoting those more eminent then myself.


Also, the FAQ I released pretty much resolved this issue.


"Nuh Uhn" is the valid counter argument to "Uhn Huh," which was the entire Affirmative case presented.

:D

[beagle1]

Hi, I recently used my DE Raider transport to enlighten peolple on this topic.
Just put my DE raiders on their transport[I modelled my DE's so the whole squad actually fits on the Raider in dynamic positions] and moved it within 6"of the Doom.
Everything is simple from there on.
Just because SM's don't fit into their transport it doesn't make them dissove into tin air up to the moment they chose to shoot,claim or debus.

Cheers B1

[DarkLink]

Bean please! Regardless of who wrote the FAQs, they are the equivalent of houserules. GW says so themselves.

So now there's two people who I've ever heard of who don't treat GW FAQ's to be ironclad, the other being BuFFo :p.



Mr. Wolf's assertion that embarked units are totally immune to all damage is demonstrably false.

So Nab, which of your four viewpoints are looking the most reasonable now?

Embarked units can certainly take damage from various means. And that could technically force a morale test. But WTF do you do if they fail? They can't disembark. If they can't disembark, they can't fall back. If they can't fall back, they're destroyed?




And the problem with the Librarian Hood example is this; in order to use the hood, the embarked unit has to use a psychic power. That psychic power's effect is measured from the hull of the vehicle. A Hood can stop a power that is used within its range.

But this doesn't necessarily mean the pysker is actually in range, merely that the psychic power happens within range. The hood is stopping the power, not the psyker, if you will. So the hood isn't actually affecting the unit inside, merely affecting the unit's effect. Same thing with Shadows of the Warp and similar.

For Wraithguard sight tests, from what I remember of its rules it seems almost like another psychic power to me. The psyker extends his psychic abilities to aid the wraithguard, making it an ambiguous case with regards to this argument.





Regardless, let me amend Nab's earlier statement; embarked passangers are subject only to effects they generate themselves, or effects generated by enemy units that affect their effects. And, of course, if any rule specifically states it can affect an embarked unit, it may do so.

By this logic, psychic hoods and equivalent still function as they obviously do. The What's wrong with Sarge rule still affects the unit, as it states that it does (as I understand it). However, Leech doesn't affect the unit.

[Nabterayl]

But that's not true. You're ignoring Shadows in the Warp, a Librarian's Hood, Eldar Runes of Warding, Eldar Wraithguard testing, Fortune, Ragnar's War Howl, Culexus Assasin's Soulless aura, etc.
You make some good points here. Let me leave it at that for the moment to discuss Falling Back:


The whole 'doubling back' phrase is never explained. Your interpretation is (loosely) consistent with the RAW, but I can give you a RAW interpretation that makes much more sense (to me!) and is in my opinion more playable. I don't mind exploring this tangent with you. Consider the following:
Double back: to retrace your steps; to return to the starting place. The meaning is not to perform a U-turn, and it cannot refer to a direction change happening in a single movement phase. We know this because rules encourage the unit to move around obstacles blocking them, by the shortest path possible, but without limit on which heading they take. A U-turn is movement around, and is endorsed by the rules. A legal fallback move starts at position A, moves through waypoints B and C; where A, B & C can be in any position on the table top--as long as they represent the shortest possible path to their own table edge. The positions A, B, & C are defined as waypoints at the start of each fallback move.

Doubling back requires movement from A to B, then in the enemy turn the enemy blocks the path, so now the only possible direction to move is from B back to A again (or at least, an initial 180 retracing at least part of the path back towards A). This is the implication of 'double'--it's a reversal and retrace of a previous path... traveling that path for the second time. And it has to be over two consecutive turns to make any sense at all. In a single movement phase it is not possible to walk the same path twice.
I don't think it will do to say that the "doubling back" provision has to take place over two successive moves. As page 45 says, if the unit cannot perform "a full fall back move in any direction without doubling back," it is destroyed. The phrase "full fall back move" has to refer to a single move, I think. The example given is a squad of gretchin hemmed in by assault marines to the north, impassable terrain to the east, tactical marines to the south, and a Rhino to the west, together forming a box with no gaps that the gretchin can fit through without coming within 1" of an enemy model. The gretchin have rolled 8" for their Fall Back move, and the book tells us that the gretchin in this case must be destroyed, because it cannot perform a full fall back move in any direction without doubling back.

Without the last sentence on page 45, I think the natural way to read this diagram is to say that the gretchin are destroyed because they are surrounded, but that is not actually what the book says. The book says they are destroyed because the gretchin, in this case, would have to "double back." In other words, the gretchin do have room to maneuver within the box - they could expend their 8" of movement running in circles, for instance - but they cannot do it without reversing their heading. This is why I contend that the test page 45 lays out is whether or not you have to make a U turn (I use the phrase because making a literal U turn would satisfy the test, as well as literally re-tracing one's steps) in a single Fall Back move.

Contrast this with the other diagram on page 45, where the gretchin are permitted to bend their vector around some impassable terrain. As page 45 makes clear, in general you are allowed to Fall Back in a non-straight line, provided you do so in order to get off the board as fast as possible. Flowing around an obstacle like this is an example of that.

If I can provide a hypothetical for further discussion, suppose you have a unit in a canyon that is 6" long. The west and east walls of the canyon are rectangles of impassable terrain that each measure 1"x6"; the south of the canyon is plugged by a hostile unit. We have a unit at the bottom of the canyon that must Fall Back to the south. As I read page 45, if our unit rolls 7" or less for its Fall Back move, it is safe - it can move 6" directly north, and 1" east or west, because that is the shortest route to the table edge in this case, and it has bent its vector no more than 90 degrees. In a subsequent turn it could then proceed to Fall Back along the outside of the canyon - doing so would be "doubling back" compared to the last Fall Back move, but at no point would the unit have doubled back during a "full" Fall Back move. However, if our unit rolled 8" or more for its Fall Back move, it would be destroyed, because it would need to move 6" directly north, 1" east or west, and then the remainder of its move directly south - it would be forced to double back in order to complete its full Fall Back move towards its own table edge by the shortest possible route, which causes the unit's destruction.

I'm pretty sure that this is the correct reading of page 45, although at first glance it may seem kind of silly. This being the case, if units can Fall Back out of transports, whether or not the passengers are destroyed would depend upon the orientation of the transport, which seems to me a bizarre and obviously ridiculously outcome.

But let me suggest a compromise position that I'm not sure has been explored. Suppose it is the rule that embarked units (but not models) are located where their transport is located, and we simply read the Morale rules as making passengers immune to Morale tests? Is there any reason not to do that? To dispose of one potential objection, and raise another:

To Dispose: True, the Fall Back rules do not specify immunity for passengers. On the other hand, passengers cannot Fall Back, because disembarkation is not a move (although it must happen in the Movement Phase). As passengers cannot Fall Back, they are never Falling Back at the start of their own Movement Phase, and thus can operate normally even if they do fail a Morale test.

To Raise: What about shooting attacks that do not require Line of Sight? I think we all agree that whatever the correct rule is, it must not allow passengers to be shot, even by weapons that do not require Line of Sight. Several times, Ferro, you have suggested that page 79 disposes of this. The unsatisfactory thing about that answer is that it reads the building rules as applying to vehicles, whereas the rulebook actually only authorizes us to apply the vehicle rules to buildings. Is that the best we can do?

[Shavnir]

So now there's two people who I've ever heard of who don't treat GW FAQ's to be ironclad, the other being BuFFo :p.

Personally given the lack of rules understanding on other parts of the GW site I'm willing to take the part about the FAQs not being binding as yet another GW based rules mistake :p

[Ferro]

Wow Nab, I don't know what to say. You raise a lot of good points about falling back and your reading seems to make a lot of sense, but I agree that it leads to some silly situations... why should a falling back unit be destroyed for rolling too high? It makes no sense, man. I'm not disputing your logic, which seems sound based on the captions under the picture and all that, but I think we're both uncomfortable with the conclusion you reached.

Look, with regards to falling back out of transports, we're winging it. The rules don't tell us how, and the rules don't prevent it from happening. No matter what we come up with for how to do it, it will remain an extremely rare event. Hardly anything has the possibility to trigger it, but there are five rare events (that I've been able to uncover) which could, and the Doom's ability is certainly right at the top of the list.

No one want's an embarked unit to be unilaterally destroyed because of some stupid disembarkation restriction. No one will play it that way; can we please just leave that alone (this is addressed to everyone, not just you Nab). Check this out: emergency disembarkation, or disembarkation from an open-topped transport does not have to deploy directly in front of doors. Perhaps there's room to allow fall back from any portion of the vehicle--where ever it's clear of enemies or from whichever point is closest to the table edge. Doors be damned.


Regardless, let me amend Nab's earlier statement; embarked passangers are subject only to effects they generate themselves, or effects generated by enemy units that affect their effects. Lolwut? /hed-a-splode
Darklink, this cracks me up. You're reaching, really stretching on this one. Anyway, the Culexus Assassin's aura doesn't affect any effect, or effect any affect...:confused: It simply lowers enemy Ld within a 12" range. So.... there.

@beagle1: Interesting modelling, but it doesn't help the discussion. Embarked units have their models removed from the table, though it suggests you may leave a model on the top for representational purposes only. That model is not truely there: you can't shoot it, it doesn't block LOS, etc. The Open-Topped Transport rule doesn't tell you to do anything different when Embarking, so in effect all you've done is place a bunch of models which only represent themselves... they're not truely there. Your embarked Eldar do not shoot from their own bases, but rather from a firepoint or the hull of the vehicle. Embarking is an abstraction. There's more about it in the Buildings/Parapets section. Cheers.

[Nabterayl]

As far as rolling too high, perhaps that represents (at a very high level) how close to routing the unit is. Keep rolling low and you can slowly and carefully fall back out of a sticky situation; roll high and the unit has truly broken. Doesn't change the rules, but maybe makes them make a little more sense.

As for smart missiles and impaler cannons, Ferro, do you have anything better than the building rules? I admit that one still bugs me. The troubling thing about it is that you clearly shoot units rather than models, and the only rule I'm aware of that prevents passengers from being "directly" attacked only applies, by its terms, to passengers of buildings.

[beagle1]

@beagle1: Interesting modelling, but it doesn't help the discussion. Embarked units have their models removed from the table, though it suggests you may leave a model on the top for representational purposes only. That model is not truely there: you can't shoot it, it doesn't block LOS, etc. The Open-Topped Transport rule doesn't tell you to do anything different when Embarking, so in effect all you've done is place a bunch of models which only represent themselves... they're not truely there. Your embarked Eldar do not shoot from their own bases, but rather from a firepoint or the hull of the vehicle. Embarking is an abstraction. There's more about it in the Buildings/Parapets section. Cheers.

I'd beg to differ.
Ofcourse they are truely there.
They are placed next to the table so they don't hamper game play.
If you'd leave those troops next to their transport they would interfere with all sorts of things, so instead when not able to actually put them inside their transport they are assumed inside their transport but modelwise set aside.
Nowere does this mean they should not actually be in the same place as their transport, which is what I tried to show by letting people see the actual models that are in a transport if it could fysiquely hold them.
If all transports were able to do this then there wouldn't have to be a rule to put the models next to the table because there is no place for them.

