Doom of Malanti Query.

[imperialsavant]

:) First Apologies if this has been covered in the recent past but I have been out of the Loop due to illness for a while.

Has there been an FAQ on this?

Last I saw there was great argument as to wether it could be used against Troops in Vehicles, Buildings, Bunkers etc.
Also could Invunerable Saves be used against it?

Would appreciate the latest ruling on these points.

[mathhammer]

adpticon aka dkka dakka aka inat has some ruling.

GW has not yet produced a Tyranid FAQ.

[R3con]

Your still going to have to figure it out pre-game with your opponent. In our club we simply play it cant hit anyone inside vehicles. But both arguments are valid.

[fupersudge]

Im just saying it doesn't until they say it does. Easiest way to go about it.

[DarkLink]

Im just saying it doesn't until they say it does. Easiest way to go about it.

And the best way to keep people from trying to kill each other.

[Bean]

Unless, of course, one of those people is a Tyranid player who thinks that they ought to be playing by the actual rules, instead of funny made-up rules that nerf his Doom of Malantai--especially when the other person is claiming that his funny made-up rules are based on an "equally valid" argument.

If the second person ended up murdered in such a situation, I doubt any jury would convict. =P

[Angelofblades]

It's actually legal for the Doom to hit a unit in a transport. Nothing in the rules book disallows the Doom from hitting a unit in a transport, etc. However, by the same token the unit inside a transport does have a freindly unit in the way (the transprot itself) and is thus allowed to take cover saves. The doom only negates armor saves. Cover saves and invuls still apply.

This is how we play it at our club.

[Bean]

Nah, you can only take cover saves against shooting attacks. Spirit Leech is not a shooting attack.

Throwing in the cover save was the INAT authors' attempt at a compromise--it has no basis in the real rules.

[Rapture]

If you can't tell from some of the comments here, you need to talk with your opponent. If all else fails, flip a coin.

[Tynskel]

Flipping a coin is for IN GAME arguments (says so in the rules!)

That's why I recommend that you discuss this with your mates, before you start organizing your game.

The rules explicitly state when cover saves are taking from shooting-- (all references are to line of sight from 'Firing Weapons')-- Spirit Leech isn't a gun, rather it is an ability.

And that you measure to the Hull of a Transport to effect units embarked (i know that's page 66.).



I hate the INAT FAQ. Biggest bunch of BS. I refuse to play by that piece of garbage. (and it is not because of Spirit Leech--- there are MANY reasons why INAT is garbage.)

[Renegade]

however, every other rule in the book points to the model in range being the only unit you can effect. Your measuring to a tank, and unlike Hoods etc, nothing inside is effected by its rules as those rules depend on separate criteria being met, like rolling for leadership which a vehicle doesn't have or other action.

Its an effect that takes place in the shooting phase, and covers an area of effect. Nothing says it does not follow the rules for shooting when considering save etc.

No FAQ/Errata, no clear cut answer. Discuss or roll for it.

[dirkspair]

the doom is X points (+Y for a pod), a real steal. i used him in a few games and i played him as if he grants cover saves and units inside vehicles are not affected. he still did awesome (in one game he wiped out 1200+ points of deathwing terminators). so for the sake of no arguments i recommend him being played like that until we all know better, i.e. the FAQ comes out.
he still rocks, smells like cheese and is well worth his points.

[Tynskel]

however, every other rule in the book points to the model in range being the only unit you can effect. Your measuring to a tank, and unlike Hoods etc, nothing inside is effected by its rules as those rules depend on separate criteria being met, like rolling for leadership which a vehicle doesn't have or other action.

Its an effect that takes place in the shooting phase, and covers an area of effect. Nothing says it does not follow the rules for shooting when considering save etc.

No FAQ/Errata, no clear cut answer. Discuss or roll for it.

That is incorrect--- the rule on p. 66 states that the model is in range by using a state of proxy. The model could be effected.

However, an example of a model of in range, but cannot be effected is shooting: you require Line of Sight to be able to shoot the model. Just being in range does not work. Since the model cannot be seen, it cannot be shot.

Almost all abilities just state a range. You measure too and from the hull of the vehicle.
ex: Librarian embarked onboard a Rhino. Measure from the hull 24" to range of opponent's Psyker--- if within range (defined in the beginning of the book) the Librarian may use their Psychic Hood, a special ability.

[imperialsavant]

however, every other rule in the book points to the model in range being the only unit you can effect. Your measuring to a tank, and unlike Hoods etc, nothing inside is effected by its rules as those rules depend on separate criteria being met, like rolling for leadership which a vehicle doesn't have or other action.

Its an effect that takes place in the shooting phase, and covers an area of effect. Nothing says it does not follow the rules for shooting when considering save etc.

No FAQ/Errata, no clear cut answer. Discuss or roll for it.

:eek: WOW! Cant believe this has not been sorted out by GW by now, it seems things are still as unclear as when the Codex first came out!
I can understand 'nid players wanting to have it affect everything but its ridiculously powerful for the points cost if you cant take at least a coversave.
I guess its the old Story-----" It dosent say it doesnt affect units in Vehicles----Yes but it dosent say it does!"

One can only hope GW eventually does issue an FAQ. Maybe we should write to Jervis. He did clarify the Righteous Zeal move for Black Templars which also caused some constanation with the need to hold objectives etc.

