A transport protection

[Madness]

Please pretend I'm a complete newbie and that my question is sincere. Also pretend I'm like 12 years old with a bad attitude and possibly a low IQ.

Ok, so, I was playing at a game store with my superultraexcessivemarines... of doom, it's my second game ever, and a friend of mine put his orks inside a trukk, so, since they were going to get up close and personal with me I decided my land speeder should go all assault cannon on their backwards.
But he said I couldn't shoot them, which to me is kinda preposterous, I mean, I have a skimmer flying over an open truck, I can see the models and I will shoot them!
But he said embarked units are invulnerable, and showed me the table where he set aside the models saying "see, they aren't there anymore".
But it's just a way to fit more models inside the truck I told him, and I'm OVER your truck, with a FRIGGIN SKIMMER!
He said "yes, and you can shoot the truck, eventually it may blow up and kill some of my units".
But I don't want to waste time on an armored truck, I want to spill blood!

So we went on fighting about this, with low blows such as wedgies, purple nipples and the likes.
I have finally decided to come here and ask about it.

Why can't I shoot to embarked units? Where does it say so?

[gcsmith]

Because there are no models to measure to and because of this, and shooting need to measure to models, and not units, you cannot shoot the models. While it may be silly for orks its to stop one race being superior because of the transports they have.

[Melissia]

GW clearly states the intent of transports in the first line of its transport section:
"Some vehicles can carry infantry across the battlefield, providing speed and protecdtion."

One should use that line when interpreting any rules about transports, and provides a simple general rule-- the transport protects the passengers unless it is specifically stated otherwise, and so any attack made on the passengers instead is directed at the transport. It doesn't necessarily make sense from a fluff perspective, but if we want to have rules that make sense from a fluff perspective we'd have to overly complicate things.

[Madness]

Yeah but what's the mechanics of "protection", is it a cover save? Is it an armor save? That rule looks more fluff than actual rule.
I still need to know where it says I can't shoot, or assault with jump pack, or hit with blast weapons that darn ork trukk.

[Melissia]

I still need to know where it says I can't shoot, or assault with jump pack, or hit with blast weapons that darn ork trukk.More importantly, where does it say that you can?

[Madness]

In the shooting section, it says that if a unit is in range I can shoot it! The transported unit is inside the vehicle, so I can shoot it, they are in range! And I even have LOS to the transport section of the trukk thank to my elevated landspeeder position.

[Melissia]

In the shooting section, it says that if a unit is in range I can shoot it! The transported unit is inside the vehicle, so I can shoot it, they are in range! And I even have LOS to the transport section of the trukk thank to my elevated landspeeder position. If you want a RAW reason, then take these rules:

1: according to the rules for embarking, the models are not on the table when embarked (the act of embarking unit involves removing the unit from the table)

2: according to the rules for Line of Sight, you cannot target something you have no line of sight to, and you have no line of sight to a unit off the table.

3: according to the shooting rules, you must be within range of a unit, and units off the table have no range, they are simply "not here".


If you want to argue that you can fire at units that are removed from the gaming table then I would point out this lets you fire at deep striking units before they arrive. A dramatically different game than was intended to be sure, though it WOULD amuse me to send exorcist missiles at a Trygon before it ever emerged from the ground.

[Renegade]

And I even have LOS to the transport section of the trukk thank to my elevated landspeeder position.Expect by the rules, you do not. The rules say that the unit is in the transport, so the location of the unit is the transport, but that is a loctation not the unit itself. What you do have LOS on by the rules is the trukk as that is the only unit that is actually present and can be measured to.

[MC Tic Tac]

The long and the short of it is that you can never shoot at a Unit Embarked in a Transport (there maybe exceptions in the future but not yet).

I understand your logic of the speeder flying over and filling the open compartment full of lead, but alas you can't.

[Nabterayl]

In the shooting section, it says that if a unit is in range I can shoot it!
Yes, it does.


I even have LOS to the transport section of the trukk thank to my elevated landspeeder position.
Yes, that's true. But the trukk is all you have LOS to. You do not have LOS to any of the models in the embarked unit, which is what you need to have:

In order to select an enemy unit as a target, at least one model in the firing unit must have line of sight to at least one model in the target unit.
The Land Speeder can see the trukk, but it cannot see any orks inside the trukk, because when a unit embarks it is "removed from the table" (p 66).

In other words, despite the fact that the unit is in range, it may not be targeted, because the Land Speeder does not have line of sight to the unit. In order to shoot a unit, it must both be in range and in line of sight.

[Madness]

Expect by the rules, you do not. The rules say that the unit is in the transport, so the location of the unit is the transport, but that is a loctation not the unit itself. What you do have LOS on by the rules is the trukk as that is the only unit that is actually present and can be measured to.
But the unit is EMBARKED on the transport. How can it not be there?

Are you saying that since there's no model I have no LoS? So the units are not "protected" they are just "hidden"? So hypotethically rules that do not involve LoS should be able to avert this, right?

[Melissia]

The models are not on the table at all. Yes, it is an abstract system . It keeps it simpler.

[MC Tic Tac]

But the unit is EMBARKED on the transport. How can it not be there?

Are you saying that since there's no model I have no LoS? So the units are not "protected" they are just "hidden"? So hypotethically rules that do not involve LoS should be able to avert this, right?

Ok K.I.S.S. time,

When a unit is in a transport open topped or not, the unit it self and it's models are removed from the table for the duration of thier transportation.

Not on table no possible LOS.