I do know the rules about opentopped/shooting/firepoints/ measuerment etc.
My point is to show that the unit is supposed to be on the table inside their transport and not abstractly whisked away.

Cheers B1

[DarkLink]

Lolwut? /hed-a-splode
Darklink, this cracks me up. You're reaching, really stretching on this one. Anyway, the Culexus Assassin's aura doesn't affect any effect, or effect any affect...:confused: It simply lowers enemy Ld within a 12" range. So.... there.


Hey, I've only read like, two pages of this whole argument. I don't even see much to argue about, since, as has been pointed out, there isn't any clear way of treating the physical location of an embarked unit. We're not going to come to a solid conclusion without an FAQ, because the issue results from a gap in RAW.

However, affecting effects sounds confusing, but it makes sense to me:rolleyes:. As I said, I gave it about 20 seconds of thought.

[DarkLink]

Here, I'll break up the language from my comment.

1. embarked passangers are subject only to effects they generate themselves

Simple. If a unit uses a psychic power, or shoots a plasma gun out a hatch, they still have to take psychic tests and gets hot, potentially killing themselves. This one's obviously true.

I bolded the "only", because it may or may not be true, depending on certain factors, which is the whole point of this argument.

2. or effects generated by enemy units that affect their effects.

If said unit uses a psychic power, that power originates from the hull of the vehicle. A psychic hood affects the power, potentially stopping it. Because the power originates from the vehicle (not the psyker, necessarily), if the vehicle is in range of the hood the hood can stop the power. Same thing for, say, nightfight when a unit shoots out a firing port.

This is also true, since this is how stuff works in game. Sure, this is only one of many possible ways of stating it, but it is consistent with how psychic hoods and similar work. I guess all the "affects" and "effects" made it a bit confusing, though.

3. And, of course, if any rule specifically states it can affect an embarked unit, it may do so.

Also obviously true, since Codex>BRB and all that.




I'll point out that the only part of my statement in question is the "embarked unit may only be affected by the following things". There may be additional ways of affecting the unit in addition to the three points above. But aside from the only part, each of the above cases is firmly supported by commonly accepted means of dealing with embarked units.

So, really, I'm not stretching at all. I just simplified the language too much, or you misunderstood it.

[Zombie Combover]

I remember having similar discussions when I first added Pariahs to my Necron army. There were good arguments on both sides and it was easy to see how reasonable people can disagree on the issue.

We went with "No, the Pariahs' aura doesn't affect units in vehicles" and I suspect we'll do the same thing here. We looked at two things: how many people would be hurt by each decision and how badly the decision would hurt them. Either one unit in one army (Necron Pariahs) lost a small portion of its functionality, or several units in several other armies (Mounted Pyskers and anything with a Leadership value over 7) lost a big portion of theirs. After that, the decision was easy.

Sure, I wish my Pariahs could affect units in vehicles, but I'm not going to disrupt everyone else over something so uncertain. I'd rather slug it out on the tabletop than argue over the rulebook.

[Broxus]

If you read the main rulebook FAQ's

Q. Can Psychic powers be used on a unit
embarked on a transport?

A. For simplicity’s sake, the answer has to be a
firm ‘No, unless the psyker himself is in the unit
being transported’.

I think the answer is shown to be no you cant affect friendly or enemy units in a transport. This seems pretty cut and dry to me. This would open up an entire can of worms that doesnt need to happen otherwise.

Do you really want Howling Cyclone to make units break in transports? The way you rule it would have to be a yes, it says all units within 18" must take a morale test or fall back. This isnt a psychic shooting attack so it would fall into the same group of powers.

Also, Chain Lightning would effect units in transports do you really want this?

On a side note, for those who say hey you dont get cover saves against Tervigon's coming out of the ground because it isnt a shooting attack then under those same context's no one will get any cover saves against Njal Stormcallers Lord of Tempests effects.

If for some reason FAQ's said that these are the cases on these two topics wow, Njal just became the most powerful man in 40k. Note that his powers are not psychic either.

I can see it now, put Njal in a LR move him foward and try to make all the enemy squads come running out
of their transports from suffering 25% casulities from Chain lighting and even instant killing T4 guys. If that doesnt work just make them run out of the transports with Howling Cyclone.

Bah

Broxus

[Nabterayl]

Okay, Broxus, you didn't read the rest of the thread. Can't say I blame you for that. But let me point out two things you would have noticed if you did:

1. Spirit Leech is not a psychic power. Maybe it should be. It isn't.

2. Howling Cyclone, Chain Lightning, and all the rest of the Lord of Tempests powers only affect models in Njal's line of sight. It says so right under "Lord of Tempests" on page 53. This is the reason we're being so careful to distinguish between the location of the unit and the location of its models.

If transported models count as being everywhere the transport's hull is, then you're absolutely right, we have a number of very weird consequences, not least of which is that Lord of Tempests affects embarked units. If Njal could see the transport, he could see the transported models. For this reason among others, it is obvious that embarked models are nowhere on the table, and therefore nobody can draw line of sight to them or measure ranges to them or anything else.

However, it is possible (albeit pretty weird when you first think about it) that although the embarked models have no location, the embarked unit still counts as being where the transport's hull is. Re-read page 66 of the rulebook and this will seem less weird to you. In this case, Lord of Tempests does not affect embarked units, because, although Njal can see the unit, he cannot draw line of sight to any models in the unit.

[DarkLink]

Okay, Broxus, you didn't read the rest of the thread. Can't say I blame you for that. But let me point out two things you would have noticed if you did:

1. Spirit Leech is not a psychic power. Maybe it should be. It isn't.

Actually, I think the implications of the FAQ question are the relevant part rather than the specifics, since Leech isn't a psychic power (as you mentioned).

The FAQ doesn't directly effect Leech. However, it implies that the unit in the vehicle "isn't really there" for targeting purposes. The FAQ might use psychic powers as an explicit example, but I would say that the same manner of dealing with targeting embarked units is assumed to be universal, "for simplicity's sake."

So the FAQ doesn't directly answer the question, but I feel it does implicitly give us a solution.

[Nabterayl]

That's fair, DarkLink and Broxus. If the point is just that we should extrapolate from the FAQ, I can accept that as far as it goes. As I've said, and you've tried to clarify, I do prefer the interpretation that the interior of a transport is its own little essentially-impenetrable little pocket universe (in answer to at least one question you're about to bring up, Ferro, no, it is not obvious to me that pariahs or Culexus assassins affect embarked units).

[Ferro]

Gentlemen, what you've just said has the ring of a satisfactory conclusion... until you realize that it's just a restatement of your initial assumption. You've argued back to your starting place.

I'll be back later, it's dinner time with family.

[Nabterayl]

Well ... of course it is. It's a FAQ. FAQs assume the answer to questions in the rules that have no definitive answer. Isn't that the situation we're in?

[DarkLink]

Well ... of course it is. It's a FAQ. FAQs assume the answer to questions in the rules that have no definitive answer. Isn't that the situation we're in?

Right, I don't think we can get a definite answer. The issue is a result of a gap in RAW, not by poorly worded rules or something like that. We can jump back and forth over the gap all we want, but we won't get a bridge until GW releases a FAQ on the issue.

And personally, I believe that, thanks to the implications of the above psychic power question, they'll probably say that embarked units are protected. But we can't really prove it one way or another.

[Ferro]

Let me try another angle, maybe we can get somewhere:
Shadow in the Warp is not a psychic power. All enemies attempting a psychic test within 12" must take their test on 3d6 and can take Perils of the Warp as normal.

Let's examine a Rune Priest in a Rhino, attempting to Jaws a nearby Tyrant. Is the embarked Rune Priest affected by the Shadow in the Warp?

[Nabterayl]

I appreciate the effort, Ferro, but I'm not sure that gets us anywhere. My gut reaction is yes, but when I probe that gut reaction, it gets me back to the same question I've been asking for a while: do you have a non-building based reason why the rune priest couldn't be shot by an impaler cannon or a smart missile system?

[Ferro]

No Nab, I have nothing else because that's all the rules gave us. It's written in the Buildings section, and it says repeatedly, and implies repeatedly, that Buildings work the same way as Transports. Thus, when it says that units in buildings cannot be shot, just like units in Transports, I take that as simple RAW that units in Transports cannot be shot.

It's: Rules As Written (In the Wrong Section, And Cross-Referenced to be a Pain in the ***)

RAWIWSACRPA. I know it's not as easy to say as 'RAW,' but it's just as legally binding.

[Nabterayl]

I agree wholeheartedly about the implication. Strictly speaking, though, "buildings of all types use aspects of the transport vehicle rules" doesn't tell us that transport vehicles use the building rules. So it isn't RAWIWSACRPA; it's Rules-as-Implied, or Rules-as-Probably-Should-Have-Been-Written. It might even simply be superfluous dicta; the phrase "Units inside a building may not be attacked directly" isn't actually necessary to convey the point that units inside a building may not be the target of attacks (which, c.f. page 80, is what we assume they meant), and it isn't necessary to set up the page 80 template rules, either.

Since we've agreed that we're only debating about what we can draw from the actual rules, that leaves me in an uncomfortable position. It's implied, if you cross-reference pages 79 and 80, that units in a transport cannot be the target of an assault or a shooting attack. But nothing actually says that, and pages 79 and 80 together do not logically require that result. At the table, of course, I'd be more flexible about this, but for the purposes of our discussion, that means the only reason that impaler cannons and smart missiles couldn't directly target an embarked unit is common sense, which is exactly the result we're trying to see if we can avoid.

Which brings us back, in my opinion, to the point at which I re-entered this conversation: there is no right answer. This is a genuine hole in the rules, from which our common sense is the only salvation.

[Ferro]

That was well written, Nab. 'Rules-As-Probably-Should've-Been-Written' is awesome. I sympathize with the gist of what you're saying. But there is a right answer! In the face of an obvious RAW failure, what the rulebook implies becomes the correct interpretation.

Please check this out, it's fantastic:
http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2009/04/40k-fantasy-editorial-raw-vs-rai.html

Strictly for my own benefit now, I'm gunna beat this dead horse.

Strictly speaking, though, "buildings of all types use aspects of the transport vehicle rules" doesn't tell us that transport vehicles use the building rules. You're correct, but this is subtly different than what I'm trying to say. I'm not trying to link a building rule back to transports... The rules say we start with what we know about transports and apply that to buildings. The flow of information is 100% from transports ----> buildings. It says the main difference between buildings and transports is that they're immobile and both players can occupy them. (wouldn't it be a significant difference if units in one could be shot/assaulted but not units in the other? -rhetorical.)

Then it tells us something about buildings that we hadn't seen before in the transport section, but contextually implies it's not new information. You're right that it's a hole in the rules. There is missing information.

What we have is a complete set of rules for buildings, which take as their foundation every aspect of transport rules except for being immobile and promiscuous. The rules for buildings just assume we all already knew that units in transports can't be shot or assaulted. Note, at least to me, that when the rulebook assumes we know something, that's equivalent to outright stating it as fact. It's waay stronger than simply implying that units in transports can't be attacked--it's taking it for granted. If it's good enough for the rulebook, it's good enough for me.