[Commissar Lewis]

TC, you have opened pandora's box here, a veritable Necronomicon!

Seriously, GW needs to get off their posteriors and come up with a solution to this ASAP.

[Angelofblades]

Nah, you can only take cover saves against shooting attacks. Spirit Leech is not a shooting attack.

Throwing in the cover save was the INAT authors' attempt at a compromise--it has no basis in the real rules.

You are wrong. Cover saves are not only taken from shooting attacks.
Examples include:
Tervigon death explosions: Termagants in cover get cover saves.
Vehicles exploding to getting rammed, passengers get cover saves if applicable (IE KFF, psychic powers)
Yriels suicide bomber ability (which occurs in combat) - cover saves apply

Page 21 provides when units are in cover. There is a table chart there, and it details when models gain cover saves and what counts as cover. Freind or Foe units count as a 4+ cover. A unit inside a vehicle, have the vehicle between them and the Doom.

It wasn't just INAT's attempt at compromise. It was them reading the rules.





however, every other rule in the book points to the model in range being the only unit you can effect. Your measuring to a tank, and unlike Hoods etc, nothing inside is effected by its rules as those rules depend on separate criteria being met, like rolling for leadership which a vehicle doesn't have or other action.

Its an effect that takes place in the shooting phase, and covers an area of effect. Nothing says it does not follow the rules for shooting when considering save etc.

No FAQ/Errata, no clear cut answer. Discuss or roll for it.


Page 66 of the rukle book:


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.

Sorry, did you say something about there being no rule for this?

[Bean]

You are wrong. Cover saves are not only taken from shooting attacks.
Examples include:
Tervigon death explosions: Termagants in cover get cover saves.
Vehicles exploding to getting rammed, passengers get cover saves if applicable (IE KFF, psychic powers)
Yriels suicide bomber ability (which occurs in combat) - cover saves apply

Page 21 provides when units are in cover. There is a table chart there, and it details when models gain cover saves and what counts as cover. Freind or Foe units count as a 4+ cover. A unit inside a vehicle, have the vehicle between them and the Doom.

It wasn't just INAT's attempt at compromise. It was them reading the rules.


I'm pretty sure that every single one of those examples is wrong, but I haven't gone and checked the specific rules in question.

If any of those situations grant cover saves as you suggest, then it is only due to a specific instance in the wording of the rules that cover the particular situation in question--not because of how cover saves work in general.

Page 21 does indeed define when a model is in cover:

"When any part of the target model's body is obscured from the view point of the firer, the target model is in cover."

That's it. The whole definition. And look!

In each of the situations you outlined above, there is no "firer." So, no models are in cover in any of those situations. Ergo, no cover saves.

Too bad. Guess you'd better actually read the rules next time.

[Angelofblades]

I'm pretty sure that every single one of those examples is wrong, but I haven't gone and checked the specific rules in question.


If any of those situations grant cover saves as you suggest, then it is only due to a specific instance in the wording of the rules that cover the particular situation in question--not because of how cover saves work in general.

Page 21 does indeed define when a model is in cover:

"When any part of the target model's body is obscured from the view point of the firer, the target model is in cover."

That's it. The whole definition. And look!

In each of the situations you outlined above, there is no "firer." So, no models are in cover in any of those situations. Ergo, no cover saves.

Too bad. Guess you'd better actually read the rules next time.


If you're not going to bother check agaisnt the examples, why bother replying other than to troll?

Thoe previous exaples prove that no shooting needs to be done to take a cover save, you're more than welcome to check them whether a cover save is applicable or not. The Doom's ability is no different, hell it even happens in the shooting phase.

How about you read the heading of the rule as well, on the top of Page 21


Because of this, units in or behind cover recieve a cover saving throw.

The part that you chose to elaborate on, has a specific header of "WHEN ARE MODELS IN COVER?"

How about this example:

unit of Guardsmen are in cover. In the shooting phase, the Chimera next to them eplodes, the eplosion radius reachign the Guardsmen. Can they get a cover save?

Chimera explodes due to being rammed in the movement phase?
Chimera explodes due to power klaw in the assault phase?

Where's the "firer," in each of those instances?

Boy am I glad I actualyl have read the rules, replying against someone who obviously hasnt.

[40kAlex]

On the cover save half of the Doom question, it depends on what the Spirit Leech is. Is it a pulse? like a shot fired in all directions? Or is it a persistant aura, such as the Sanguinary priest's Blood challace?

The doom is not attacking anyone directly, he just has this vampire field or pulse or whatever it is. It's NOT a shooting attack, even if it is in the shooting phase. The only problem is we have not seen offensive "auras" such as this before. I would personally say that it's an effect that causes wounds that has an origin, so it grants cover. If I can have cover from vehicle explosions or similar effects, then one can have cover from the doom.

On the impacting units in transports question, it all comes down to a much trickier question: Do embarked units exist on the table? For those willing to read more this thread http://www.librarium-online.com/forums/space-marines/196366-gate-infinity-question.html asks if a space marine librarian can use Gate of Infinity to deep strike out of his transport. This ruling also comes down to the main question of whether a unit in a transport is actually on the table or not. Apparently in earlier editions of the rules there was a clear point made that a unit in a transport did not exist on the table. In 5th that distinction is not so clear, take that as you will.