[Renegade]

So hypotethically rules that do not involve LoS should be able to avert this, right? Only those that state so or ignore the transport in the wording, yes. It all comes down to the messy subject of peoples opinion of the rules. However, your Speeder has no such rules that bypass the transport. If you want to get at the transported unit, your going to have to get rid of the transport first.

[The Mystic]

Expect by the rules, you do not. The rules say that the unit is in the transport, so the location of the unit is the transport, but that is a loctation not the unit itself. What you do have LOS on by the rules is the trukk as that is the only unit that is actually present and can be measured to.

Incorrect.

Shooting requires you have LOS to a model in the unit you wish to target. As there are no models for that unit in LOS you cannot shoot that unit. However this does not change the location of the unit for positioning on the table. As spirit leech does not target a unit and therefore require LOS to any models, only the units location is relevant for determiniing it's area of affect.

[Nabterayl]

Are you saying that since there's no model I have no LoS?
Yes, that's what I'm saying.

So the units are not "protected" they are just "hidden"?
It may be they are protected as well. They are at least hidden. The rules are clear on that; they are not so clear on the manner, if any, by which the unit is "protected."

So hypotethically rules that do not involve LoS should be able to avert this, right?
No for a couple of reasons. First, the entire unit - not just its models - is "removed from the table." That renders it immune to most rules right there.

Second, even if we assume for the sake of argument that page 66 means the unit isn't really removed from the table, it's clear that the models, at least, are removed from the table. So in this scenario, rules that do not involve Line of Sight could still affect the embarked unit if they do not require measuring range to a model. Shooting, for instance, measures range to models, not to units.

[Madness]

Shooting also requires LoS, ordnance doesn't but applying the template requires LoS (vertically), just like scattering shots.

[Renegade]

[QUOTEAs spirit leech does not target a unit and therefore require LOS to any models, only the units location is relevant for determiniing it's area of affect.?[/QUOTE] The example is that of a trukk and speeder. the dispute regarding the DoM is going on else where.

[The Mystic]

Shooting requires you have LOS to a model in the unit you wish to target. As there are no models for that unit in LOS you cannot shoot that unit. However this does not change the location of the unit for positioning on the table.

I believe I already answered the question in regards to the example.

[Madness]

All right, so units are not shielded/protected or anything, they are just way harder to target. Basically only thanks to the rule at page 66 are we able to target them, or due to specific effects (such as "the sarge is acting strangely").

That single rule is a really controversial addition (not present in 4th ed.) and kind of unfluffy, I can see how people don't really like/use it.

[Renegade]

Basically only thanks to the rule at page 66 are we able to target them Hold on, page 66 does not state you can target them, only that they are where the transport is. Its a fiddly rule, which is why I push that all part of page 3 should also be met and that excact wording of a rule is important when dealing with units in that way.

[The Mystic]

Hold on, page 66 does not state you can target them, only that they are where the transport is. Its a fiddly rule, which is why I push that all part of page 3 should also be met and that excact wording of a rule is important when dealing with units in that way.

So that would mean that the embarked unit and the vehicle unit occupy the same location regardless of whether the models occupy the same location, correct?

[gcsmith]

and if the unit is in taht location then DoM works.

[Madness]

You don't need to target them, you effect all units, targetless.

Basically from a programmatical standpoint this is how you do it:

Identify all enemy units (embarked or not)
Exclude all vehicle units (embarked units are still troop units, so they are still in the identified set)
Measure how distant is EVERY unit in the identified set from the Doom of Malan'tai
Those who are closer than 6" are effected.

During step 3 you're required to check even if the embarked unit is inside the reach of the ability (it's an enemy unit and it's not a vehicle unit), now we would have no way under 4th edition rules to measure the distance from a unit and another unit with no models on the field, 5th edition added a (controversial and way too generic) rulestating that embarked units (which are no vehicles) can be measured to and from by using the hull of the transport they are on.

So yes, it's an exception to the normal way of measuring stuff.

[Renegade]

However, location is still measured to a Vehicle for embarked units. Leech Spirit cannot effect vehicles, that is part of its rules, so it has no way of harming the transported unit.

They could have left out the bit about vehicles as they dont have a Ld value to begin with, so they could not have been effected. However they did make this exception, which would mean so it cannot effect embarked units by the rules of both page 3 and 66.

[Madness]

Yep, I agree, the redundancy spurs doubts, if you're going to go implicit go implicit, if you start ruling out things that are already ruled out, be clear on why you do it. But I think it's reasonable to accept (until a new faq comes out) that it might be affecting them. At least that what a program would do given this kind of input.

[Renegade]

Yep, I agree, the redundancy spurs doubts, if you're going to go implicit go implicit, if you start ruling out things that are already ruled out, be clear on why you do it. But I think it's reasonable to accept I am quite willing to except there is room for manover either way. Discussing this kind of thing before a game or making it a roll of. My main argument stemmed from that fact it was not cut and dry that it did, so I have pushed the argument for reasons it cannot. I was called out on this, and the words doing so were not the most pleasent.

[Razorx1970]

Yeah, dude needs to get himself a rule book and study it more closely. It's your 2nd game right, why fly off the handle about a rule you don't understand, with this being JUST your 2nd game? Patience man.

Also getting in more games, and learning the rules in-play is ALOT easier than trying to decipher the rules as they're written. It's much easier to learn by doing.

[Madness]

Yep, it's really not cut and dry, the wording is kinda confusing. And yes the tones went downhill.

Razorx1970, uhm, I said "assume I am..." but now I kinda "dropped the mask". :P

[MC Tic Tac]

Yeah, dude needs to get himself a rule book and study it more closely. It's your 2nd game right, why fly off the handle about a rule you don't understand, with this being JUST your 2nd game? Patience man.

