Measuring for embarked units

[Madness]

I'm writing this trying to defuse the "YES!" "NO!" "YES!" "NO!" "YES!" "NO!" kinda argument going on in the tDoMSL threads, and in specific I would like to hear Renegade's opinion on this (mostly because the other people opinion on the subject is already known and I would like for him to answer to me and not to them, to start with)

The rulebook at page 66 states

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.


Now, regardless of tDoMSL or other rules, what do you (Renegade) think this rule means?

Can you provide a case in which you feel this rule should be used?

Would you justify the existence of a rule that never sees use?

[Renegade]

Got timed out

[Renegade]

There are a few cases when this rules comes into effect (imo) Take into account what is in the unit and the units abilities, also take in to account what you are saying effects units.

A Rhino on its own does not claim objectives, the unit that it carries can. This would be one use of the rule as it doesn't change what the unit is.

Reason: The scoring unit is within scoring distance as measure. This has not change that that unit being measursed to is a Rhino, the scorring unit is using the Rhinos footprint as its own.

A Rhino does not get access to psychic powers, yet the rules are clear that they can be used inside a vehicle going as far as shooting from fire points. A rule is in effect that effects all psykers needing tests. The vehicle does not have a leadership nor psykic powers, so this is done on the models leadership that is using the power.

None of the above examples change that the unit being measured to is a Vehicle, and is covered by all rules that cover vehicles.

[Madness]

So I can measure the distance of a unit inside a rhino to an objective point. Even if there's no infantry model on the table?

So basically you're saying that I can use the transport hull as proxy for the transported unit?

[gcsmith]

May i just counter a point, time and time again renegade you have mention that the type of the unit is the type of the model being measured to. Therfore the type is a vehicle and vehicles cannot claim an objective.

[Renegade]

May i just counter a point, time and time again renegade you have mention that the type of the unit is the type of the model being measured to. Therfore the type is a vehicle and vehicles cannot claim an objective.The unit type on the table has not changed. The abilities of the unit is and that of the transported are being use, not a change in the Models that is being measured to.


So basically you're saying that I can use the transport hull as proxy for the transported unit? Only with refernce to its location, not that the transport hull is the transported.

[Madness]

So yes, you're saying that I can use a vehicle hull to measure if a troop choice (the vehicle is a dedicated transport) is close to another point, right?

[Renegade]

So yes, you're saying that I can use a vehicle hull to measure if a troop choice (the vehicle is a dedicated transport) is close to another point, right? The Vehicle location and that of the troop being transported are one. So while you would in effect be measuring to a transport vehicle, the rules allow that transpoted unit to take its reference from the vehicle.

[Madness]

So for instance if we take other rules such as the Soulless rule, if I transport a culexus I should be able to measure the range of its ability using the vehicle hull, right?

[Renegade]

So for instance if we take other rules such as the Soulless rule, if I transport a culexus I should be able to measure the range of its ability using the vehicle hull, right? I dont know the exact wording for souless, but if it works in conjunkion without a limiter on the reason for doing so, then I guess it would do that.

[Madness]

"Any unit (friend or foe) with a model within 12" of the Culexus Assassin counts as having Leadership 7, unless it would normally be less than this"

Does this mean that a Soulless model inside a vehicle projects a 12" aura from the vehicle hull?
Also, does it mean that embarked units inside a transport within 12" of the soulless model are affected?

[Renegade]

Also, does it mean that embarked units inside a transport within 12" of the soulless model are affected?As it states any unit, without exception, then most probably yes.

[Madness]

So I can measure where the Culexus assassin unit is using the (let's say for instance) chimera model he's in. Either if he's the active or if he's the passive target.

So why shouldn't the Doom of Malan'tai Spirit Leech use the transport model for its embarked unit? I don't get why are the infantry units inside a vehicle not compelling to that rule.