Is it technically RAW? No. Does that undermine it's authority? No. The strength of the implication is enough to make it obvious RAI, and not subjective speculation. We have our 'right answer.'

For the benefit of newcomers to the thread, here's the condensed text:
Building of all types use aspects of the transport vehicle rules. The main difference between them and actual vehicles is that they can't move, and units from either side can go inside. Moving into or out of a building works the same as embarking or disembarking from a vehicle (including emergency disembarkations). All of the normal [transport] rules apply, so only one unit...may occupy a building at one time. The 'transport' capacity of [buildings vary by their size]. Just like some transport vehicles, buildings have fire points that allow units inside to fire out. Units may shoot at or assault an occupied building just as if it was a vehicle. Units inside a building may not be attacked directly, but will be affected in the same manner as units inside a transport vehicle should the building be damaged, and so may suffer damage [when the building explodes] and/or be forced to 'disembark'. [Units up on a parapet/battlement] still count as being in the building though, so cannot be shot or assaulted directly.

That's a lot, and it's thorough. There's no flashing neon sign, but the meaning is clear.

[Nabterayl]

Then it tells us something about buildings that we hadn't seen before in the transport section, but contextually implies it's not new information. You're right that it's a hole in the rules. There is missing information.

What we have is a complete set of rules for buildings, which take as their foundation every aspect of transport rules except for being immobile and promiscuous. The rules for buildings just assume we all already knew that units in transports can't be shot or assaulted. Note, at least to me, that when the rulebook assumes we know something, that's equivalent to outright stating it as fact.
I agree with all of this. Here's the jump it seems like you are making that I am suggesting we don't actually have a warrant for. I agree with you that the building rules clearly assume we know that embarked units cannot be "attacked directly." The question is, is page 79 stating a rule for vehicles, or an implication about the rules for vehicles?

If the unwritten rule is that vehicles are their own little pocket universes and nothing gets in without an explicit authorization, page 79 could still speak as if everybody knew that embarked units cannot be "attacked directly." Similarly, if the unwritten rule is that embarked units have no locations except when generating their own effects, page 79 could still speak as if everybody knew that embarked units cannot be "attacked directly." Or perhaps the unwritten really is just "Embarked units cannot be attacked directly," in which case it would also make sense for page 79 to say what it says.

The point is that because page 79 assumes we know something, we don't actually know what the rule is. The rule that page 79 assumes we know could be anything, so long as, in light of that rule, it is true that embarked units cannot be attacked directly.


That was well written, Nab. 'Rules-As-Probably-Should've-Been-Written' is awesome. I sympathize with the gist of what you're saying. But there is a right answer! In the face of an obvious RAW failure, what the rulebook implies becomes the correct interpretation.

Please check this out, it's fantastic:
http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2009/04/40k-fantasy-editorial-raw-vs-rai.html
I agree with the spirit of this editorial, but I think in this specific case it moves us very quickly into fluff discussions. I don't think there is a clear intent as to the location of an embarked unit, given the published FAQ on psychic powers (<insert BuFFo screed here>). After all, why can't psychic non-shooting attacks, or untargeted psychic shooting attacks, affect units inside a vehicle, if the clear intent is that units but not models are co-extensive with their transport's hull (UBNMACWTTH ;))?

[DarkLink]

Let me try another angle, maybe we can get somewhere:
Shadow in the Warp is not a psychic power. All enemies attempting a psychic test within 12" must take their test on 3d6 and can take Perils of the Warp as normal.

Let's examine a Rune Priest in a Rhino, attempting to Jaws a nearby Tyrant. Is the embarked Rune Priest affected by the Shadow in the Warp?

Rune priest is affected (in my opinion), because the power originates within the range of the Shadow (the hull of the tank). Thus, the psychic test for the power is on 3d6 and whatnot.

[david5th]

i'm not getting involved again.:)

[Dyrnwyn]

In addition, I've gone through the codices and compiled a list of all abilities that can affect units in transports (and some wargear/specials I just happened to look at):

Chaos Daemons: I don't have the codex, but I think a fair assumption is "none".

Chaos Space Marines: None

Daemonhunters: None

Dark Eldar: None

Eldar: Doom

Imperial Guard: None

Necrons: None

Orks: None

Space Marines: None

Space Wolves: Storm Caller, for all the good it does you. Also, very important to note that units in transports benefit from Ragnar's War Howl.

Blood Angels: None, also note that Dante's mask does not affect units in transports.

Dark angels: None

Tau Empire: None

Tyranids: Only The Doom of Malan'tai's special power.

Witch Hunters: Hammer of the Witches


Is this a list of effects that explicitly say they affect units in transports, or a list of things that would affect units in transports if the wording of the rules allows the Doom to affect unit in transports without a specific exception? If it's the latter, you missed quite a few, and included some you shouldn't have.

From what I own -
Necrons - Pariah's Soulless & Psychic Abomination, and Nightmare Shroud

Orks - Wrecking Balls (a unit with 2") and the result of the 'Gah' 3,3 result on the Shokk Attack Gun, KFF.

Also, Hammer of Witches and Doom are specifically excluded from functioning on embarked units as they are psychic powers, and are thus prevented by the FAQ.

My stance is basically, "Not intended to work on embarked units, but does by a quirk of RAW. GaP, it does not, as too much else breaks."

[bob9801]

wow this is a big in depth thread. I am sorry if I don't see the whole picture but I have read 4 whole pages (first 2.5 and last 1.5) and scanned a few more.

I am of the opinion that untargeted things like soul sucker and shadow in the warp effect even embarked models. I say this because as I read it soul sucker and other rules do not need line of sight, the model itself does not need to be measured to only the location of the unit (which appears to be established) and most importantly it isn't even an attack. In soul suckers case, the wounds are suffered from a failed test, not the model with the rule. Shadow in the warp I think is especially in effect because a psyker using an ability has a very specific point when measuring from, which is the fire port of the transport (or building).

I would say for situations I encounter that when measuring to a unit embarked in somthing I would either measure to the center of the thing if practicle (not a 2 foot by 2 foot fortress), or to the nearest fire point.

[setsunakai]

i get alot of "it doesn't affect my army positively so NO!" vibe from this thread

so i will throw 2 big examples of why this ruling will affect alot of armies

New Psychic hoods* and runic weapons, both work exactly the same as spirit leech
- passive non-shooting, non-psychic, non-targeting, aura effects

if spirit leech doesn't affect models inside vehicles then new hoods and runic weapons won't affect casters in transports

*old psychic hoods would still work since they aren't triggered by being within range of a model

but to me it seems very clear cut thanks to this passage in the BRB
Page 66 paragraph 13 line 3 & 4

line 3
"When the unit embarks, it is removed from the table and placed aside, making a note or otherwise marking that the unit is being transported . . . ."

line 4
"If the players need to measure a range involving the embarked unit (except for shooting), this range is measured to or from the vehicle's hull"

[Psaiko]

Hi,

I haven't read through all the pages so this might have been mentionned before...

"The Sarge is acting strangely..." rule from the Parasite of Mortrex (p. 60 codex) states that if an infantry model that fails its tougness test when outflanking while inside a transport... it is assumed that it staggers out before dying and being replaced by D6 ripper swarms.

While I know this is not really an aura is does show us black on white that there is nothing abnormal about powers affecting enemy units inside transports. At least how I see it.

[DarkLink]

Hi,

I haven't read through all the pages so this might have been mentionned before...

"The Sarge is acting strangely..." rule from the Parasite of Mortrex (p. 60 codex) states that if an infantry model that fails its tougness test when outflanking while inside a transport... it is assumed that it staggers out before dying and being replaced by D6 ripper swarms.

While I know this is not really an aura is does show us black on white that there is nothing abnormal about powers affecting enemy units inside transports. At least how I see it.

Well, what it shows us is that when a rule specifically states it affects a unit inside a transport, it affects the unit inside the transport. It doesn't really provide an answer for what happens when a rule doesn't specifically state it affects a unit inside a transport.

[setsunakai]

the rules for the parasite for embarked units isn't giving the ability permission to use it on model inside transports, it does however state how to resolve this ability when it does affect a model embarked inside a transport.

it's inferred to work on units inside transports because of the inclusion on how to resolve it when it DOES happen

it's also written so you don't have the rippers occupying the same transport as the model who died

*edit* his special rule supports the theory that the DoM ability works on units embarked in transports :D

[DarkLink]

the rules for the parasite for embarked units isn't giving the ability permission to use it on model inside transports, it does however state how to resolve this ability when it does affect a model embarked inside a transport.

it's inferred to work on units inside transports because of the inclusion on how to resolve it when it DOES happen

it's also written so you don't have the rippers occupying the same transport as the model who died

*edit* his special rule supports the theory that the DoM ability works on units embarked in transports :D

Stating to resolve the ability against models in a transport is exactly the same thing as explicitly stating that it can affect models in a transport for this particular ability. It doesn't imply anything about DoM.

[Bean]

True enough, Dark Link. This seems to be a common error--presuming that a specific note about the functioning of one ability implies something about other abilities at all.

That being said, the DoM doesn't need any such implication. The rules for this one are clear, and the Doom does affect units in transports.

[DarkLink]

True enough, Dark Link. This seems to be a common error--presuming that a specific note about the functioning of one ability implies something about other abilities at all.

That being said, the DoM doesn't need any such implication. The rules for this one are clear, and the Doom does affect units in transports.

No, I don't think the rules are clear. If they were, there wouldn't be 18 pages of arguments over them:p.

[Tynskel]

Happy to elaborate. The basic rule is that units embarked in transports are removed from the board. Thus, they are not on the board to be affected by anything (of affect anything, for that matter). Specific rules do overwrite the general, so we have the case that an IG commander in a Chimera can give orders, and we have a rule that says you measure distance from anywhere on the hull. Now, clearly, the IG commander is not the size of a Chimera, so we're abstracting his location because a specific rule tells us to do so.

The Doom of Malan'tai has no such specific rule, which leaves us with the general case. Thus, for the purpose of the Soul Sucking, units in transports are off the table.
Sooooooo, by your ruling:

Straken's Command bubble does not work when he's in a transport: He's off the table

Your Runic Weapon cannot negate a psychic power while in a transport: He's off the table

I could go on and on and on. I think this is really a bogus argument, unless ALL other 'special abilities' follow the same standards.

[Nabterayl]

Out of curiosity, and following up on the earlier point made about psychic powers ... why wouldn't all other "special abilities" work the way JWolf suggests? What's your reasoning?

[Tynskel]

In addition, I've gone through the codices and compiled a list of all abilities that can affect units in transports (and some wargear/specials I just happened to look at):

Chaos Daemons: I don't have the codex, but I think a fair assumption is "none".

Chaos Space Marines: None

Daemonhunters: None

Dark Eldar: None

Eldar: Doom

Imperial Guard: None

Necrons: None

Orks: None

Space Marines: None

Space Wolves: Storm Caller, for all the good it does you. Also, very important to note that units in transports benefit from Ragnar's War Howl.

Blood Angels: None, also note that Dante's mask does not affect units in transports.