Also getting in more games, and learning the rules in-play is ALOT easier than trying to decipher the rules as they're written. It's much easier to learn by doing.

Best advice ever for all new players.

[Ferro]

I understand and accept the argument presented earlier that embarked units cannot be shot by simple virtue of the fact that there are no models to measure to. I think that this is sound reasoning, but doesn't it leave the door open for non-LOS weapons to shoot an embarked unit? Examples include the new Tyranid Hive Guards, and some Tau missle thingy (slipped my mind for the moment).

[Madness]

Ferro, can you mention which abilities exactly?
The Impaler Cannon might be able to shoot transported troops.

Thank you page 66 for ruining the game.

[Shavnir]

Ferro, can you mention which abilities exactly?
The Impaler Cannon might be able to shoot transported troops.

Thank you page 66 for ruining the game.

Impaler Cannon still requires range to models in the unit, not the unit itself. Its safe.

[Madness]

Yes but due to page 66 I can measure to the embarked units by transport hull proxy. So they are in range. (eventually)

[Shavnir]

Yes but due to page 66 I can measure to the embarked units by transport hull proxy. So they are in range. (eventually)

Once again the difference between models and units comes up. Don't worry, there's no way page 66 can give you range to models, only units.

[Madness]

But you don't shoot at a model (page 16, first line outside the run box) you shoot at a UNIT. Now, you have to check if a model is inside the range, and therefore you apply "if the player need to measure a range involving the embarked unit", you use the hull.

A model is part of a unit, so a range measure for a model is "a range involving the embarked unit". Consider Cold Steel and Courage, you need to measure within 12" of Straken (a model, NOT a unit, the unit is a company command squad) and you use the hull there.

Man, this rule is messier than a library filled with global variables.

Seeker missiles shouldn't be able to magically penetrate, as the markerlight needs LoS to paint (target) the model.

[Melissia]

Man, this rule is messier than a library filled with global variables.
Ech, don't remind me...

[Shavnir]

Man, this rule is messier than a library filled with global variables.

Ever seen Java systems with thousands of poorly documented classes where the data you need is retrieved by calling methods on static singletons?

Yea, I feel your pain. :(

EDIT : vvv I don't think you can use models and units that interchangeably but I'd have to look up the rules regarding that.

[Madness]

I take it I got this one right. Apparently the impaler cannon can kill units inside transports without:
1. Having to roll against their armour, not even super heavy transports
2. Actually ruining as little as the tapestry inside the vehicle, even if it is the most fragile vehicle ever, the guy inside with toughness 4 and 3 wounds will die, while the rest of the vehicle remains untouched.

And to think I felt bad when I thought about a sniper unit able to automatically inflict glancing hits on any vehicle.

[Madness]

UH UH I found another one, make sure people kill your pyrovore with a powerfist near their transports, as they ALL are getting hit with a free S3 hit!

[Tynskel]

Please pretend I'm a complete newbie and that my question is sincere. Also pretend I'm like 12 years old with a bad attitude and possibly a low IQ.

Ok, so, I was playing at a game store with my superultraexcessivemarines... of doom, it's my second game ever, and a friend of mine put his orks inside a trukk, so, since they were going to get up close and personal with me I decided my land speeder should go all assault cannon on their backwards.
But he said I couldn't shoot them, which to me is kinda preposterous, I mean, I have a skimmer flying over an open truck, I can see the models and I will shoot them!
But he said embarked units are invulnerable, and showed me the table where he set aside the models saying "see, they aren't there anymore".
But it's just a way to fit more models inside the truck I told him, and I'm OVER your truck, with a FRIGGIN SKIMMER!
He said "yes, and you can shoot the truck, eventually it may blow up and kill some of my units".
But I don't want to waste time on an armored truck, I want to spill blood!

So we went on fighting about this, with low blows such as wedgies, purple nipples and the likes.
I have finally decided to come here and ask about it.

Why can't I shoot to embarked units? Where does it say so?

The same EXACT rule that allows special abilities to target embarked units also denies shooting.

p. 66 "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"

This rule Explicitly denies the ability to target models inside vehicles with shooting attacks, but allows non-shooting effects to work against embarked units.

p. 3 shows you how to measure to the hull of a transport/building. p. 66 explains what can target the inside of the transport/building.

[Tynskel]

If you want a RAW reason, then take these rules:

1: according to the rules for embarking, the models are not on the table when embarked (the act of embarking unit involves removing the unit from the table)

2: according to the rules for Line of Sight, you cannot target something you have no line of sight to, and you have no line of sight to a unit off the table.

3: according to the shooting rules, you must be within range of a unit, and units off the table have no range, they are simply "not here".


If you want to argue that you can fire at units that are removed from the gaming table then I would point out this lets you fire at deep striking units before they arrive. A dramatically different game than was intended to be sure, though it WOULD amuse me to send exorcist missiles at a Trygon before it ever emerged from the ground.

Technically, that rule on page 66 overrides everything:

1) they are not 'removed from the table' p. 66 says measure to the hull for embarked units.
2) Line of site is measured to the model- this case, the tank, according to p. 66
3) the Range is measured to the Hull of the vehicle according to p. 66

What page 66 Explicitly States is that Shooting cannot be done against models.

[Madness]

Nope, it says for ITS shooting, IT being the embarked unit, not the Hive Guard.

And that exception is because when embarked units shoot, they do it from firing points.