[The Mystic]

"Any unit (friend or foe) with a model within 12" of the Culexus Assassin counts as having Leadership 7, unless it would normally be less than this"

Does this mean that a Soulless model inside a vehicle projects a 12" aura from the vehicle hull?
Also, does it mean that embarked units inside a transport within 12" of the soulless model are affected?

1- Yes

2- No. As the rule states any unit with a model within 12" is affected. The embarked unit would not have a model in range even though the embarked Unit inside the transport would be. Model location and unit location are seperate distictions.

[Madness]

But a unit is defined (page 3) as a set of models. So a model is a part of a unit. Measurements involving a model are measurements involving a unit (a part thereof) so I'd still say that page 66 applies. But yes, that rule's wording is extremely poor.

[Renegade]

But a unit is defined (page 3) as a set of models. So a model is a part of a unit. Measurements involving a model are measurements involving a unit (a part thereof) so I'd still say that page 66 applies. But yes, that rule's wording is extremely poor. The assasin states any model, which means that any thing with a LD value could also be effected, vehicle or not. Spirit leech make an except to effecting only non-vehicle, so that put it as disputed and not really able to fulfill both the rules of page 3 and page 66.

[Madness]

Yes the Vehicle excluded clause of Spirit Leech is redundant and confusing, so redundant that there might be a point in your qualm, but still a strict (strict to the point of obtuseness I might say) interpretation should allow it am I right?

[Renegade]

interpretation should allow it am I right?Not really, as that would be ignoring both the rule for the Spirit Leech and fo rpage 3.

If it didn't make a point about vehicles, which the power would not harm anyway as it has not Ld value, then I would have no real problem with the way some people see the rules, but it does, so no exception from page 3 of the rules. THats how I see it anyways.

[gcsmith]

Renegade there are vehicles with leadership. see old books like Daemonhunter, or new BA psyker dreadnaught, this stops them hitting the vehicles even with leadership

[Madness]

If we bring opinions on how to treat it fairly I'd use it as half damage (round up) to embarked units, as I previously said, but RAW-wise you're not measuring the distance to a vehicle unit, but to an infantry unit, by the mean of that (newly added) p66 rule.

[gcsmith]

2+ years old isnt new, jusst ignored previously

[Madness]

It's newer than most rules. 5th edition new.

[Renegade]

Even page 66 says that you are measuring to a vehicles hull. Nothing makes what you are measuring to in this situation a non-vehicle.

[Madness]

It says you measure to a vehicle's hull, not that you're measuring to a vehicle unit (or model, for that matter).

[Renegade]

How can measuring to a vehicles hull is covered on page 3, that does make it a vehicle.

I been on the debate for about 24 hours now all in all, I have gone round and round and been called names to boot when some one disagreed.

If I was to meat a player and they had this opposite view, I would agree to a comprimise. The rules either way are iffy and even what I am suggesting is not perfect.

But my stand point for the perpose of the debate is that it does not effect units in transports for all the reasons I have given.

[Madness]

Point is that specific rules override general rules. A rule that tells you you should measure things differently than the usual has precedence said usual method.

[Renegade]

A rule that tells you you should measure things differently than the usual has precedence said usual method. Then we are back to the question: What are you measuring to? The rules still state that it is a vehicles hull. Yes it also the location of the unit, but the wording for the measurement is to a vehicle.

Its not clean, it jerks around and could be made to cut both ways. Neither being absolute given the wording envolved.

[Madness]

You are measuring to the embarked unit, using the vehicle hull as per p66 rule.

[Shavnir]

Then we are back to the question: What are you measuring to? The rules still state that it is a vehicles hull. Yes it also the location of the unit, but the wording for the measurement is to a vehicle.

Its not clean, it jerks around and could be made to cut both ways. Neither being absolute given the wording envolved.

You are measuring to both the vehicle and its occupants. The vehicle is a tank, the occupants are infantry. Both are in range, the effect doesn't do anything to vehicles to it resolves against occupants. Its really cut and dry.