I personally believe that a unit in a transport can't be affected by the Doom, as it provokes a knee jerk reaction of disbelief from me. That is to say, I normally consider a unit in a transport completely sealed from the outside environment when it comes to effects and attacks unless specifically stated.

If the doom can Spirit Leech from units in a transport, is that to say anything that does not target a squad in a vehicle directly can inadvertently effect it? From certain psychic powers to scattering blast weapons, if they end up hitting the transport based on your measurements, since the squad inside was not directly targeted are the hit or affected?

If Jaws of the World wolf, for example, was worded such that it only stated that vehicle models were not effected by the line would the infantry unit inside a transport still have to roll initiative tests? The effect ( a psychic power ) did not target the transported unit, possibly not even the transport, yet they are in its area of effect. I say of course, no, they are in the transport, so even if they are within the area of effect they are not affected, OR since they are embarked they have been removed from the table and therefor aren't in the area of effect.

Consider the preceding

[Angelofblades]

I think JoTWW is abad example. It has specifics of what it affects and how it affects. Specifically, that the infinitely thin line, has to touch the model. Unfortuantely it would never get to touch a unit inside a transport, for the simple reason that the unit is inside the transport. While I agree with the fact that units inside should count as immune to such effects as the Doom's, there's simply too much precedence out there to allude that units inside transports are still in play and on the table.

Examples include being able to use abilities such as the Sanguinary Priest's from within a vehicle, Pedro's 12" Insipiring Aura, failing a "Get's Hot!" Save, occupied troops transports still counting as scoring etc.

Also whether or not the Doom's Leech ability is a shooting attack or not, has nothing to do with whether a unit get's a cover save or not.

[Bean]

If you're not going to bother check agaisnt the examples, why bother replying other than to troll?

Because the core rules are clear on this issue. If you are right about any of those examples, it is only because of a specific exception to the core rules, which, in turn, would render the example irrelevant.

I'm not trolling.



Thoe previous exaples prove that no shooting needs to be done to take a cover save, you're more than welcome to check them whether a cover save is applicable or not. The Doom's ability is no different, hell it even happens in the shooting phase.


No, they don't. In none of those examples does anyone get cover saves as you claim, according to the core rules.



How about you read the heading of the rule as well, on the top of Page 21

"Because of this, units in or behind cover recieve a cover saving throw."

The part that you chose to elaborate on, has a specific header of "WHEN ARE MODELS IN COVER?"


Yes. The part on which I focused tells you in cover. The part on which you chose to focus tells you what happens when a unit is in or behind cover. Unfortunately, you have yet to demonstrate that a model can be in or behind cover in a situation where there is no firer.

Since the all the rules which tell you how to find out whether a model is in or behind cover refer to a firer, a model cannot be in or behind cover if there is no firer.

Its really quite simple, and you're (still) really quite wrong. Nothing you've posted so far even comes close to suggesting otherwise.



How about this example:

unit of Guardsmen are in cover. In the shooting phase, the Chimera next to them eplodes, the eplosion radius reachign the Guardsmen. Can they get a cover save?

Chimera explodes due to being rammed in the movement phase?
Chimera explodes due to power klaw in the assault phase?

Where's the "firer," in each of those instances?


Yes, let's look at that example. Looks like it supports my position pretty well, actually. There is no firer in either instance--thus, models cannot take cover saves against exploding Chimaeras. Again, pretty simple.



Boy am I glad I actualyl have read the rules, replying against someone who obviously hasnt.

You may have read them, but, if you have, you clearly lack the wit to understand them. What you've posted here is the logical equivalent of gibberish. The quotes you take from the rules don't support your position. The examples you cite don't support your position. There is no reasoning, here, to speak of.

You are simply wrong. Very nearly everything you have posted is either wrong, irrelevant, or contrary to your stated position. Maybe you should take some time to think this through and then try again.

[PRoeske]

Another of those great rulings by GW thathas not yet been clarified.

As a non-Nid player, I still tend to take sides with the "Leech works on models embarked in transports"-group (although i'm playing Mech-Guard most of the time).

I think the most important questions in this case are:

1. Is Spirit Leech a Shootign Attack?
2. Is a unit in a transport considered being on the table?
3. Can models in transports be effected by anything in-game?

When reading the rulebook and the Nid codex, i think all the answers are more or less covered:

1. NO. It's an ability used in the shooting phase. ALL other shooting-attacks in this game are named as such in the description of the weapon, psychic power of what else (Either in the codex or in the rulebook)

2. YES. If an unit embarked in a transport wants to fire his/her plasma/melta/...-guns, everyone seems to agree with this, even the "Spirit Leech doenst work"-group. How would this be possible if the unit is not actually there, but drinking coffe somewhere in a bunker? Also, when firing a plasmagun from a firepoint and overheating (happens in the shooting phase ase well btw), you still got to roll that save, and when failing, the model is still removed fro play as a casualty, even though it's embarked in a transport.

3. YES> Following the arguments on point 2, models in tranports can be effected in some manners in-game. There are not many ways to do this, but I think we might safely conclude SL is one of them.