[Tynskel]

However, location is still measured to a Vehicle for embarked units. Leech Spirit cannot effect vehicles, that is part of its rules, so it has no way of harming the transported unit.

They could have left out the bit about vehicles as they dont have a Ld value to begin with, so they could not have been effected. However they did make this exception, which would mean so it cannot effect embarked units by the rules of both page 3 and 66.

p. 66 says if you need to do something to a unit embarked, measure to the hull.

Spirit Leech effects Non-vehicle units. An embarked Infantry Unit is a NON-VEHICLE UNIT.

I do not understand why you do not understand the previous statement.

The Transport itself is immune, but the guys inside are NOT immune.

[Tynskel]

Nope, it says for ITS shooting, IT being the embarked unit, not the Hive Guard.

And that exception is because when embarked units shoot, they do it from firing points.

'It' is Ambiguous.

The sentence has two subjects. The 'it' is undefined. Therefore the 'it' refers to both the unit outside the transport and to the unit embarked.


::I am starting to feel like I should have applied to Law School::

[Madness]

Yes Tynskel, please, pick ANOTHER fight with Renegade, we didn't see enough in the last 2 days. We got to a consensus, stop opening cans of worms please.

[Madness]

'It' is Ambiguous.

The sentence has two subjects. The 'it' is undefined. Therefore the 'it' refers to both the unit outside the transport and to the unit embarked.

Pronouns refer to the last mentioned noun, in this case, "the embarked unit", not to mention that in the sentence "If the players need to measure a range involving the embarked unit" the IT either refers to a player (wait, a player is shooting?), a measure (a MEASURE IS SHOOTING?), a range (A RANGE IS SHOOTING!?!?) or the embarked unit.

[Ferro]

Nope, it says for ITS shooting, IT being the embarked unit, not the Hive Guard.

And that exception is because when embarked units shoot, they do it from firing points.


p. 66 says if you need to do something to a unit embarked, measure to the hull.....
The Transport itself is immune, but the guys inside are NOT immune.

No, you're both half-right. The rule applies to both the unit embarked and/or a unit trying to do something to the unit embarked. It says TO or FROM the vehicle hull.

With regards to the embarked unit itself, it's as Madness said above.
With regards to doing something to the embarked unit, it's as Tynskel said above.

You're both right, and you're both talking past each other.

EDIT: damn guys, learn to edit your posts! This is ridiculous!
also: ambiguous... maybe. Madness is right about the undefined pronoun. But a range 'involving' the embarked unit, and the to/from bit both imply the action can be originated and measured either inside or outside the transport.

2nd EDIT: for Madness, below: I can't rephrase, it's Tynskel's words. His quote is already provided for reference.

[Madness]

@Ferro: wait, what?

With regards to doing something to the embarked unit, it's as Tynskel said above.
Rephrase please.

[Tynskel]

No, you're both half-right. The rule applies to both the unit embarked and/or a unit trying to do something to the unit embarked. It says TO or FROM the vehicle hull.

With regards to the embarked unit itself, it's as Madness said above.
With regards to doing something to the embarked unit, it's as Tynskel said above.

You're both right, and you're both talking past each other.

The IT in a sentence does not always refer to the 'last' noun. That is the reason you are NEVER suppose to use 'it' in a sentence unless there is only one subject.

Where 'it' gets really confusing is when people mention a subject in a sentence. The Second sentence mentions an new subject and within the same sentence uses 'it' to refer to the first sentence.

Shooting TO the Hull does not effect the embarked unit.

AND you cannot Shoot FROM the Hull as an embarked unit, unless stated otherwise (like page 70 and firing from an open-topped vehicle).

[Madness]

Still, you provided no reason why the Impaler Cannon can't hit the embarked unit. It doesn't require LoS and we have a nice way to measure "a range involving the embarked unit".

[Ferro]

Slow your roll, T. You're replying as if you're contradicting me, but we just said the same thing.
I know the 'its' doesn't refer only to the last noun... I just stated it has two meanings, not one.
And I just said Madness is right about measuring from the hull--except for shooting--in which case you measure from fire points.

Count to ten, brother. Breath.

[Madness]

When the unit inside is firing (and the vehicle is not open topped) you measure FROM firing points. When you need to measure TO (or FROM in non-shooting situations) the unit, you use the vehicle hull.

[Tynskel]

Still, you provided no reason why the Impaler Cannon can't hit the embarked unit. It doesn't require LoS and we have a nice way to measure "a range involving the embarked unit".

Yes, you are correct, no LOS.

However, the rule on p. 66 explicitly denies Shooting for measuring to an embarked unit. Therefore, the Impaler Cannon cannot shoot at an embarked unit.

[Madness]

"Shooting for measuring" means nothing, unless you have a ballistic tape measure.

The rule on page 66 states:

If the players need to measure a range involving the embarked unit (except for its shooting), this range is measure to or from the vehicle's hull.I'm guessing you're referring to "except for its shooting", which would refer to a noun, and since the only noun that refers to a unit is "the embarked unit", the shooting it is talking about is the embarked unit's shooting, not the not-previously-mentioned-and-possibly-not-even-involved (you could be measuring from a table border for instance) unit.

So yes, you can measure from the Hive Guard to the embarked unit.

[Papa Nurgle]

I think it is a simple matter of units inside vehicles cannot be targeted.

[Tynskel]

Slow your roll, T. You're replying as if you're contradicting me, but we just said the same thing.
I know the 'its' doesn't refer only to the last noun... I just stated it has two meanings, not one.
And I just said Madness is right about measuring from the hull--except for shooting--in which case you measure from fire points.

Count to ten, brother. Breath.