[Madness]

Nope, you're not measuring to the vehicle, as you're not required to, you're measuring to the unit, whose proxy is the vehicle hull.

[Renegade]

Timed out, double post

[Renegade]

You are measuring to the embarked unit, using the vehicle hull as per p66 rule.Indeed, the hull of a vehicle. Which ever way you read it, you are measuring to a vehicle model in the end. I can see the wiggle room being used, but there is nothing in the rules that I can find that meens your measuring to anything different. that is why I have agreed with some examples and not others, its all down to the wording of the rule.

You are at once measuring to the embarked and the hull of a vehicle. What is the unit being measured to?

As I have said before, I was called out to defend this possition, and I can't see any fault with my position other than iffy wording in a rule that could be defined eitherway depending on your own opinion. I say your measuring to a vehicle, as that is what your being asked to do by the rules.

[Madness]

I already stated that I agree on the low quality of the wording used, but from a procedural standpoint you follow instructions and do what you're told, reverse engineering it won't help.

You measure the embarked unit (or model) using the vehicle hull. The vehicle unit/model is not involved.


You are at once measuring to the embarked and the hull of a vehicle. What is the unit being measured to?
The embarked unit. :/

[Renegade]

And I would still say the vehicle, as you are using its hull and referring back to page 3 that means the unit is a vehicle. Though yes you could ignore that the wording has vehicle mentioned in it and say that its the embarked unit, but that doesn't satisfy all the rules being bought in to question, and why, after digging my trench, I am sticking to all rules being satisfied that have to do with this question.

If you backward engineered this and ran it through a data base, I am fairly certain that if it doesn't say error you will land with it being a vehicle as that fits most of the criteria for the unit description all the way through.

[Shavnir]

And I would still say the vehicle, as you are using its hull and referring back to page 3 that means the unit is a vehicle. Though yes you could ignore that the wording has vehicle mentioned in it and say that its the embarked unit, but that doesn't satisfy all the rules being bought in to question, and why, after digging my trench, I am sticking to all rules being satisfied that have to do with this question.

If you backward engineered this and ran it through a data base, I am fairly certain that if it doesn't say error you will land with it being a vehicle as that fits most of the criteria for the unit description all the way through.


List<Unit> affectedUnits = new ArrayList<Unit>();
for(Unit u : game.getUnits()){
if(u.distanceTo(doom) <= 6){
if(!u.isVehicle()){
affectedUnits.add(u);
}
}
}

You're confusing two unrelated conditionals. The unit is within 6" and to propose that the method you use to find that the unit is within 6" changes the type of the unit is preposterous.

[Renegade]

The unit is within 6" and to propose that the method you use to find that the unit is within 6" changes the type of the unit is preposterous.

I am not changing unit type, I am referring to a set of rules that determine unit type. The type of unit being measured to is a vehicle, its the only model, thus unit on the board within the measured distance.

[Madness]

To the question "what am I measuring if I measure the distance between a unit and a vehicle?" the answer is "either the vehicle unit/model (standard) or the embarked unit/models (p66 rule)".

[The Mystic]

I am not changing unit type, I am referring to a set of rules that determine unit type. The type of unit being measured to is a vehicle, its the only model, thus unit on the board within the measured distance.

But haven't we already determined the unit type before measuring to determine whether it is affected?

[Madness]

Renegade is probably working his way backwards, as in "if I measured from a vehicle hull to tDoM then it means that tDoM is trying to affect a vehicle" while this is normally true, it skips the exception underlined by page 66.

[Renegade]

Renegade is probably working his way backwards, as in "if I measured from a vehicle hull to tDoM then it means that tDoM is trying to affect a vehicle" while this is normally true, it skips the exception underlined by page 66.

No, what I do is cross reference the rules. That way there is less chance of making errors and suddenly having things work in a way that are clearly wrong.

Page 66 does not change the effect the rest of the rules work, it is a case of making the rest of the rules work with page 66 in harmony, and page 66 work in harmony with the rest of the rules.