Dark angels: None

Tau Empire: None

Tyranids: Only The Doom of Malan'tai's special power.

Witch Hunters: Hammer of the Witches
Actually almost every codex has special abilities that can use in transports or effect models in transports:

Psychic Hood

Aura of Despair

Runic Weapon

ect ect

[Sir Biscuit]

Holy crap, I thought this argument had reached a conclusion. :P

I should have mentioned that list was just a list of psychic powers that effect units, and a few abilities I happened to look at. Hardly definitive, and I was disproved a few posts later.

In addition, you can't shoot at a unit in a transport, even if you have a non-LOS weapon- (since I see some people asking, as I did) see post 78 for reasons why. (http://www.lounge.belloflostsouls.net/showpost.php?p=49651&postcount=78)

In addition, the amount of re-argument going on here is ridiculous. There's too many of the same arguments going on, and as a plea for all the people who have been duking it out this whole time, either read the backlog or GTFO newcomers.

In addition, it's obvious that by RAW the DOOM affects units in transports. The rulebook is explicit. If players need to measure a range involving the embarked unit, the range is measured to or from the vehicles hull. Page 66. End of story. I know that there's no rules for falling back out of transports, and it may not be RAI, but by RAW the DOOM gets you, and everyone needs to get over it. Seriously, it's not that bad. It'll most certainly be FAQ'd, and it's hardly overpowering anyway. Until then, there is no consensus to be had, and we're all better of fudging to rules into working and waiting for the fix. If you think you can find an exact ruling for this issue by the book, you're in for disappointment.

[Nabterayl]

In addition, you can't shoot at a unit in a transport, even if you have a non-LOS weapon- (since I see some people asking, as I did) see post 78 for reasons why. (http://www.lounge.belloflostsouls.net/showpost.php?p=49651&postcount=78)
I think my stance on the whole Spirit Leech thing is pretty clear by now, but I'm still not really satisfied with the post 78 explanation. It's true enough that the shooting rules require you to draw line of sight to a model in the target unit. That makes it clear, however, that it is the unit, not any models in the unit, that is your target (the casualty rules reinforce this point).

So how are we to interpret weapons that don't require line of sight? Surely the only way to interpret them is that, unlike other weapons, they don't require line of sight to a model in the target unit in order to be able to shoot that unit, and merely have to be within range of the target unit in order to fire. This has to be the rule for non-LOS weapons, whether we're shooting at units whose models on the table or no, right?

So ... the post 78 explanation doesn't really convince me. There may be other reasons you can't shoot units in transports with a no-LOS weapon, but I don't think post 78 contains any of them.

[Sir Biscuit]

Please look at the shooting rules, page 15.
"2: Check Range. At least one target model must be within range of the weaponry of your firing
models."

In addition, page 17:
"When you're checking range, simply measure form each firer to the nearest visible model in the target unit."

Emphasis mine.

We know that units in transports are not on the tabletop, so it is impossible for a unit that is embarked on a transport to be within range of the attack... he's just not there! It's impossible to measure to any actual model in the squad, and therefore the attack misses. It comes back to the distinction of targeting models VS targeting units, which I believe has been covered already.

Not only do I believe this interpretation is correct, by RAW, but I believe this one makes sense as well. You can't draw line of sight to any actual members of the unit because it is encased entirely within an armoured shell... so you can only shoot the armoured shell. This one is clean, at least.

[gcsmith]

Hmm i just like to say. Is fluff based on rules or rules based on fluff. Either way its intention with the fact it drained a craftword, Should imply that RAI it can drain vehicles, RAW does support it, no matter how a local person says BEING IN A VEHICLE TURNS YOU INTO A VEHICLE.

Also JWolf Units in vehicles are not off the table. Its misunderstanding of the wording. Models are Units are not. The rules specifically state that if any mesurment is required to the unit measure to the hull. This gives a unit a position. After all units need to be on the board to capture objectives. So they shouldnt be able to from a transport. They can so are on the table.

[HsojVvad]

Ok, I am a newb here. Please explain a few things to me. If the units are not on the table top, how can those units inside a vechicle fire their weapons then? How can a phychic hood be used if they are not on the table? So next time I play a game, I tell my opponent who hides his scared SM inside a tank that he can't fire his weapons or use his Phychic hood because the models are not on the table.

Also if the units are not on the table, how the hell do they ever get out of the tank or vechicle? If they supossebly start on the players side at the begining of the game, and the tank moves onto my side on turn 2 or 3, how do they get out? If they were never on the board, then they could have never travelled over from his side of the board to mine.

I don't get this, they were never on the board thing people are talking about. Please bear with me, I am still new to the rules.

[Ferro]

HsojVvad, and others: the argument goes like this--
1) In two places in the rulebook (embarking p66 and embarking in buildings p79) it tells us that when a unit embarks it is removed from the table.
2) Once removed from the table, a unit is not a valid target for any externally generated game mechanic, be it shooting, abilities, effects, special rules, whatever.
3) However, the embarked unit is able to initiate actions of its own by virtue of specific rules in the RB, FAQ and codecii. Such as: shooting, disembarking, capturing objectives, issuing orders, using any psychic power, etc.

The embarked unit can suffer consequences of its own actions, such as Gets Hot and Perils of the Warp, but in general it is not possible for anything to 'get in' from the outside. If this argument is correct, Shadows of the Warp, Runic Weapons, and Psychic Hoods (and any other such 'area of effect' ability) are not able to interact with an embarked unit.

This argument rests on point number 2 above, and the unsupported assumption that if models are 'set aside' the unit becomes untouchable.

It's my argument that #2 above is a relic of a previous rule-set, and is not supported by anything in the 5th ed rules. Quite the contrary, a clean reading of the rulebook makes it plain that in all respects an embarked unit is considered to be in the transport, on the table, still in play. They gain certain protections by virtue of being embarked (cannot be shot or assaulted/or at least no LOS to them--depending on which version of this defense you endorse), but these protections do not extend to the infinite and cover any-and-everything.

There. That is the gist of this 18 page thread. got it? :)

[N.I.B.]

It's kinda ridiculous to hit guys in transports for the points cost of that character.
Jaws of the World Wolf is kinda ridiculous, killing expensive MC's for that meager a cost and effort. And you can have several JotWW in the same army! Surely it can't be legal?

> Spirit Leech, Oh noes, Transport/Tankhammer might get a slight nerf by a single unit in a single army that will be killed after the first turn it drops! What to do, what to do!!??

The way I want to see Spirit Leech faqed is to allow it to affect embarked units but state that they wont have to take morale tests for 25% casualties. Can't see the Doom being taken to a tournament otherwise (if it can't affect embarked units).

I can't see why you should get Cover Saves from a non-corporeal soul-sucking area effect either. It affects the area in front of the shelter you're using. It affects the area behind the shelter. It's not shooting. It doesn't require LOS. For the same reason I don't see some inches of vehicle hull saving you from Shadow in the Warp. If that would be the case, wouldn't you be even safer in a building with even thicker walls?

[Nabterayl]

I can't see why you should get Cover Saves from a non-corporeal soul-sucking area effect either. It affects the area in front of the shelter you're using. It affects the area behind the shelter. It's not shooting. It doesn't require LOS. For the same reason I don't see some inches of vehicle hull saving you from Shadow in the Warp. If that would be the case, wouldn't you be even safer in a building with even thicker walls?
No reason a human being should be able to dodge a 10" Destroyer weapon, either, but imperial assassins can do it. I'm all for common sense house rules, but without one, the save rules are the save rules.

EDIT: I can't tell if your point is that Spirit Leech should ignore cover saves, or that units aren't entitled to a cover save from being in cover on the grounds that Spirit Leech isn't a shooting attack and thus the Doom is not a "firer." The latter seems perfectly reasonable to me, but there are ways to get a cover save that have nothing to do with being in cover, and I don't see why, from a RAW standpoint, Spirit Leech would ignore those saves.

[BuFFo]

Models always get a save in this game when they suffer wounds.

It takes a special rule to get rid of it.

The Doom's Aura only removes the 'Armor Save', but you are sill left with IS and CS.

[david5th]

Just like to add that while i was on the phone to GW about an order that had not arrived despite upgraded p&p ( thats another thing entirely ) and i thought i would ask the question whether spirit leech affected embarked units. The response was...

" It cannot affect them as they are no longer on the table. This is the same as other psychic attacks. "

Those were his words not mine so DON'T SHOOT THE MESSENGER PLEASE!

[j78]

Those were his words not mine so DON'T SHOOT THE MESSENGER PLEASE!

i dunno, can i target you if you only exist to me on the internet? will you get a cover save? what about if i think really hard, will that get you?

[DarkLink]

Just like to add that while i was on the phone to GW about an order that had not arrived despite upgraded p&p ( thats another thing entirely ) and i thought i would ask the question whether spirit leech affected embarked units. The response was...

" It cannot affect them as they are no longer on the table. This is the same as other psychic attacks. "

Interesting, but personally what I expected. Some people may not buy it, since it's only an answer over a phone, but I bet this'll be what they put in their eventual errata/faq.

[Nabterayl]

what about if i think really hard, will that get you?
That depends on whether or not you're within 6" of the internet.

[gcsmith]

The person obv doesnt understand its not a psychic power lol

[Shavnir]

The person obv doesnt understand its not a psychic power lol

Honestly anymore I'm convinced GW is about the least valuable resource when it comes to rules for their own game.

[j78]

That depends on whether or not you're within 6" of the internet.

i moved my chair closer.

but if he's not logged in, he's not techincally "on the internet" right? i mean, do we remove him from the internet when he logs off? does anyone have an FAQ?

[HsojVvad]

@ Ferro, thanks for the explanation. That is what I was thinking. I think from reading the interent forums, lots of people here still have the mentality of 3rd and 4th edtion rule set and apply them to 5th edtion. I think lots of 4th edtion players havn't really read the 5th edtion rules because of lots of similarities to 4th edtion that they assume rules work this way because it was the way it was done before and will not accept it could have changed.

[Nabterayl]

While that's probably true, HsojVvad, I'm not sure this is a situation of people just not reading 5th edition. 4th edition didn't actually say what happened to embarked models, or how to deal with them. Nothing said embarked models were taken off the table, or that embarked models couldn't be seen, or shot, or assaulted, or any of that stuff - players just had to use their common sense to infer it.

While it doesn't take a lot of common sense to infer that you can't have a tac squad embark on a Rhino and still keep the models on the table ("But nothing in the 4e rulebook said I couldn't be in two places at one time!" wails the random rules lawyer), it was actually pretty tricky to determine, from the text of the 4e rules, that you couldn't shoot embarked units. I'm pretty sure this (or its equivalent in 3e or 2e) is the genesis of the unwritten rule that units in transports are simply out of play unless a rule specifically allows them to do something.

The trouble with the 5e rules is that it doesn't actually tell us anything to the contrary, and I think a lot of players quite reasonably ask why we should assume that a rule that wasn't written in 4e has gone away simply because it isn't written in 5e either. It doesn't help that GW appears to have adopted the old unwritten 4e rule in at least some cases. How else to explain the FAQ that Hammer of the Witches doesn't affect psykers in transports?