All this talk about 'it' is confusing.

I don't like it.
I try not to use it.
Uh oh, I did not quote it.
Oh, Darn 'it'.
Ack, I used it wrong.



What I am driving at is that your previous statement was very confusing.

But, you have clarified your statement and said that we were both correct... not possible- Madness stated 'it' only refers to one subject, while I stated that 'it' refers to both. Then you agreed with my statement and with Madness. One cannot be both, and only one, at the same time- the 'it' is either both OR one.


Just to let everyone know- I troll on everyone. If you write something that makes no sense, I will point the statement out.

[Madness]

Papa Nurgle, apparently they can be targeted, just not "saw", many other effects are able to "target" them, classic shooting (or even scattering blast accidental hits) require some form of LoS, the impaler cannon doesn't.

Also, IT is singular, It would be "their" if Tynskel was right

[Tynskel]

"Shooting for measuring" means nothing, unless you have a ballistic tape measure.

The rule on page 66 states:
I'm guessing you're referring to "except for its shooting", which would refer to a noun, and since the only noun that refers to a unit is "the embarked unit", the shooting it is talking about is the embarked unit's shooting, not the not-previously-mentioned-and-possibly-not-even-involved (you could be measuring from a table border for instance) unit.

So yes, you can measure from the Hive Guard to the embarked unit.

"If the PLAYERS need to measure a range involving the EMBARKED UNIT (except for its shooting), the range is measured to or from the VEHICLE'S HULL."

PLAYERS is plural. Add in, now, the Embarked Unit.
There are Multiple Subjects in this sentence. Because 'it' is completely undefined, 'it' applies to all situations, because that is the only fair way to interpret the rule that treats ALL parties fairly.

I could be trying to shoot at the EMBARKED unit- this is involving the Unit embarked and is involving shooting. Which the rule says '(except for its shooting)'. The Embarked unit could be trying to shoot, and in this case the unit may not shoot because of (except for its shooting).

[Tynskel]

Papa Nurgle, apparently they can be targeted, just not "saw", many other effects are able to "target" them, classic shooting (or even scattering blast accidental hits) require some form of LoS, the impaler cannon doesn't.

Also, IT is singular, It would be "their" if Tynskel was right

Ah, you forgot. 'It' does not have a plural or singular form. 'It' is the same for both situation.

there is no 'its'

its = possessive form
it's = contraction of it is

:: slight goof:: but however, their does not apply to the sentence in question. The 'it' on page 66 is always refers to a singular at any one time. Which could be the unit trying to shoot the embarked unit, or the embarked unit trying to shoot out of the transport.

[Madness]

So you're saying that "it" a singular pronoun used for object, animals and such, applies to two players, whereas in the rest of the manual the male "his" is used (as opposed to say, white wolf manuals who use "she"/"her", or other games who use he/she his/her). And not only they managed to screw that up, they also picked the wrong singular/plural variation by using its instead of theirs.

Not to mention that suddenly it's the players who are shooting, as opposed to a unit. But I've never been too much into LARPing.

Still, that exception is clearly there not to override the firing points rule, and therefore the Impaler Cannon CAN hit inside a vehicle.

[Madness]

But no, let me be even MORE clear, let me substitute the Possessive adjective with a combination of the noun and the old trusty Saxon genitive.


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

Now, if you were right it would be possible to do the same in a way that invalidates the Impaler Cannon effect.

[Tynskel]

But no, let me be even MORE clear, let me substitute the Possessive adjective with a combination of the noun and the old trusty Saxon genitive.



Now, if you were right it would be possible to do the same in a way that invalidates the Impaler Cannon effect.

I already told you. The 'it' refers to both.

(except for shooting at the embarked unit)
(except for the embarked unit's shooting)


We can go on forever on this. In fact, everyone knows that I WILL go on forever on this. However, the sentence is piss poor by using 'it'. The easiest way to deal with 'it' is to apply 'it' to all the nouns in the same sentence. You cannot prove that 'it' is only refers to one subject- that is the problem with using the word 'it', and is suggested to never use 'it'.

[Madness]

That's NOT how a possessive adjective works. It implies possession, like the shooting OF the embarked unit, or put differently the embarkes unit's shooting, shooting AT the embarked unit doesn't imply any sort or form of possession.

In other words

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

Can be rewritten as

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

or even

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

While

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

Is a completely different sentence.

Not to mention how grammatically incorrect is "except for shooting at the embarked unit".

[Tynskel]

That's NOT how a possessive adjective works. It implies possession, like the shooting OF the embarked unit, or put differently the embarkes unit's shooting, shooting AT the embarked unit doesn't imply any sort or form of possession.

In other words

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

Can be rewritten as

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

or even

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

While

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

Is a completely different sentence.

Not to mention how grammatically incorrect is "except for shooting at the embarked unit".

I need to shoot the Embarked Unit. I am measuring a range to the embarked unit. I measure from my unit to the transport. I then check and the rules states except for its shooting. Opps! I cannot Shoot.

I need to do the Embarked Unit shooting. I am measuring a range from the embarked unit. I measure from the vehicle's hull to the target unit. I then check and the rules states except for its shooting. Opps! I cannot Shoot.

Uh oh... This is the same thing. Oh no! Because the SENTENCE says TO or FROM the vehicle's Hull. TO means I am shooting AT YOU in the Transport.

FROM means I am shooting OUT OF the transport.

[Madness]

Why are you changing approach? The rule states "except for its shooting" which is not a generic its I can use on whatever I want whenever I want, in a silly game of "tag, you're its", it's a possessive adjective, and it refers to a noun previously mentioned, said noun can only be "embarked unit".