As on the cover-save part of this discussion: Read the shooting section in the rulebook very carefully. On page 15 the definition of "Firer" is given, on page 21 to 23 the rules of coversaves are given. If you still thnik you could take coversaves against SL after doiing this, you might as well try to take a coversave against being "Doom"-ed bij elader, or against being Null-zoned by a Space Marine Librarian. (these powers are none-shooting psychic powers/abilities as well, the last not-targetting).

Grt. Pim

[CitizenZero]

I look to the FAQ about psychic powers affecting units in vehicles. Not because the Spirit Leech is a psychic attack, because it isn't, but because that particular FAQ sets a precedent.

It states the reason for psychic powers not working on units in vehicles is due to ease of gameplay, one can assume the Spirit Leech doesn't affect units in vehicles for the same reason.

[SeattleDV8]

Because the core rules are clear on this issue. If you are right about any of those examples, it is only because of a specific exception to the core rules, which, in turn, would render the example irrelevant. .
There are many rules that are *only* discussed in the shooting attacks section. Cover saves, wound allocation, casualty removal, etc.
So, if something happens (Doom, Mawloc, vehicle exploding) that is not explicitly a 'shooting attack' or a 'CC attack', what rules do you use? If you refuse to allow cover saves because "Doom is not a shooting attack", then how do you deal with Wound allocation and casualty removal?




You are simply wrong. Very nearly everything you have posted is either wrong, irrelevant, or contrary to your stated position. Maybe you should take some time to think this through and then try again.

Is this type of crap really needed? Really??

[Commissar Lewis]

I say this debate should be settled olde-schoole style - pistols at dawn. Or sabers at mid-morning. Or possibly 2x4s at noon, or the infrequently used rocket launchers at dusk.

[Angelofblades]

Because the core rules are clear on this issue. If you are right about any of those examples, it is only because of a specific exception to the core rules, which, in turn, would render the example irrelevant.

No, there aren't any specific exceptions to any of those, neither does one need to be granted.





I'm not trolling.

Could have fooled me from your first post




No, they don't. In none of those examples does anyone get cover saves as you claim, according to the core rules.

You've still yet to refute the first part of the cover save rule, which has nothing to do with whether there's a firer or not:

Page 21

Because of this, units in or behind cover receive a cover saving throw.

[PRoeske]

@AoB:
If I'd be playing you somehow, and i have a unit positioned in cover, behind a wall or whatever, and you assault me. You'd allow me to take a 4+ saving throw against your powerweapon attacks???

'Nough Said

Pim

[Angelofblades]

@AoB:
If I'd be playing you somehow, and i have a unit positioned in cover, behind a wall or whatever, and you assault me. You'd allow me to take a 4+ saving throw against your powerweapon attacks???

'Nough Said

Pim

LOL This goes to show how much YOU'VE read the rules

Page 39

Cover does not provide protection in close combat as it does against shooting. This means that models do not get cover saves against any wounds suffered in close combat, and for obvious reasons cannot go to ground

Nice try though

/owned

[Commissar Lewis]

GW seriously needs to come up with a damned FAQ about this as numerous debates I've read about the web have gotten ugly. In fact, several tropes come to mind:

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/InternetBackdraft
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Flamewar
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SeriousBusiness (bonus points for the pic of Walter)

But in all honestly, I don't see why having Doom affect units in transports and giving said units a cover save is so unreasonable. It's a decent compromise. Because at the end of the day, 40k is first and foremost a game, not a court case.

[CitizenZero]

rocket launchers at dusk.Please.

[david5th]

Please not again.:)

[Bean]

You've still yet to refute the first part of the cover save rule, which has nothing to do with whether there's a firer or not:

Page 21

"Because of this, units in or behind cover receive a cover saving throw."



Actually, I did refute this. Did you even read my post?

This quote is great, but it only applies in situations where a unit is in or behind cover.

It does nothing unless we have a rule which tells us what it means to be in or behind cover.

There is no rule which tells us what it means to be "behind cover" (for either a model or a unit) so that part of the rule is superfluous. Units can never be behind cover.

There is a rule which tells us what it means for a model to be in cover, and that rule requires there to be a firer.

There is a rule which tells us how to find out whether a unit is in cover based on which of its models are in cover--again, this rule requires there to be a firer (or firers).

So, your rule does indeed give units a cover save, but only when they are in cover, which they can only be if there is a firer.

Refuted.

Next objection?

[Lerra]

For a non-tournament game, I always allow Doom of Malan'tai to affect units in transports. Why? Because in a tournament-prep game, I would rather prepare against the worst possible scenario. It makes my opponent happy, and I'm prepared for facing against both uber-Doom and nerfed-Doom. Inevitably, some people are going to play it both ways until an FAQ is released, so it only makes sense to be prepared for both scenarios.

At a tournament game, the TO should have this issue sorted before the tournament starts (either by using the INAT FAQ, his own FAQ, or at least having his own opinion on the issue sorted). If not, flip a coin.

[Bean]

.
There are many rules that are *only* discussed in the shooting attacks section. Cover saves, wound allocation, casualty removal, etc.
So, if something happens (Doom, Mawloc, vehicle exploding) that is not explicitly a 'shooting attack' or a 'CC attack', what rules do you use? If you refuse to allow cover saves because "Doom is not a shooting attack", then how do you deal with Wound allocation and casualty removal?