I'm still sticking with the "there is no RAW answer" position.

[DarkLink]

I'm still sticking with the "there is no RAW answer" position.

Me too.

I think people at GW HQ gets into a position where they really do know RAI, unlike us, which makes it tough to see gaps in RAW in cases like this. They write something, and someone comes to a conclusion different from what they intended, and they just think "what are those people smoking?"

Regardless, that phone call just busted anyones chances of me letting them kill my embarked units with Leech, unless an FAQ/Errata comes out saying that they can do it.

[gcsmith]

Customer Helpline shouldnt affect u darklink. after all customer helpliners often dnt play the hobby, :p hopefully next year ill be working at head office, if cambridge uni dsnt accept me but notingham does :p

[N.I.B.]

EDIT: I can't tell if your point is that Spirit Leech should ignore cover saves, or that units aren't entitled to a cover save from being in cover on the grounds that Spirit Leech isn't a shooting attack and thus the Doom is not a "firer." The latter seems perfectly reasonable to me, but there are ways to get a cover save that have nothing to do with being in cover, and I don't see why, from a RAW standpoint, Spirit Leech would ignore those saves.

It doesn't say so directly as far as I can find it, but it does imply it multiple times on page 21 and page 22.

Firstly, cover is only discussed in the chapter about shooting (and then again in the shooting sections of different unit types such as monstrous creatures and vehicles).

First box on page 21 says ""The great thing about cover saving throws is that they are not affected by the Armour Piercing value of the attacking weapon". Only shooting weapons have an AP value.

second box of text: "Cover is basically anything that is hiding a target or protecting it from incoming shots". Again, incoming shots or hiding (for los of the firer's purpose).

Below the cover chart, 'when are models in cover?', it says " When any part of the target model's body is ovscured from the point of view of the firer, the target model is in cover." The 'target model' actually speaks for the doom's benefit, as it doesn't target, let alone target models, but the main point here is "from the pov of the firer" - ie someone shooting.

More of the 'firer's point of view' and 'stop the shots' is to be found on the right column of page 21, again referring only to shooting attacks. On page 22 it makes some exceptions and once again only points to shooting attacks.

So I say it's fair to assume it only counts for shooting attacks. In any case, it doesn't count for the doom, because for cover you need a target model. The doom affects units, not models (which are not interchangable terms), and the doom doesn't target anything, so it's circumventing cover saves quite nicely.

[Nabterayl]

So I say it's fair to assume it only counts for shooting attacks. In any case, it doesn't count for the doom, because for cover you need a target model. The doom affects units, not models (which are not interchangable terms), and the doom doesn't target anything, so it's circumventing cover saves quite nicely.
You're conflating "being in cover" with having a cover save. They aren't the same thing. It is possible to get a cover save without being in cover, and it is possible to be in cover without getting a cover save. Being in cover is simply the most common way to get a cover save.

Spirit Leech doesn't ignore cover saves. In order to ignore cover saves, a wounding effect must specifically say that it ignores cover saves. What Spirit Leech does do is prevent most units from getting a cover save in the first place.

I agree with you that models are not entitled to claim a cover save against Spirit Leech for being in cover. This is because you are only entitled to claim a cover save for being in cover if certain things are true about the firer's view of you, and as Spirit Leech is not a shooting attack, the Doom is not a firer. So although a victim of Spirit Leech may be in cover, it does not get a cover save for being in cover, and because it does not get a cover save for being in cover, it obviously cannot take a cover save for being in cover.

However, nothing in Spirit Leech's rules says that Spirit Leech ignores cover saves themselves (contrast with page 39, "models do not get cover saves against any wounds suffered in close combat"). The nature of Spirit Leech prevents units from getting a cover save from being in cover, but if the unit has a cover save from some other source, it can still take advantage of the save. For instance, an ork kustom force field provides units within 6" with a 5+ cover save. Units under a KFF are not in cover; they simply have a cover save. This would work against Spirit Leech. Similarly, going to ground confers a 6+ cover save, not because a unit that has gone to ground is in cover, but because page 24 says they get a 6+ cover save, period. That would also work against Spirit Leech.

[N.I.B.]

You're right of course, there are exceptions. I'm just getting into 40K and trying to get my head around the ruleset.

[Nabterayl]

No problem. A lot of players confuse being in cover with having a cover save. While most of the time that doesn't do any harm, there are cases (such as this) where it's important to remember the distinction.

[david5th]

i dunno, can i target you if you only exist to me on the internet? will you get a cover save? what about if i think really hard, will that get you?

I only exist on the internet.;)

[Zijan]

No problem. A lot of players confuse being in cover with having a cover save. While most of the time that doesn't do any harm, there are cases (such as this) where it's important to remember the distinction.

Interestingly, models in close combat could claim a cover save, if the rulebook didn't specifically state that models in close combat are unable to. I think this reinforces the idea that cover saves may be taken against wounds caused by Spirit Leech. All in all, I feel it is safe to say that if a wound is caused, cover saves may be taken, unless otherwise stated.

[Shavnir]

As JWolf said in the begining, this is the common sense arguement. We have a clear president in the 40k rules FAQ disallowing the wording of psychic powers effecting units in vehicles (i.e. Eldar Doom)..

So what you're saying is "I only read the first two posts and clearly there have been no interesting relevations in the last 20 pages"?

Yeap, thought so.

[Jardin]

The response was...

" It cannot affect them as they are no longer on the table. This is the same as other psychic attacks. "

Those were his words not mine so DON'T SHOOT THE MESSENGER PLEASE!

As JWolf said in the begining, this is the common sense arguement. We have a clear president in the 40k rules FAQ disallowing the wording of psychic powers effecting units in vehicles (i.e. Eldar Doom).

As far as I am concerned, this is a closed case awaiting a FAQ to state the obvious, that this would not efffect units in transports.

And as for people saying "its not allowed because it would impact my army negatively", I'm willing to counter with, why are the 'nid players so hard over on this when they just got a new codex with a bunch of tank cracking power?

The common sense backed up by president is transport vehicles are for the sole purpose of protecting the occupants and only where it is specifically stated that a rule bypasses a vehicle should it be allowed.

As for me, i'm gonna say no and if the nid player wants to argue I'll let the dice decide.

[DarkLink]

So what you're saying is "I only read the first two posts and clearly there have been no interesting relevations in the last 20 pages"?

Yeap, thought so.

So what you're saying is "I'm going to assume that this guy's comment means he's lazy and uninformed, and I'm not going to give him the benifit of the doubt, even though he is simply mentioning something he felt was relevant?"

I hope you didn't intend to sound rude:rolleyes:.

[Shavnir]

So what you're saying is "I'm going to assume that this guy's comment means he's lazy and uninformed, and I'm not going to give him the benifit of the doubt, even though he is simply mentioning something he felt was relevant?"

I hope you didn't intend to sound rude:rolleyes:.

I assure you if my intent was to sound rude it would be obvious. Anyways it just seems like a classic case of Hanlon's Razor.

[DarkLink]

I assure you if my intent was to sound rude it would be obvious. Anyways it just seems like a classic case of Hanlon's Razor.

No worries. Tone doesn't carry very well over the internet. I kinda like the idea "never attribute to malice what can be attributed to stupidity (aforementioned Razor), and never attribute to stupidity what can be attributed to miscommunication".

[gcsmith]

Why do people after 21 pages still refer to soul leech as a psychic power?

[Kloud]

Spirit Leach cannot affect vehicle units. While Embarked, your troops are part of a vehicle unit.

Like an IC joins a unit, the unit joins with it's transport when they embark, and become one unit.

Does that seem reasonable?

[gcsmith]

Actually they dnt becme a vehicle unit, They co exist but not ONE unit. Otherwise When the vehcile died they would auto die??????

[Shavnir]

Listen moron...does that sound rude enough? Because my intent is to be. How about you go back and read the 21 pages and see that I have posted half a dozen times citing FAQ president in this thread. I understand the issues very well and you have made no counter argument whatsoever other then "your stupid" through quotting someone in a pithy way. What I am saying is simply that JWolf's post is the most common sensical in this thread and now we have someone from GW who gives a common sense answer and still people want to quible over the RAW when, as far as I'm concerned, we are awaiting a FAQ that will counter this. How about you add something positive or STFU you troll.

Ah I had you confused with a couple other people that came in with "I didn't read past the second post but...". Apologies for that.

JWolf's post is common sensical but it doesn't really address the problem of why it wouldn't work. In fact near as I can tell the only major argument against it working is the currently unsupported in the rules case of a unit failing a morale test while in a vehicle (a case I'd like to point out that with a couple casualties in a marine squad, 2 firing ports and some plasma can already happen) so I'm not really sure what your point here is. Its perfectly fine for you to say "I don't think that works" but aside from some arguing back and forth as to the implicit meaning in "removed from the table" and other such phrases we're just going to be going in circles here.

[Jardin]

I assure you if my intent was to sound rude it would be obvious. Anyways it just seems like a classic case of Hanlon's Razor.

How about you go back and read the 21 pages and see that I have posted half a dozen times citing FAQ president in this thread. I understand the issues very well and you have made no counter argument whatsoever other then "your stupid" through quotting someone in a pithy way. What I am saying is simply that JWolf's post is the most common sensical in this thread and now we have someone from GW who gives a common sense answer and still people want to quible over the RAW when, as far as I'm concerned, we are awaiting a FAQ that will counter this.

[Kloud]

Actually they dnt becme a vehicle unit, They co exist but not ONE unit. Otherwise When the vehcile died they would auto die??????

As long as they co exist, they have become a single unit, just like an IC co exist with a squad to become a single unit.

when a vehicle co exsist with a squad they become a single unit, with a vehicle as part of it, thus "A vehicle unit".

When the vehicle is destroyed, there is potential to wound some of the models it was co exsiting with, but they don't outright die. A unit of infantry wouldn't just sudenly die if it was attached to an IC who got killed.

So, my argument stands.

An Embarked squad in a vehicle is a vehicle unit.

[Shavnir]

As long as they co exist, they have become a single unit, just like an IC co exist with a squad to become a single unit.

when a vehicle co exsist with a squad they become a single unit, with a vehicle as part of it, thus "A vehicle unit".


That's a pretty incredible logical leap there. As an aside if they are a single unit why can they split their fire?

[The other guy]

Before you ask, no i havent read all 22pages.

because Rules as Witten are very unclear here, we must turn to Rules as Intended.

It sounds like Doom is able to such the life force / souls out of things around him. (see that poor Final Fantasy "The Spirits within" movie for an example of Close combat soul sucking)

How does hiding behind a wall prevent your soul being sucked? This is the question. Can you give me a good reason why a piece of concrete protects you when your own Terminator armour cannot?

Can you give me a reason why a piece of metal on the side of a Rhino protects you from having your soul sucked out?
(again i refer to that lousy movie where the spirits regularly just phased through buildings and vehicles stealing the souls of those inside it)

so, for RaI, yes the Doom can steal souls from anything, in cover or not.
(however, i believe that anything with the "Soulless" special rule should automatically be immune to Doom)

[Jardin]

Ah I had you confused with a couple other people that came in with "I didn't read past the second post but...". Apologies for that.