So yes, you can't use the hull to measure shots from the embarked unit (fire points/open topped manage that bit).
You can use the hull to measure FROM or TO (effects that originate from the embarked unit, or are directed at the embarked unit) any other point, if there's an effect that affects the embarked unit that's not a shooting coming from said unit.

[Tynskel]

Why are you changing approach? The rule states "except for its shooting" which is not a generic its I can use on whatever I want whenever I want, in a silly game of "tag, you're its", it's a possessive adjective, and it refers to a noun previously mentioned, said noun can only be "embarked unit".

So yes, you can't use the hull to measure shots from the embarked unit (fire points/open topped manage that bit).
You can use the hull to measure FROM or TO (effects that originate from the embarked unit, or are directed at the embarked unit) any other point, if there's an effect that affects the embarked unit that's not a shooting coming from said unit.

Firepoints are described in a different section on the same page. Not to mention, later the p. 70.

The 'its shooting' refers to a previous noun, of which there are two. As I said before, its refers to both. Obviously, one cannot shoot from the hull, because earlier, p. 66 defines how to shoot from the vehicle. So, what's Shooting? Then p. 70 says to measure shooting form the Hull.

This rules of 'its shooting' can only be ALL shooting.

I am trying to shoot at your embarked unit. I am trying to measure a range to the Vehicle's Hull, because this is INVOLVING the EMBARKED UNIT. However this is shooting, and involving the EMBARKED UNIT, so I cannot shoot.

[Madness]

You said there are two nouns (but then ignored it when you rephrased using the units noun) and I say one is inapplicable, since players can't shoot. There's actually more than two nouns (range is a noun) but neither are applicable to the verb shooting, not to mention that in good prose you use pronouns and possessive adjectives to refer to the last possible noun.

You are not trying to shoot, the Hive guard is. The hive guard is a unit who is not involved in the rule, only the fact that its action needs to check a range to the embarked unit is.
It's irrelevant why it has to, as long as it does and it's not the shooting of the embarked unit, since it is not, it is measured by the hull.
In the exception case of the embarked unit shooting it either uses firing point or the hull.

If you can correctly replace the Possessive adjective "its" (maybe check wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Possessive_adjective) or something) with a noun in the previous sentence that is appicable in a way that negates any chance, everyone will agree with you.

Up until now you're just making noise.

You are literally sinking this argument in the mud, hoping that repetition of 2/3 different rebuttals without actually confronting your position is going to accomplish anything.
If anything it will spread a bad comprehension of the english language (how possessive adjectives work) and prevent people from having a civil discussion.
Since you clearly are not intrested in confronting in a mature way, I'll give you some breathing space and the chance of being reasonable, either by admitting you were joking and have not, in fact, gone insane, or forgot how what is probably your native language works.
If the discussion doesn't come back to a sane level I'll try and contact the moderators so they can maybe arbiter this position and restore sanity.

[Tynskel]

My Hive Guard need to measure a range involving your embarked unit (except for its shooting).

Done.

If the Hive Guard need to measure a range involving the embarked unit (except for its shooting), this range is measured to or from the vehicle's hull.

[Madness]

"My Hive Guard" wasn't present in the original rule wording, you added it up, as I already said, you can't pick "its" and apply to whatever you want, it's a sentence and it has to work on its own.

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.

Which can become

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

Which doesn't comply since players are not an "it" and they can't shoot.

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

Which doesn't comply since a range can't shoot.

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

Which complies. And since the Hive Guard is not being transported in this example, he can measure if he's in range using the hull.

[Tynskel]

Actually, you can pick a noun and replace with other nouns. My Hat is blue. My Dog is blue. My car is blue. When one uses a Possessive Adjective, you have to be able to place similar nouns in or the sentence loses its ability to convey meaning.

'Players' can be replace with a specific noun. In this case, the Hive Guard. The reason 'players' (an open ended noun) is used and not a specified noun is because there are multiple reasons to be measuring a range in a game that uses models and tape measures.

If the Players [using Soulless] need to measure a range involving the embarked unit (except for its shooting), this range is measured to or from the vehicle's hull.

If the Players [Using the Hive Guard's Impaler Cannon by shooting] need to measure a range involving the embarked unit (except for its shooting), this range is measured to or from the vehicle's hull.

[Madness]

Yes you can, and grammatically it works, it just becomes a different sentence.

If the cultists of slaanesh need to measure a herd of sheeps involving the embarked bananas (except for the players' shooting), this range is measured to or from the vehicle's hull.

See?

A possessive adjective substitutes a noun previously mentioned in the sentence.

If the Players [Using the Hive Guard's Impaler Cannon by shooting] need to measure a range involving the embarked unit (except for its shooting), this range is measured to or from the vehicle's hull.

Which should become

If the Players [Using the Hive Guard's Impaler Cannon by shooting] need to measure a range involving the embarked unit (except for the Players' [who are using the HG IC by shooting] shooting), this range is measured to or from the vehicle's hull.

Players still can't shoot, players is still not an "it" and don't use "its" it's a "they" and use "their", if it is meant to be interpreted as "either player" (in which case the "either player" set of words can be used) the correct poss. adj is "his".

So basically it's not that you're willfully misinterpreting the sentence, it's the authors who have no understanding of the most basic tenets of the english language?

Which is an acceptable explaination by me, but in that case, we can throw the book away and be done with it.

Personally I'm investing in the fact that their eventual language fallacies lie in more complex situations, and that this rule exception (in parenthesis) is in fact very easy to comprehend, and I shall give it the most natural interpretation possible.