This is one of the many ways in which the game is fundamentally broken. It's a shame that GW can't write better rules. It does not indicate that you get to take cover saves against the Doom.

Also, many situations of this type specifically state that the hits or attacks or whatnot are to be resolved as if they were from shooting. The Close Combat section deals with big chunks of the wound allocation and saving throw steps this way, and it is perfectly functional.

However, even if you treat the attacks (or hits or whatever) as if they were from shooting, there still has to be a firer for there to be cover saves--and dealing with wound allocation as if the wounds had come from a shooting attack doesn't magically create a firer.




Is this type of crap really needed? Really??

Not one post anywhere on this entire website is really needed, and the vast majority of them are, essentially, crap. We post them to entertain ourselves or provide information for others (which, generally, is just another way we entertain ourselves). The portion of my post that you quoted was not necessary. Life would have continued on just fine without it. However, it was a reasonable and legitimate summary conclusion to the rest of my post. Your apparent animosity is entirely misplaced.

[CitizenZero]

We should take bets on what the results will be when the FAQ gets released.

If you want, I'll set it up and we can all put our rules dissections money where are posts are. I accept paypal.

[Bean]

If I thought that the eventual ruling would, in any way, be based on the extant rules, I would. However, Games Workshop routinely ignores or re-writes significant chunks of extant rules when releasing FAQs. Given that, there's really no way to guess how this one will go from reading the extant rules.

[Angelofblades]

@ Bean:

Incorrect again. The passage titled "What Counts As Cover," is clearly enough indication that a unit inside a transport will gain a cover save, without the need of a firer.

The first part if quoted


Because of this, units in or behind cover receive a cover saving throw.

we can understand, by using plain English, what "in" or "behind" means.

The Cover Chart, gives us the listing of the cover save units can get, still no need for a firer.

As you notice, "Units (Friend of Foe)," is listed there. Clearly, a unit embarked "IN" a transport, is inside a friendly unit, thus gains a cover save of 4+. Again, without the need of any firer.

In addition, the only exception to not being able to take a cover save is in close combat, as it specifically says so.

You've yet to prove that models "behind" cover don't get a cover save, as there's no description in the cover section such as "When are models Behind Cover?" As there is "When are models in Cover?"

So by your reasoning, since the rulebook never tells us when models are behind cover, they can never take a cover save for being, as what we see, as behind it, IE being behind another unit... riiiight.

You've also yet to prove that a "Firer," is a necessary part of gaining a cover save, as the primary function of cover saves, as described by the core rules, is not only to shield units from shots.

[Bean]

No, Angel, I did prove that a firer is necessary for a unit to take cover saves. I did it to a more than reasonable standard, and your stubborn refusal to acknowledge it won't change the facts.

If being "behind cover" according to the general definitions of "behind" and "cover" without respect to an attacker or firer is enough to earn a unit a cover save, then all units receive cover from everything on the board all the time. Everything is behind everything else from one angle or another.

No, the sentence you keep quoting doesn't have the substance necessary to act as a rule. The only rule which does have the substance necessary to tell us whether am odel is in cover is the one I quoted (which, by the way, covers being "behind" cover, too, since it gives you a particular viewpoint from which to check: the firers).

You cannot be in cover (or behind it) except from the perspective of a particular firer. The rules are clear on this. You have failed to offer any evidence to the contrary. You are, again, demonstrably wrong.

[DarkLink]

Please not again.:)

Sigh... I know, right :(

[Commissar Lewis]

Sometimes, I wonder if GW included the Doom as an elaborate, sadistic trolling move. After all, why else would they not release a FAQ on the subject?

I imagine the codex author's facial expression whilst writing the rule was the trollface.jpg.

[Tynskel]

GW didn't include this as a 'troll'.

The rules are clear on this.

The cover saves explicitly state cover is only from the position of the firer. Someone has to be shooting you to be able to grant you a cover save.

Second the rules under embarked units on p66 explicitly state that for purposes of range you measure to the hull of the vehicle---- No where do this state ignore other rules--- ex. for shooting, requiring Line of Sight. The rule on p.66 does not override that rule, hence why you cannot shoot an embarked unit, even though you are 'in range'.

However:
Spirit Leech is defined as an ability. It is not a gun, it is not a Psychic attack--- it is just a range ability, like all others, and has the potential to effect units that are embarked, project from an embarked unit, and/or do both.

[sorienor]

The cover saves explicitly state cover is only from the position of the firer. Someone has to be shooting you to be able to grant you a cover save.

Cover and cover saves are not the same thing, the terms are not interchangeable. Cover can grant a cover save, but it should be obvious that cover is not the only way a unit may have and use a cover save (KFF, shield of sanguinius, etc).

So no, shooting is not the only way to use a cover save.

[CitizenZero]

If I thought that the eventual ruling would, in any way, be based on the extant rules, I would. However, Games Workshop routinely ignores or re-writes significant chunks of extant rules when releasing FAQs. Given that, there's really no way to guess how this one will go from reading the extant rules.You can make a really good guess as to how its going to go from reading the precedent set in the Psychic Powers FAQ.

[DarkLink]

You can make a really good guess as to how its going to go from reading the precedent set in the Psychic Powers FAQ.

But then again, you can also look at the SW Furious Charge/Counter Assault ruling. It's entierly reasonable that GW will decide that getting to hit units in vehicles is too powerful, and will rule against it.