JWolf's post is common sensical but it doesn't really address the problem of why it wouldn't work. In fact near as I can tell the only major argument against it working is the currently unsupported in the rules case of a unit failing a morale test while in a vehicle (a case I'd like to point out that with a couple casualties in a marine squad, 2 firing ports and some plasma can already happen) so I'm not really sure what your point here is. Its perfectly fine for you to say "I don't think that works" but aside from some arguing back and forth as to the implicit meaning in "removed from the table" and other such phrases we're just going to be going in circles here.

First of let me appologize for the tone of the last post. My bad it has been edited. My misjudgement and a little too early to be posting.

I agree whole heartedly that the RAW would have the DoM effect a unit in a transport and should that unit break it would die in place as there is no way for it to retreat.

What I am saying is that the RAW would also have the Eldar Doom effect units in transports, however this was specifically called out and disallowed in the rules FAQ.

I probably should have been clearer in my original post to say, "What I believe will happen is that the FAQ will disallow it as it did with psychic powers effecting units in transports."

[HsojVvad]

I am so confused now, on who is talking about what. When everyone says refer to my last post back so and so pages ago, I can't keep up with who says what. I guess thats me, I get confused easily.

Some people says we have to wait for a GW FAQ. What if GW dosn't FAQ this? Then what? For some reason if GW does FAQ it, it will go against the Tyraind and not effect units in a transport just because GW dosn't want thier precisous SM weakend. I guess we can go by RAI then, SM have to be stronger lol. I am kidding there :D

Again I said it before, I will say it again, I find it funny how people play their SM hiding in tanks. Dosn't anyone else find it funny SM have to cower and hide all the time in 5th edtion?

AS to the the poster who said units in a Vehicle become one, I almost bought your arguement about that, untill someone said if they become one unit, then all units should auto die. Then you have to make an excuse on how they take wounds from explosions instead. All you are doing is making the rules appropriate for yourself. We almost all came to an agreement saying, yeah you are right, the units are one, but then you had to change the rules again so the units inside don't auto die. Basically you are saying they are not one unit because they don't auto die. You are picking and choosing what rules apply to you. Are they one unit or not? If they are one uint then they ALL Die. If they are not one uint then they take rolls for explosinons then. If they can take rolls for explosions, then they are not one unit and should be able to be picked out by Soul Leach.

Basically you are making all the rules to side for yourself and unwilling to give the benifiit of the doubt to your opponent.

[Shavnir]

Before you ask, no i havent read all 22pages.

At least you're upfront about it :p


Can you give me a reason why a piece of metal on the side of a Rhino protects you from having your soul sucked out?

Faraday Cage.


As long as they co exist, they have become a single unit, just like an IC co exist with a squad to become a single unit.

when a vehicle co exsist with a squad they become a single unit, with a vehicle as part of it, thus "A vehicle unit".

When the vehicle is destroyed, there is potential to wound some of the models it was co exsiting with, but they don't outright die. A unit of infantry wouldn't just sudenly die if it was attached to an IC who got killed.

So, my argument stands.

An Embarked squad in a vehicle is a vehicle unit.

Oh one other good question. If they are part of the same unit can I wrap shots onto the unit? If I have 16 bolter hits and 2 meltagun hits on my rhino can I put the meltaguns and all but 2 bolter shots on the troops inside and 2 bolters on the rhino? I don't think you've thought your "join the unit like an IC" thing all the way through.

[BuFFo]

I am so confused now, on who is talking about what. When everyone says refer to my last post back so and so pages ago, I can't keep up with who says what. I guess thats me, I get confused easily.

Some people says we have to wait for a GW FAQ. What if GW dosn't FAQ this? Then what? For some reason if GW does FAQ it, it will go against the Tyraind and not effect units in a transport just because GW dosn't want thier precisous SM weakend. I guess we can go by RAI then, SM have to be stronger lol. I am kidding there :D

Again I said it before, I will say it again, I find it funny how people play their SM hiding in tanks. Dosn't anyone else find it funny SM have to cower and hide all the time in 5th edtion?

AS to the the poster who said units in a Vehicle become one, I almost bought your arguement about that, untill someone said if they become one unit, then all units should auto die. Then you have to make an excuse on how they take wounds from explosions instead. All you are doing is making the rules appropriate for yourself. We almost all came to an agreement saying, yeah you are right, the units are one, but then you had to change the rules again so the units inside don't auto die. Basically you are saying they are not one unit because they don't auto die. You are picking and choosing what rules apply to you. Are they one unit or not? If they are one uint then they ALL Die. If they are not one uint then they take rolls for explosinons then. If they can take rolls for explosions, then they are not one unit and should be able to be picked out by Soul Leach.

Basically you are making all the rules to side for yourself and unwilling to give the benifiit of the doubt to your opponent.

Holy Christ.... All I have to say is, spell check dude... :(

Do not worry. GW doesn't release FAQs. A bunch of gamers up in Chicago are the ones who write the FAQs, and I can promise you that they are fully aware of this situation.... This issue will get answered!

[yergerjo]

Honestly, I don't like the idea of DoM affecting things in transports any more than the next guy, but fine. Deal with it.

It's not THAT bad. It has a 6" range. The DoM is Toughness 4, isn't immune to instant death; sure it has a 3+ Invulnerable save...how often do Marines fail their basic 3+ armor save...all too often.

Just shoot the thing! Enough High strength shots and it will be gone (Statistically 1 out of 3)

If you MUST get near it, then use something with a decent Invul save...it disallows Armor, not invulnerable saves. (I'd almost want to claim cover, being in a transport just to argue a little protection...but I can live without it.)

Oh no, a new codex comes out which forces us all to rethink how we play or approach certain things...geez people, quit being a bunch of whiners. I hope that the FAQ DOES rule in favor of the roaches...

[DarkLink]

because Rules as Witten are very unclear here, we must turn to Rules as Intended.

so, for RaI, yes the Doom can steal souls from anything, in cover or not.
(however, i believe that anything with the "Soulless" special rule should automatically be immune to Doom)

How do you know what RAI is? Have you spoken with Cruddance, and gotten his take on this whole thing? One of the other GW rules writers? Any GW employee?

RAI doesn't stand up, because it is entierly subjective. RAI is no more than an attempt to make a houserule sound official.

Yes, there is a gap in RAW. But, excluding a single phone call (in which GW denys that Leech can target an embarked unit, contrary to your concept of RAI), we have no evidence of what RAI. And I've seen quite a few people on here who have stated that they think RAI is the opposite of what you think it is. Who do we go with?

All we can do is houserule it. We can't go on to RAI, because we do not know what RAI is. We won't get anything more official than a phone call until a FAQ/Errata comes out.

[Kloud]

I was finally able to get my BRB out of my car.

A vehicle and an embarked squad, are indeed 1 Vehicle unit, and Thus cannot be affected by Spirt Leach.

The embarked squad is not automaticly destroyed when the vehicle is, because there are already rules in place explaining the effects of a destroyed transport on it's passengers.

You cannot Wrap shots around a transport and onto it's embarked squad, as that is one of the Perks of being in an ARMOURED transport.

If the tranport and embarked squad, were not a single unit, A unit that has shot at and destoyed the transport, would not be able to assault the now exposed squad.

Please read the NOTE on page 67 of BRB.

[gcsmith]

They are not one unit, all it says is they may assault, You use that to say they are one unit..... but then claim they dont die due to an exception in the rule. Well then I see this as an exception to Only assault the unit you shoot. Also How can they use psychic powers, If they become one unit they lose leadership value as per vehicle rules and as such CANNOT cast powers while in the transport. Sorry but i dnt see the they are one unit rule working without bending rules. You can't claim one rule provides an exception to a rule and one doesnt. As I have said the note states .... They may assault the unit if the vehicle was destroyed. As per normal assault rules. It provides an exception to allow it to assault.

Also How does one unit stop being one and become 2. Independent characters never become the unit. They become part but they are still 2 seperate units. They can both give kill points. If they were 1 unit only 1 kill point would be awarded. They would also not be able to be picked out in combat.

Edit. Vehicle rules also state that normaly 2 Units cannot coexist but for purpose of transport they can, It therfore states that coexist and are 2 units.

[Kloud]

They are not one unit, all it says is they may assault, You use that to say they are one unit..... but then claim they dont die due to an exception in the rule. Well then I see this as an exception to Only assault the unit you shoot. Also How can they use psychic powers, If they become one unit they lose leadership value as per vehicle rules and as such CANNOT cast powers while in the transport. Sorry but i dnt see the they are one unit rule working without bending rules. You can't claim one rule provides an exception to a rule and one doesnt. As I have said the note states .... They may assault the unit if the vehicle was destroyed. As per normal assault rules. It provides an exception to allow it to assault.

No exception at all is given to the Assault Rules. And the Assault rule is that you may not assault a unit if you shot at a different unit.

There is no exception to the rules. There are very specific rules for what happens to passengers of a destroyed transport. Finished, That point is solidly defeated.

"Fire Points" are a special rule that allow the use of Psychic powers. Again, no exception to any rule, just a rule that allows you to do something.



Also How does one unit stop being one and become 2. Independent characters never become the unit. They become part but they are still 2 seperate units. They can both give kill points. If they were 1 unit only 1 kill point would be awarded. They would also not be able to be picked out in combat.

They never do stop becoming one unit, they just meet up with another unit to become a larger unit.



Edit. Vehicle rules also state that normaly 2 Units cannot coexist but for purpose of transport they can, It therfore states that coexist and are 2 units.

Where does it say that? I've looked, an I'm not seeing it.

[Rapture]

I haven't played against the Doom yet so I am yet to form a definite opinion on this matter.

However, I don't see how a unit in a transport could possible be targeted because they have no physical presence on the board. They can shoot out because the BRB says how to measure their firing, but there isn't anythings that supports the idea that the measuring location also applies to measuring anything other that the squad's shooting.

So how could the Doom measure distance to the squad it would be attempting to hit?

[Bean]

I was finally able to get my BRB out of my car.

A vehicle and an embarked squad, are indeed 1 Vehicle unit, and Thus cannot be affected by Spirt Leach.

The embarked squad is not automaticly destroyed when the vehicle is, because there are already rules in place explaining the effects of a destroyed transport on it's passengers.

You cannot Wrap shots around a transport and onto it's embarked squad, as that is one of the Perks of being in an ARMOURED transport.

If the tranport and embarked squad, were not a single unit, A unit that has shot at and destoyed the transport, would not be able to assault the now exposed squad.

Please read the NOTE on page 67 of BRB.

There is nothing on page 67 of the BRB, note or otherwise, which says that units in a transport are in the same unit as that transport and are a vehicle unit.

You just made that up, fabricated it out of whole cloth. Here's a note for you: rules that only exist in your imagination are not real rules. Try to remember that in the future.

[Nabterayl]

Page 66 is the headache, Rapture. As it says, "If the players need to measure a range involving the embarked unit (except for its shooting), this range is measured to or from the vehicle's hull."

That certainly sounds like if you have a rule that says "units within X" of Y," and the hull of a transport with passengers is within X" of Y, then the passengers are also within X" of Y. This leads to the somewhat bizarre situation of a unit having a location that is entirely separate from the location of its models, but that's what the book says.