Thus allowing me to do the unspeakable and fire an Impaler Cannon at a transported unit. Unless they of course come out and fix the mistake, which I honestly hope they will.

[Tynskel]

Which is an acceptable explaination by me, but in that case, we can throw the book away and be done with it.

Yes. I agree with you here.

However, p. 79 clarifies that you cannot use the shooting against embarked units.

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 and/or be forced to 'disembark'.

p. 80
If any models from the unit are placed on a parapet, they can fire in addition to those using firing points. They still count as being in the building though, so cannot be shot or assaulted directly.

All of this is why that crazy sentence on p. 66 refers to shooting and everyone.


I am WIDELY against the use of 'it' and 'its'. The words are shortcuts (which I usually encourage) that create shorter sentences at the expense of clarity.

[Madness]

I agree that p.66 SHOULD refer to shooting and everyone, sadly, it doesn't. The Impaler Cannon is apparently an indirect attack (yay GW for using the "attacked directly" wording with no precedent) since it has no hard rules preventing it from hitting people in both buildings and transports.

[Denzark]

This debate about the semantics of English is poo. The original post was an interesting concept - but then, why did the incredulous newbie not ask - 'Why do my marines do nothing except stand and die while you take an entire turn, and then get to charge around killing things whilst the enemy does **** all? Why when the hurty genemonsters run from out of cover can I not get some sort of overwatch shot at them?'

The answer being that GW deals in abstracts. We know this. I hope this wasn't another attempt to smuggle in a doom of doom of tyranid creep thread under another title. To be frank it is boring - if it was that big a threat it would pretty soon start getting vaped first turn. To me just another JoTWW - won't ever be as good as people piddle themselves about.

The answer is wait for the FAQ - touch wood GW aare doing good faq work at the mo.

What I am worried about is Madness - since joing in Jan you have racked up nearly 600 posts - if that takes you 2 minutes to postulate an arguement coherently that is 1200 minutes - or 20 hours - since January! 2 months, nearly an entire day spent in front of BoLS! You epeen is huge!

I'm not your mum, dude, but please! Switch off! Smell the roses, chase women, drink beer!

[Madness]

Denzark, I appreciate the preoccupation, but I had an "upload week", so it was boring anyway.

[Tynskel]

Beeeeeerr!!


WOMAN!

[Tynskel]

I agree that p.66 SHOULD refer to shooting and everyone, sadly, it doesn't. The Impaler Cannon is apparently an indirect attack (yay GW for using the "attacked directly" wording with no precedent) since it has no hard rules preventing it from hitting people in both buildings and transports.

Consider the only reference to shooting at vehicles is on p. 66 with that crazy sentence, and that pages 79-80 refer to the vehicle section.

You are stating that the impaler cannon shoots indirectly- the Impaler Cannon does not state indirect fire.

"The impaler cannon can shoot any target in range, regardless of whether there is line of sight to it or not. The target can only count the benefits of cover they are in or touching if it lies between them and the Hive Guard. Vehicles are always hit on the armour value facing the Hive Guard" p. 47 Tyranid Codex.

All the impaler cannon states is that the shot does not require 'line of sight'. Smart Missile System has the same language (with added Night Fighting rules.) as the impaler cannon. Barrage weapons are directly attacking from the sky- the shot comes from the center of the blast, as opposed from the shooter, and never touches any embarked models.

Pages 79 and 80 refer to shooting at embarked units are the same as vehicle rules, the ONLY reference to shooting at embarked units is p. 66, and the rules on p. 79-80 clarify the rubbish statement on p. 66- the only available target to shoot at when a unit is embarked is the vehicle/transport/building itself.

This is ONLY for shooting.

The Building rules are consistent with the assault rules (units are only engaged if an enemy model touches one of your unit's models. If your unit is embarked, they can never be touched).

The Building rules treat embarked units as though they are a transport- and the p. 66 rule about embarked units means that Building/Transport Embarked Units ARE effected by Abilities/Powers that are NOT shooting (such as Psychic Hoods, Runic Weapons, Soulless, Spirit Leech, Shadows of the Warp, ect.).

[Madness]

I scoured around in other forums, and everyone seem to agree that the Impaler Cannon, using a strict RAW, can hit embarked units. For me the argument is over.

[Tynskel]

I scoured around in other forums, and everyone seem to agree that the Impaler Cannon, using a strict RAW, can hit embarked units. For me the argument is over.


That's funny-

Because, the Impaler Cannon does NOT state that the Shot is an INDIRECT ATTACK. Just says no line of sight required. As far as the conventions of the game all shooting is a direct attack. There is NOT one mention of indirect attacks coming from shooting in the 40k Rulebook.

However, you should be consistent (YOUR gaming group could be full of dummies). The same language is used by the Smart Missile System- if you THINK the Impaler Cannon can hit embarked units, so can the Smart Missile System.

[Madness]

I didn't study the Smart Missile System, but I've read elsewhere that people is accepting it as well, I thought it needed the target to be painted with markerlights but I might be wrong, I don't really know.

P.S.: I checked it and appartently SMS are smart enough to knock before hitting a vehicle. The only acceptable related complaint is how you're supposed to check for the model cover (only touching or enclosing), inapplicable since there's no model present.

[Lord Azaghul]

Random unrelated interjection:
@Madness: I can't help but notice that this has been a good threat to increase your post count!

[Renegade]

Random unrelated interjection:
Lord Azagul is probably worried that he will have to do something similar to say a head. ;)

[Lord Azaghul]

Random unrelated interjection:
Lord Azagul is probably worried that he will have to do something similar to say a head. ;)

The thought had occured to me!
:p
(and that's 600!)