[CitizenZero]

But then again, you can also look at the SW Furious Charge/Counter Assault ruling. It's entierly reasonable that GW will decide that getting to hit units in vehicles is too powerful, and will rule against it.I agree, I think they will rule against it...for the same reason they ruled against Psychic powers working on units in vehicles: Ease of gameplay.

[BuFFo]

You can make a really good guess as to how its going to go from reading the precedent set in the Psychic Powers FAQ.

Or how Reserve Bonuses stack for Eldar but not for IG, even though the codex rules for both ae essentially the same, almost word for word.

Bottom line is, who knows what gamer ruling GW will accept as a FAQ.... It is anyone's guess lol....

[Tynskel]

Cover and cover saves are not the same thing, the terms are not interchangeable. Cover can grant a cover save, but it should be obvious that cover is not the only way a unit may have and use a cover save (KFF, shield of sanguinius, etc).

So no, shooting is not the only way to use a cover save.

That's not following the context of the rules. By writing 'count as being in cover' and then referring to the section on cover, this rule means that one is in cover from the point of view of the firer (in the case of cover saves), and reducing the opponent's initiative to 1 (from act of assaulting).

There is NOTHING in the rulebook that grants 'cover saves', UNLESS someone is 'firing' at you, and you fulfill the description of cover.

[HsojVvad]

LOL I was going to ask if this has ever been resloved yet but I see it's the same old same old but with new people.

I say it effects units in vehilces and no cover save, but would play with the cover save allowed.

First of, why are units embarked in vehicles safe from anything? They are not. Anyone in the camp that says Spirit Leech dosn't effect units embarked in vehiclec can proof that units are immune to anything.

If so please tell me the page number in the BRB where it says any unit or model in a vehicle is immune to anything?

First of all, Spirit Leech is not a psychic attack. It's been proven 3 times that SL is not a psychic attack. It's not listed as a psychic power, it's not listed in the psychic powers section in the Tyranid codex and 3rdly, when GW made psychic cards, there is no SL in there. So therefore SL is not a psychic attack and the FAQ cannot be used agaisnt it.

Is it a shooting attack? No it's not. It's an area effect just like psychic hoods. It is taken in the shooting phase but not a shooting attack.

Who can be effected? Any unit within 6". Anything inside a vehicle uses the vehicles hull to see if it is effected or not. Page 66 BRB.

So people will still say it can't effect units in a vehicle. I say prove it, they say no, I have to prove it. So I have but still no one refutes me. So why a unit embarked in a vehicle can't be shot at? Well the rules in the BRB tell you why you can't shoot at a unit in a vehicle, there is no Line of Site. Since there is no LoS you can't fire or assault a unit embarked in a vehicle. SL does not need LoS. So no protection there.

People claim you units can't take wounds in a vehicle? Really now? How about "gets hot" rule? I am shure a unit will have to take a wound if it fails a gets hot rule. So units in a vehicle can take wounds.

Since there is no special magical rule that units embarked in a vehicle are safe from anything SL does effect units in vehicles. But people are set in their ways. This is 5th edtion not 4th or previous edtions. Maybe they were safe back then, but not in 5th.

Also just because units embarked in a vehicle do not have to take Leadership tests or here is where I get them mixed up, morale tests? Yes they do, no where in the rules does it say they don't. Well it says for one, but not the other, I forget wich now since I havn't gamed in a while and forgot some things.

So this is why I say SL effects units in vehicles. So far I havn't been refuted, and I would like to see some new blood try to. Even some old blood I would like to see it, but please give proof not just because "I say so."

[Tynskel]

You are safe from shooting--- p. 66.

Even though you may count as 'in-range' (or 'within' as the explicit term) for a gun, however, upon further reading of shooting rules, you need Line of Sight, which you do not have, when a unit is embarked.

As for cover--- the rules are explicitly clear: you only receive a 'cover save' when being 'shot' at. You may 'count as being in cover' by being in the vehicle, however, 'cover saves' are ONLY from firing--- the cover save is completely dependent on the position of the model and the model that is 'firing'.

Counting as being in cover has another application: the Assault Phase.
But, again, this does not translate for units embarked, because you must be in Base 2 Base (B2B) contact to engage a unit, and when embarked your opponent cannot physically place a model into B2B with you.

Since 'Spirit Leech' is not a Shooting Attack, the opponent does not benefit from the 'cover save' even if 'counting as being in cover'.

[Paul]

Doesn't spirit leech say it affects all enemy units with (a model?) within six inches?

How is a unit that isn't on the table within six inches?

And if it IS on the table in a transport, but actually ISN'T on the table because it isn't on the table...but it's abilities can be used even though it isn't on the table. So it "counts as" being on the table.

Most of the time abilities are specified to be measured to the hull of the transport. Does Spirit Leech say you measure to the hull of the transport to count the unit inside? Or do you have to hit a firepoint, which is where the inside-squad was shooting out?

sigh. I see the problem.

Can we go back to 4th where transported units were actually not on the table?

[Bean]

Doesn't spirit leech say it affects all enemy units with (a model?) within six inches?

How is a unit that isn't on the table within six inches?