The real question behind this thread, I think, is whether the book really means that effects emanating from the embarked unit (except for shooting) are measured from the transport's hull, or something to that effect. The bare language of page 66 suggests no, so much of this thread (the worthwhile part, anyway) is an attempt to decide whether there's any reason to read that sentence a different way.

For instance, GW apparently doesn't think psychic powers should affect embarked units. What's the rationale for that? Can it be other than the old unwritten 4e rule that units inside a transport cannot be affected by units outside the transport (and, perhaps, vice versa)? I can't think of any other rationale. It's just a FAQ, so it's just the way GW (or at least the part of GW that published the FAQ) thinks the game ought to be played, but the rationale (not the FAQ itself) certainly conflicts with the obvious reading of page 66.

Another troubling thing about page 66 is that it's relatively difficult to figure out why units inside a transport can't be shot or targeted. There's a bit on page 97 that implies that everybody knows this is true, but if you actually go looking for the actual language in the BRB that says, "Units inside a transport cannot be shot," you'll have a hard time finding it. If units outside a transport can affect units inside a transport, as page 66 (by itself) certainly implies, what is to stop impaler cannons and smart missiles from targeting embarked units? Of course everybody agrees that this is not possible, but why? What's the rationale? Clearly, page 66 must be read in conjunction with an unknown something else that prevents passengers from being shot, and it's possible that that something else would affect Spirit Leech as well. A fair amount of time in this thread has been spent trying to figure out what that something else is. The leading contenders are, I think:
The unwritten 4e rule.
Page 97 isn't assuming anything; it's stating an independent rule (which is about buildings, but which we should read as applying to vehicles anyway).

[Bean]

There is rule on page 66 which states quite explicitly that other things can measure to the embarked unit. In fact, it is entirely separate and distinct from the rules for shooting out of a transport. The exact wording is:

"If the players need to measure a range involving the embarked unit (except for its shooting), this range is measured to or from its hull."

So. The Doom needs to measure range to each unit to see if each unit is within six inches. In order to measure range to an embarked unit, it measures to the transport in which the unit is embarked, and that is exactly the sort of situation that this rule handles.

Also, the Doom doesn't target things. It just affects everything in a radius. Bringing targeting into it only confuses the issue unnecessarily.

[The other guy]

How do you know what RAI is? Have you spoken with Cruddance, and gotten his take on this whole thing? One of the other GW rules writers? Any GW employee?

RAI doesn't stand up, because it is entierly subjective. RAI is no more than an attempt to make a houserule sound official.

Yes, there is a gap in RAW. But, excluding a single phone call (in which GW denys that Leech can target an embarked unit, contrary to your concept of RAI), we have no evidence of what RAI. And I've seen quite a few people on here who have stated that they think RAI is the opposite of what you think it is. Who do we go with?

All we can do is houserule it. We can't go on to RAI, because we do not know what RAI is. We won't get anything more official than a phone call until a FAQ/Errata comes out.

WOW! Take a chill pill man! It's only a forum post on a gaming website. No need to get snotty.


[QUOTE=Shavnir;53008]

Faraday Cage./QUOTE]

Ok, that actually is a good reason why Doom would not affect troops in vehicles. I'm changing my view on it from that.
Now all we need is the other 23pages filled with good answers like that!

[Nabterayl]

It's not that hard to figure out why units can't be shot or targeted, Nabterayal, even reading the rules on page 66 as written.

Shooting at a unit requires that the firer be able to see a model in the unit. Further, it requires that a model in the unit be within range of the firer's weapon. Note that both of these reference models, not units. Even if the firer is sufficiently close to the transport, and therefor the unit, it is not sufficiently close to any of the models in the unit, and it's not able to see them.
This is true. Consider, however, the impaler cannon, which "can shoot any target in range, regardless of whether there is line of sight to it or not." Plainly, the firer of an impaler cannon need not be able to see a model in the target unit.

But, one will say, "When you're checking range, simply measure from each firer to the nearest visible model in the target unit!" (p. 17). That will not do. Surely an impaler cannon need not measure range to the nearest visible model in the target unit; that would defeat the point of being able to shoot regardless of line of sight. We will not say to our tyranid opponents, "Yes, you can target a unit that is out of sight, but you're out of range because there are no visible models in that target!"

Surely impaler cannons simply measure distance to the target in the ordinary way - which, in the case of embarked units, is to the hull of their transport, per page 66.

Which brings us squarely back to the something else that must accompany page 66.

[Bean]

It's not that hard to figure out why units can't be shot or targeted, Nabterayal, even reading the rules on page 66 as written.

Shooting at a unit requires that the firer be able to see a model in the unit. Further, it requires that a model in the unit be within range of the firer's weapon. Note that both of these reference models, not units. Even if the firer is sufficiently close to the transport, and therefor the unit, it is not sufficiently close to any of the models in the unit, and it's not able to see them.

Similarly, you can't assault an embarked unit because a successful assault requires that the assaulting model move into base-to-base contact with a model in the target unit. Note again that a certain relationship to a model in the unit is required--simply being 0" away from the unit isn't sufficient.


Saying that issues like these causes confusion or casts doubt on the issue at hand is disingenuous. There is nothing about targeting, shooting, assaulting, or anything else that casts doubt on how the Doom works or suggests that the rule on page 66 fails to function as written. It would be better for everyone if people refrained from further obfuscating the issue by bringing up irrelevant stuff like this.

[Nabterayl]

It's not that hard to figure out why units can't be shot or targeted, Nabterayal, even reading the rules on page 66 as written.

Shooting at a unit requires that the firer be able to see a model in the unit. Further, it requires that a model in the unit be within range of the firer's weapon. Note that both of these reference models, not units. Even if the firer is sufficiently close to the transport, and therefor the unit, it is not sufficiently close to any of the models in the unit, and it's not able to see them.
This is true. Consider, however, the impaler cannon, which "can shoot any target in range, regardless of whether there is line of sight to it or not." Plainly, the firer of an impaler cannon need not be able to see a model in the target unit.*

Surely impaler cannons simply measure distance to the target in the ordinary way - which, in the case of embarked units, is to the hull of their transport, per page 66.

Which brings us squarely back to the something else that must accompany page 66.


But, one will say, "When you're checking range, simply measure from each firer to the nearest visible model in the target unit!" (p. 17). That will not do. Surely an impaler cannon need not measure range to the nearest visible model in the target unit; that would defeat the point of being able to shoot regardless of line of sight. We will not say to our tyranid opponents, "Yes, you can target a unit that is out of sight, but you're out of range because there are no visible models in that target!"

[Bean]

Again, not that hard. The Impaler (and other no-los weapons, presumably) can fire on any target in range regardless of LOS.

I'll let you measure to any model, whether the firer has LOS to it or not, because that's what "regardless of whether there is line of sight to it or not" generally means. It doesn't mean you can obviate the part about being required to measure range to a model--it just doesn't have to be a visible model, because the visible part is being obviated by the no los rule.

A "target" embarked in a transport is still not in range--you still have to measure to a model in the unit, which you can't do. The fact that you can fire on the unit without being able to see any of its constituent models doesn't, in any way, give you permission to fire on a unit in which none of the models are within the weapon's range--even if the unit itself is within the weapon's range.

[Kloud]

There is nothing on page 67 of the BRB, note or otherwise, which says that units in a transport are in the same unit as that transport and are a vehicle unit.

You just made that up, fabricated it out of whole cloth. Here's a note for you: rules that only exist in your imagination are not real rules. Try to remember that in the future.

I will write the paragraph out word for word from BRB

Page 67 Right Above Box about Dedicated Transports

Note: remember that all models in a single unit fire simultaneously, so a squad cannot take out a transport with it's lascannon and then mow down the occupants with their bolters. However, if a transport is destoyed (either result) by a ranged attack, the unit that shot it may assault the now disembarked passengers, if it is allowed to assault according to the assault rules.

1st point

"remember that all models in a single unit fire simultaneously, so a squad cannot take out a transport with it's lascannon and then mow down the occupants with their bolters."

This is not an issue if they are 2 separate units as you can only shoot at one unit or the other if they were two separate units. This alone is a little weak, and not definitive, but onto.......

2nd Point

" However, if a transport is destoyed (either result) by a ranged attack, the unit that shot it may assault the now disembarked passengers, if it is allowed to assault according to the assault rules."

Particular Emphasis on if it is allowed to assault according to the assault rules

Well, one of the Disallowed Assaults (pg 33 of your BRB) I'll quote it "..., a unit that fired in the Shooting phase can only assault the unit that it shot at
-it cannot assault a different unit to the one it previously shot at."

So if the Disembarked passengers are a separate unit from the transport that was just shot out from under them, then clearly the rules for Disallowed Assaults prevent the passengers from ever being assaulted by the unit that shot and destroyed their transport.

However the note on page 67 clearly put that a unit that shot-up and destoyed a transport can now assault the remainder of that unit (the passengers).

Add all this up, and I'm not Imagining rules. Do the Math, and it adds up.

Show me in the BRB where I'm wrong.

[Bean]

I will write the paragraph out word for word from BRB

Page 67 Right Above Box about Dedicated Transports

Note: remember that all models in a single unit fire simultaneously, so a squad cannot take out a transport with it's lascannon and then mow down the occupants with their bolters. However, if a transport is destoyed (either result) by a ranged attack, the unit that shot it may assault the now disembarked passengers, if it is allowed to assault according to the assault rules.


Yep, I read that. It doesn't support any of your claims in any way, and I'll go through and indicate why on a point by point basis.



1st point

"remember that all models in a single unit fire simultaneously, so a squad cannot take out a transport with it's lascannon and then mow down the occupants with their bolters."

This is not an issue if they are 2 separate units as you can only shoot at one unit or the other if they were two separate units. This alone is a little weak, and not definitive, but onto.......


You're certainly right about it not being definitive, but you're right in noting it's a little redundant. Let's see what else you've got.



2nd Point

" However, if a transport is destoyed (either result) by a ranged attack, the unit that shot it may assault the now disembarked passengers, if it is allowed to assault according to the assault rules."

Particular Emphasis on if it is allowed to assault according to the assault rules

Well, one of the Disallowed Assaults (pg 33 of your BRB) I'll quote it "..., a unit that fired in the Shooting phase can only assault the unit that it shot at
-it cannot assault a different unit to the one it previously shot at."

So if the Disembarked passengers are a separate unit from the transport that was just shot out from under them, then clearly the rules for Disallowed Assaults prevent the passengers from ever being assaulted by the unit that shot and destroyed their transport.

However the note on page 67 clearly put that a unit that shot-up and destoyed a transport can now assault the remainder of that unit (the passengers).


Your logic is pretty laughable. Your argument is basically,

1. page 67 says that you can assault a unit that was in a transport you destroyed if you're allowed to assault them

2. you're not allowed to assault them if they weren't in the same unit as the transport

3. page 67 says that you're allowed to assault them

4. therefore the unit that was in the transport must have been in the same unit as the vehicle

The failure, here, is obvious. Two of your premises contradict each other. You base the early part on the argument on the "if it's allowed to assault according to the assault rules" bit, then drop that bit when you use the rule later.