[Renegade]

One day I will have 600 posts, but who would want to be some kind of psyker warp mutant of a librarian anyway? :P

[HsojVvad]

If you want a RAW reason, then take these rules:

1: according to the rules for embarking, the models are not on the table when embarked (the act of embarking unit involves removing the unit from the table)

2: according to the rules for Line of Sight, you cannot target something you have no line of sight to, and you have no line of sight to a unit off the table.

3: according to the shooting rules, you must be within range of a unit, and units off the table have no range, they are simply "not here".


If you want to argue that you can fire at units that are removed from the gaming table then I would point out this lets you fire at deep striking units before they arrive. A dramatically different game than was intended to be sure, though it WOULD amuse me to send exorcist missiles at a Trygon before it ever emerged from the ground.

I like how you left out part of the rule about embarked units. Yes the models are off the table, but what about the part you left out about leaving a mini ontop of the vehicle so we know what unit is inside the vehicle. So since the model is ontop of the vehicle and it's visible it should be be able to be attacked by going by your "models of the table" logic.

[Renegade]

The rule doesnt say you "have" to put a model on the top of a transport.

[HsojVvad]

The rule doesnt say you "have" to put a model on the top of a transport.

So what do you do to tell that there are units on the table?

If I am reading your posts correctly, I find it funny now, you are doing everything to keep a model off the table so you can use the rules no models are on the table so nothing can effect them then.

The unit is being transported so it is on the table. The models are removed to make it easier that to try and cram them in a model that they won't fit in, or get damaged while trying to. Maybe what we should do is have a template that is in the shape of a vehilce and the models go ontop of the template instead of using vehicle then so we can visulize the models being transported then.

Because if we go by the rules the models are not on the table, how the heck do the models go on Point A from the Players side and go to Point B wich say is on the opponents side. If they were never on the table they can't be placed on Point B because they havn't moved on the table.

Units are still on the table, but the models are not on the table. So if a unit = models as some people have said, does that mean since the unit or model is not on the table, then it can't fire even though the vehicle has fireports, since the models or unit is not on the table. You can't have it both ways. If it can fire from a vehicle it's on the table. If it embarks from point A, then goes to Point B, it's on the table, but inside a vehicle.

Basically the rules for vehicles that apply to models or units, is basically this. Please correct me if I am wrong.

1) A vehicle makes a model/unit move upto 12" or more.
2) A vehicle removes LoS to any model/unit that is embarked, so therefore cannot be shot at or targeted.

No where in the rules does it say that a model/unit is immune to everything if it's embarked in a unit. So why are you twisting the rules by saying since models are not on the table they can't be effected?

I am so confused now reading all these posts, as we are all repeating ourselves, I am mixed up what our intentions are now.

[Renegade]

We can use fire points because the rules say we can. We can also number or paint a vehicle with a colour or put a name on the vehicle and make a note of what is in where on a bit of paper.

I am not twisting any of the rules, I am doing what is known as cross referencing the rules, because by the way you are saying it, a unit with a low Sv or Invul could take a lascannon hit or a lance hit or and other hit for the transport that it is in. Got to play it both ways right? You are saying that page 66 over rules all the other rules that relate to what is on the board and what is being measured to or from.

I am not saying that transported unit are immune to everything. Reread my posts, there are things that I am happy to except will effect transported units, but they have to do so by all the rules that are in play.

My position is clear, my reasons for the position is clear. I do not agree that the rules allow spirit leech to work because of all the other rules that effect the game do not, in my opinion, allow it to.

None of the gaming groups that I attened allow it to work either. I suggest you go back and reread the whole discussion, or play it how you think is best. GW have not yet come out and said it is the right or the wrong way, so its up to you. Not everyone may agree though, so be ready to have to go through all this with them when you meet them or dice it off.

Thats it I'm done, back to your regular monday viewing people.

[Tynskel]

I didn't study the Smart Missile System, but I've read elsewhere that people is accepting it as well, I thought it needed the target to be painted with markerlights but I might be wrong, I don't really know.

P.S.: I checked it and appartently SMS are smart enough to knock before hitting a vehicle. The only acceptable related complaint is how you're supposed to check for the model cover (only touching or enclosing), inapplicable since there's no model present.

An embarked unit is touching the transport they are embarked on sounds like a good candidate. But, then again, you think you can shoot the embarked unit.

A lot of times Forums are full of crap. Just look at the arguments over 'Spirit Leech'.

The fact that p. 66, p. 79, and p. 80 deny direct shooting of embarked units, and firing with no line of sight does not signify that the attack is 'indirect', the rules say you cannot shoot an embarked unit.

Just because someone else says you can, doesn't mean you can. You have to cite the rules- which I did: cited 3 pages of the Main Rulebook, plus 2 codexes with no LoS shooting rules.

[Madness]

Tynskel, the thing is, "direct shooting" is a meaningless sentence, just like "vehicles provide protection" (still page 66, as underlined by Melissia), there is no definition of what is "direct" and what is "not direct" shooting, therefore it's one of the many non normative bits. And yes, those 2 codices effectively broke the game system they are into by creating what is most probably an undesirable consequence. But from a strict parsing point of view, it wouldn't be disallowed.

I cited the rules too many times, they are the same. Page 66 rule allows measurement, and measurement is all that it's needed by SMS and IC.

[RealGenius]

When people get tired of typing the rules, then the discussion has ended. Variety is what makes life spicy.

Thread closed.