When you measure to a vehicle, that is what you are doing. All the rest of the rules support this, and unless the rule that you want to use makes no exceptions for vehicles, then you cant effect it, or those transported by it. That is because, all measurement to and from the transported unit, require measurement to a vehicle.

Cross reference the rules, if you dont or say that is not how the rules work, then how do you use plasma/meltaguns the many rules that are in the codices, that would need to be cross referenced to the BRB to work, and these in turn need to be crossed referenced to work out the effect on different units.

[Madness]

But you never measure to a vehicle, you usually measure to a vehicle model (or unit), in this case you're measuring to an embarked (infantry) unit using the vehicle hull.

[Renegade]

But you never measure to a vehicle, you usually measure to a vehicle model (or unit), in this case you're measuring to an embarked (infantry) unit using the vehicle hull.. The important part is that you are measuring to a vehicle at all. The thing that you has measured to has not changed, the hull belongs to a vehicles and so you use any rules that may apply.

I have spent far to long on this topic, and I am sure you can work it out. Cross reference all the rules that apply for what is being measured to, that the rules that effect the model that is present. Page 66 does mention that is changes what the model on the board is? No, and that is needed for page 3 to become redundant. As page 3 is not made redundant by page 66 stating that the model is changed, it is still in effect, meaning that the model, and therefore unit, is a vehicle.

This is probably going to be the last thing I have to say on the subject. All the other arguments I have so far read mean ignoring the rest of the rules for preference of what is written on page 66 to justify a position.

[Madness]

Renegade, I'm sorry pal, but I'm seeing interpretations everywhere, and all the veterans are set on this being possible in the RAW interpretation. :/

[Renegade]

and all the veterans You mean the veterans to this site. I know people that have been playing since RT, as for me I've been playing since eary 4th. Define "veteran"

In that case it will have to wait till an FAQ or errata makes that official.

[Madness]

People who plays and organizes tournaments. I've been playing since Codex: Angels of Death but I'm not a fan of rule lawyering. And I checked in all the major forums (dakka, warseer...) and apparently it has been settled.

[Renegade]

Right, by a few players that give a damn on the webs. I am not sure that the majority of players are forum users, and some stick to the forum for the army they use. I only started using forums to get more information now lacking from the GW site regarding the 40K background and such.

I would not say that it is settled while different groups and GW stores rule it in different ways. Till GW make an official ruling, each to there own.

[Tynskel]

Yes the Vehicle excluded clause of Spirit Leech is redundant and confusing, so redundant that there might be a point in your qualm, but still a strict (strict to the point of obtuseness I might say) interpretation should allow it am I right?

Vehicles do have Leadership in very rare cases.
This is not confusing!

Grey Knight Dreadnoughts (see the FAQ). The Confirmed Blood Angels Librarian Dreadnought is supposed to have Ld 10.

By explicitly stating 'non-vehicle units' in the 'Spirit Leech' rule you leave out the conundrum of 'how do vehicles take wounds?'

[Tynskel]

Renegade, I'm sorry pal, but I'm seeing interpretations everywhere, and all the veterans are set on this being possible in the RAW interpretation. :/

This is why I said you cannot believe everything on the forums is correct. Renegade clearly doesn't understand what a proxy is.

Do Not Proxy your vote to Renegade. He/She/It will not know what to do!

[Madness]

I don't believe people just because they said it, I followed the discussion, and they got to a consensus, without getting bogged down in silly semantics, the fact that forum admins weighed in on the issue and stopped the inane sabotage of what was the decent part of the process helped immensely, and for that I question if the detached approach of the lounge admins is

I won't discuss over unreleased codices, and the GK Dreadnought doesn't have Ld10, it is assumed it has Ld10 for a rule that necessitates it to have one as underlined by the premise "for the purposes of the Aegis special rule".

[RealGenius]

The dead horse is beaten.