And if it IS on the table in a transport, but actually ISN'T on the table because it isn't on the table...but it's abilities can be used even though it isn't on the table. So it "counts as" being on the table.

Most of the time abilities are specified to be measured to the hull of the transport. Does Spirit Leech say you measure to the hull of the transport to count the unit inside? Or do you have to hit a firepoint, which is where the inside-squad was shooting out?

sigh. I see the problem.

Can we go back to 4th where transported units were actually not on the table?

No. Spirit Leech doesn't mention distance to models at all. It affects units within 6". Usually, a unit is coextensive with the models of which it is comprised (that is, it occupies exactly the same area as those models). Thus, for most units, having a model within 6" of the Doom is what gets you hit by Spirit Leech.

When a unit is in a transport, however, it is not coextensive with its models (which are all off the table--none are within 6" of anything), it is, instead, coextensive with its transport. This is made clear by the rule on page 66 which tells us that we should measure to or from the transport whenever we would need to measure to or from the unit embarked upon it. Thus, for units in transports, being in a transport which is within 6" of the Doom is what gets you hit by Spirit Leech.

It's really not very complicated. It has nothing to do with fire points. It doesn't have anything to do with whether the unit is shooting or where the unit is shooting from (the unit's own shooting is the one exception to the rule on page 66). It has nothing to do with the locations of the models in the unit.

Spirit Leech doesn't tell you to measure to the hull of the transport. It doesn't need to. The core rules do tell you that.

This question is all about where the unit is located and how to measure to it. The answer to that question, for units embarked in transports, is found, spelled out quite clearly, on page 66 of the rules. You measure to the vehicle. The unit, effective, is exactly where the vehicle is. If the vehicle is within the Doom's range, so is the unit. If the unit is within range, it gets affected by Spirit Leech. End of story. Not complicate.

[Lordgimpet]

having read this thread for a bit I though i might throw in my opinions on the matter.
reading SL I don't see where some consider this a shooting attack as it just an effect that is resolved at the start of the shooting phase and even the opponents phase. but i can see the ambiguity of the way the special rule is explained.
originally i was of the mind that those being transported would be affected, but after mulling it over in my mind i would start to lean to those embarked would simply not be effected.

Why? well look at the explanation in the nid codex "every non-vehicle enemy unit within 6"
ok makes sense as vehicles have no LD for the test.
which got me thinking what made the marine in the drednought immune, and from there I speculated
ok so if the transported unit can be affected why are the drivers of said transports not.
which as odd as it sounds seem fair enough.. until you throw in open topped which I feel should get no protection what so ever. or take a viper jetbike why is he immune look at the gunner on that thing what protecting him.
so in the end the group I play with have decided that all vehicles cannot be affected regardless of the type of transport
just as another ability/psychic power/weapon effect that has a target any non vehicle rule
but that's our groups choice not saying we are right or wrong just we made a call we are happy with, until GW publishes one of their own house rules gives it the official stamp and the community treats it as gospel

Until that day arrives.. probably when the dark eldar codex is released, I don't think a solution that will appease every one can be reached so like many have posted before. when all else fails just roll off..

side note the Doom is a real PITA when the player keeps moving it 1 inch away from enemies engaged in CC
which is an effective way to dissolve Sanguine guard.

[Renegade]

Yeah this topic seems to be as divisive as always.

The answer is no, GW have not got round to sorting this out so the argument so there can be no disagreement.

[HsojVvad]

Doesn't spirit leech say it affects all enemy units with (a model?) within six inches?

How is a unit that isn't on the table within six inches?

And if it IS on the table in a transport, but actually ISN'T on the table because it isn't on the table...but it's abilities can be used even though it isn't on the table. So it "counts as" being on the table.

Most of the time abilities are specified to be measured to the hull of the transport. Does Spirit Leech say you measure to the hull of the transport to count the unit inside?

Yes


Can we go back to 4th where transported units were actually not on the table?

NO we are playing 5th edtion rules now. :p

[HsojVvad]

, but after mulling it over in my mind i would start to lean to those embarked would simply not be effected.

Why? well look at the explanation in the nid codex "every non-vehicle enemy unit within 6"
ok makes sense as vehicles have no LD for the test.
which got me thinking what made the marine in the drednought immune, and from there I speculated
ok so if the transported unit can be affected why are the drivers of said transports not.
which as odd as it sounds seem fair enough.. until you throw in open topped which I feel should get no protection what so ever. or take a viper jetbike why is he immune look at the gunner on that thing what protecting him.
so in the end the group I play with have decided that all vehicles cannot be affected regardless of the type of transport
just as another ability/psychic power/weapon effect that has a target any non vehicle rule
but that's our groups choice not saying we are right or wrong just we made a call we are happy with, until GW publishes one of their own house rules gives it the official stamp and the community treats it as gospel

Until that day arrives.. probably when the dark eldar codex is released, I don't think a solution that will appease every one can be reached so like many have posted before. when all else fails just roll off..

side note the Doom is a real PITA when the player keeps moving it 1 inch away from enemies engaged in CC
which is an effective way to dissolve Sanguine guard.

I am trying to counter your argument so please correct me where I am wrong. When a unit embarks in transport, when do the transporst and unit become one? They are still 2 different units able to fire at 2 different targets. Even though they "co-exsist" they are not one unit. Would that make them one KP then? (I am not shure on KP rules) They "co-exsist" together because they share the same space since in 5th edtion no models can occupy the same space.