You can't have it both ways. Either the rule on page 67 gives them license to assault them despite the normal rules for assault, or it doesn't give them license to assault at all. Saying that it gives a conditional license and later asserting that it gives an unconditional license, thus proving that the condition is always met is inane, and it's all you've done here.

Personally, I think that the rule on page 67 obviates the normal rule for assault which prevents you from assaulting without assaulting the unit at which you shot, but that's irrelevant, since it--and this rule--have nothing at all to say on the issue at hand.



Add all this up, and I'm not Imagining rules. Do the Math, and it adds up.


I did the math, if by "Do the Math" you meant, "give the matter the modicum of thought necessary to realize that my logic is a joke." Nothing on page 67 adds up to your conclusion. Your logic is fatally, obviously, and even humorously flawed. I'll admit that it looks like you weren't imagining a rule that doesn't exist: you were simply drawing an utterly irrational conclusion from completely irrelevant rules.



Show me in the BRB where I'm wrong.

Show me where in the BRB it says you're right--only take the time to actually look at your "logic" next time, so you don't come out of it looking like an idiot.

edit:
Also, the rules on page 67 never refer to the passengers as the "remainder of that unit" (where "that unit" is the transport.) So, maybe you're both imagining rules and being irrational.

[Kloud]

Quick Summary

I am Arguing that an Embarked unit cannot be affected by Doom because they are joined with the transport and count as a single unit ( A vehicle unit). And Doom cannot affect a vehicle unit.

My views are;

-A Unit is made up of a single model, or several models grouped together. A group of Infantry Models embarked on a transport are definetly grouped with the transport (Which itself is just another model). So, a group of models acting together is a unit.

-An IC is a unit, and a squad is a unit, they can join and form a single unit made from 2 smaller units. A transport is a unit, and is joined by a squad with an IC, you now have a single unit made from 3 smaller units.

Indicators that a transport forms a unit with it's passengers;

-An attacker may assault the passengers of a transport they shot and destroyed. If transport is a separate unit from passengers, you would not be permited to charge as you cannot shoot one unit, and charge another.

-Dedicated Transports are purchassed together with a unit, and Do not take up FoC slots, and are thus, part of the unit.

Nowhere in the BRB does it say that the Squad and it's transport remain 2 separate units, but the BRB isn't clear that thay do form a single unit. However looking over the only examples that are comparable, it would seem to me that counting an embarked squad in a transport is a single vehicle unit, is RAI. And when RAW is completly unclear, we have to fall back to RAI untill we get FAQ.

I am being Rational, I am being Mature, and I would ask the same. If you have an argument saying they do not form a single unit, and you have examples from the BRB proving that, then by all means contribute.

But if ya just wanna call me stupid an Irational, STFU!

[Kloud]

So your Argument is

"I'm right because I say I'm right."

Well if that's the best you can do............

[Bean]

The unit and its transport are separate units.

We know that they are separate units when they are deployed, and while they are acting independently.

There are no rules which state that they become the same unit or join each other as one unit when the unit embarks.

Therefore they do not become the same unit or join each other as one unit when the unit embarks.

Therefor they remain separate units while embarked.

Unlike your argument, my premises are correct. My logic is sound. Nothing in the rules contradict my conclusion.

Your position is based on inference, speculation, and bad reasoning. Mine is based on facts.

Believe what you want, but don't try to claim that you have good reasons for doing so. Nothing you've presented so far even approaches a good reason.

To demonstrate that last point, let's look at the things you say support your conclusion:



-An attacker may assault the passengers of a transport they shot and destroyed. If transport is a separate unit from passengers, you would not be permited to charge as you cannot shoot one unit, and charge another.


As I already demonstrated, this is based entirely on faulty reasoning. The rule on page 67 either is a specific exception to the normal rules for choosing assault targets, or it doesn't actually let them assault the unit that comes out of the transport.

Your reasoning requires that neither of these are true (for which you have no evidence at all), therefor the unit and the transport must be the same unit.

Of course, if we're going from inference, then we see that this reasoning is nonsense. If the unit and the transport were the same unit, you wouldn't need a special rule stating that you could assault them. It would be a given--blowing up the transport would just be like killing any other model in a unit.




-Dedicated Transports are purchassed together with a unit, and Do not take up FoC slots, and are thus, part of the unit.

The fact that it is purchased together with a unit does not mean that a Dedicated Transport is part of the unit. If it did, Dedicated Transports would have to maintain coherency with the rest of the models in the unit, and I don't think anyone (including you) actually plays it that way.

Plus, of course, this says nothing about non-dedicated transports. Would you say that a command squad in a heavy support land raider can be affected by the Doom while a squad in its dedicated rhino cannot?

Or how about this: if a dedicated transport is part of the unit for which it is purchased, but it goes and picks up another unit, does the other unit become part of the first unit? If I shoot at the unit for which the transport is purchased, can you assign wounds to models in the embarked unit? According to you, they're all in the same unit, so I certainly should be able to do so.

Your position is nonsense, and it takes on a modicum of thought to realize it. It has no support from the rules.

A unit which is embarked in a transport and the transport remain separate units. There is nothing to suggest otherwise.

[Bean]

No, it isn't. Did you even read it? Has your imagination gotten the better of you again?

This is the argument I spelled out in my last post:



We know that they are separate units when they are deployed, and while they are acting independently.

There are no rules which state that they become the same unit or join each other as one unit when the unit embarks.

Therefore they do not become the same unit or join each other as one unit when the unit embarks.

Therefor they remain separate units while embarked.

Try responding to my actual argument.

[Kloud]

We know that they are separate units when they are deployed, and while they are acting independently.

This Proves nothing. I can deploy a squad in a transport, or out of a transport. I can even keep a squad in reserves in a transport and make a single reserve roll for the squad, and it will come on in a transport. It can even come on from reserves in a non dedicated transport without rollling separatly for the transport.

Deployment clearly means nothing in this argument, as I can deploy a Transport with a squad in it, and untill they disembark, they all treated as a single entity, a single unit.

And while they are acting independantly?????? While acting independantly of course they are separate units. But once embarked, that independance is gone, and once again, a single unit.


There are no rules which state that they become the same unit or join each other as one unit when the unit embarks.

And there is nothing in the BRB to say or imply that they are not a single unit. or else you would have given me a reference. But why would they have to clarify this? Up untill the Doom, there has been no need to really.

And Just to stir the Pot, Can Doom affect Gun Drones on a Tau tank, or Pirhanna? (Edit I meant the Spirt Leach)

[Bean]

"A unit will usually consist of several models that fight as a group, but it can also be a single very large or powerful model, such as a battle tank, a monstrous alien creature, or a lone hero."

That's the definition of a unit, or as close as the rulebook comes. It's on page 3 of the AOBR rulbook.

At no point do the models in an embarked unit fight as a group with the transport in which they are embarked. Neither are they ever a single very large or powerful model. Thus, they are never a unit.

There: yet more direct support for my position from the rules.

The transport and the unit are indeed separate units by default. No rule ever states or suggests that they join to form a single unit while the one is transporting the other. At no point do they meet any of the criteria for being a single unit.

Again, there is nothing at all in the rulebook which supports your position, and there is plenty that specifically supports mine.


edit:
Also, I'd have to read the rules for the Gun Drones upgrade for Tau vehicles, but I would presume so. What's your point?

Also, given any thought to the problems I proposed for your assertions?

You claim that a Dedicated Transport is part of the unit that purchases it. Does it have to maintain coherency with that unit?

You claim that a unit embarked in a transport is part of the transport's unit. Why can't the embarked unit take hits when the transport is fired upon?

Given both of those claims, you must accept that if a dedicated transport is bought for one unit, but is transporting a second unit, all three are one big unit. And, of course, that if you fired on the part of the unit that was outside the transport (a conundrum in and of itself) that the part inside the transport would be able to take hits.

Got any answers for those?

[Bean]

Somehow, it seems that my post got put in ahead of yours, even though yours was there when I started mine. Not sure, but to see my response, refer to post #240 on the previous page.

Also, Doom is an Eldar psychic power. It cannot affect embarked units, because there is an FAQ which specifically says that embarked units are immune to psychic powers.

The Doom (of Malan'tai) is something else, entirely ;)

edit:
looks like our posts got switched back into their correct spots, so feel free to ignore this.

[Kloud]

Well, I'm just gonna wait for an FAQ.

If I had some extra coin I'd ask you if you cared to make it interesting.

But, I'll tell ya what. I'm hoping to have some Extra Money by the End of this month, if there is still no FAQ by then, we could have someone hold it for us via Paypal or something. Maybe one of the Fly Lords.

If Spirt Leach affects units in transports, you get a new Battalion Box of your choice. If Spirt Leach does not affect units in a transport, I get a Tau Battalion box. $60 bucks each ought to do it. ( I want to start a Tau army this summer.)

[Shavnir]

Kloud, your logic is that a unit in a transport is a vehicle unit correct?

Does that mean tac marines in a rhino can't claim objectives? Because last I checked there was a specific rule about vehicles not being able to claim objectives.

[Bean]

I'm not going to wager on the outcome of an FAQ document from GW.

The answers in those documents bear no correlation whatsoever to the actual rules, so the fact that I am right about what the rules say says nothing at all about what GW will decide to write in their FAQ, if they even bother to address this issue at all.

So, feel free to wait for an FAQ. I will be satisfied to play it the way the rules clearly say to play it in the meantime--even though it means that the Doom will be able to affect my embarked units.

[Rapture]

If the troops inside of a transport from a unit with the transport then wouldn't models who assaulted the transport be able to kill models from the embarked troops squad?

I have read both sides but I don't see how a vehicle and its passengers could be considered a unit at all.

[Nabterayl]

Yeah, uh, Bean's being kind of an *** about it, Kloud, but I also don't think that vehicles and passengers count as a single unit. I hear what you're saying about "otherwise assault," and I admit that your point on that is better than any of the counterarguments I've seen, but I think the rest of the book makes it clear enough that "otherwise assault" is just bad drafting.

[Kloud]

Well, If the Rules for "Spirit Leach" VS a unit Embarked in a transport were clear, I'm guessin we wouldn't have 25 pages arguing about it.;)

No, We will just have to wait for a FAQ. untill then, it will probably be a moot point, as the Doom thingy will likely get gunned down before it can become a problem.

I'm hoping most players are good sportsmen when it does come up in game, and go whichever way to maybe give the guy who's losing a little bit of a break. Afterall, a hard fought close game is alot more fun than a massacre.

[Bean]

Well, If the Rules for "Spirit Leach" VS a unit Embarked in a transport were clear, I'm guessin we wouldn't have 25 pages arguing about it

If only that were true. Unfortunately, it seems that even the simplest and most straightforward of questions often get bogged down by wishful thinking, poor reasoning, and gross misrepresentations of the rules.

The answer to this one is clear and straightforward in the rules. These 25 pages have been, mostly, a handful of inane objections repeated over and over again. That sort of response doesn't indicate than an issue is unclear--it indicates that some people have difficulty accepting reality.

[L192837465]

This thread is HILARIOUS.