When a unit of say Space Marines embark in a vehicle, when do the SM become a non infantry? The Space Marines are still infantry when embarked in a vehicle. So your example of non-vehicle unit goes in our favour. Units never ever change their status and will always be a "non-vehicle" that never changes. If it does, please show me where in the BRB that happens.

This might be a bit off, but while anyone is at it, please show me where the magic rule that shows that any unit embarked in a vehicle never takes any damage or wounds? Just because you are embarked in a vehicle dosn't mean you are immune to anything. You can still get wounded. You still have to take those tests when you take 25% or more damage (forget what that is called at the moment).

BTW what does PITA stand for? I foget :p


Yeah this topic seems to be as divisive as always.

The answer is no, GW have not got round to sorting this out so the argument so there can be no disagreement.

I think you mean, that GW still sees people arguing over the INAT rulings and too many people disagree. :p

[Tynskel]

The units are still different. They still use their normal rules.

This is where the definitions of attacks becomes important. Shooting attacks REQUIRE Line of Sight. Hence psychic powers, like Jaws of the World Wolf will not effect occupants of a vehicle, because the power is a 'psychic shooting attack'.

Abilities that just have a Area of Effect and are not a 'shooting attack', do not require Line of Sight. They effect everything in the area. p.66 explains that this includes models Embarked, if they are within range (which is defined on page 3).

A unit shooting out of a vehicle via a firepoint can 1) shoot at a different target than the vehicle, and 2) measure from the firepoint. Open top vehicles take this one step further by measuring anywhere from the hull.

[Bean]

Yeah this topic seems to be as divisive as always.

The answer is no, GW have not got round to sorting this out so the argument so there can be no disagreement.

Unless, of course, you count the portions of the core rules which resolve this issue quite clearly. =P

[Tynskel]

Unless, of course, you count the portions of the core rules which resolve this issue quite clearly. =P

Drives me nuts! If someone disagrees with the rules, they ignore them and do their own thing-- then expect everyone else to follow them.

Bah!

[Lordgimpet]

@HsojVvad
I never stated that units become one considered off-board etc. I was pointing out a logical viewpoint of why should the transported be effected when the crew are not. I mean its easy to say that the unit inside is separate but take a dedicated transport those as classified as part of the unit and some circles count that as is and others do not. I was then pointing out from a spirit of the game point of view.

you are correct a unit never changes its rules infantry is still infantry. the sad thing is GW gloss over a lot in the effort of keeping the game fast and simple imagine if we still used the 1st ed rules (vehicle manual) we you has a target sheet and had to roll precisely where the shot would hit a vehicle via a simple grid and the specific damage etc

you still take wounds embarked on transports most commonly from the transport itself taking critical damage, however there are some attacks that clearly state when the transported units are effected. sadly with SL this is not the case. My groups choice on this was similar abilities don't affect units in transport, I will use the eldar power Doom for example. it also has a "any non vehicle" but it has been clarified I think by Jervis in a WD not 100% on that. but I can not doom anyone in transports, it is not a shooting attack and no line of sight needed.

oh PITA = Pain in the ***

[HsojVvad]

Ah that is what PITA stands for, thanks LOL.

Well all we can hope that when ever the Tyranid FAQ comes out that SL rule will be clarified. Why do I have the feeling it will not be clarified one way or the other, Or it will cause more confusion what ever GW says. I think they will do it for the "damn internet folks" that GW hates so much, just to piss them off and let them vent some more.

Then again, how does that saying go? "Bad press is free good press?" As long as they are talking about people know about it. This is why I think GW does this on purpose. Do you really think there would be much GW buzz going on if we didn't complain so much about GW? I think we fell right into thier hands LOL.

[Bean]

Drives me nuts! If someone disagrees with the rules, they ignore them and do their own thing-- then expect everyone else to follow them.

Bah!

It may say something bad about me that I care, but is this you agreeing with me or disagreeing with me?

[Renegade]

Bean. I've read the rules and disagree with your interpretation.

If GW release that they aree with you then fine, I will go with that, but till then I will hold to the side that disagrees with you.

[Tynskel]

The question is:
are you ignoring the specific rules to state your side?
or, are you citing rules that support your argument?

So far, I have yet to see anyone that can point to a rule that states that: 1) Spirit Leech cannot effect units that are embarked, and 2) that cover saves may be taken for non-shooting attacks.

[Paul]

The question is:
are you ignoring the specific rules to state your side?
or, are you citing rules that support your argument?

So far, I have yet to see anyone that can point to a rule that states that: 1) Spirit Leech cannot effect units that are embarked, and 2) that cover saves may be taken for non-shooting attacks.

Well, for number 2, I have taken cover-saves before against the results of detonating transports.

[Renegade]

I have stated the rules in past debate that as far as I am concerned support my argument. I don't see the rules on p66 as a loop hole for SL being able to bypass rules on page 3 and others.

Disagree with me all you want, but in till GW say different, that is my stance and I am sticking with it. I haven't seen or heard a convincing counter yet, imo.

[Tynskel]

I have stated the rules in past debate that as far as I am concerned support my argument. I don't see the rules on p66 as a loop hole for SL being able to bypass rules on page 3 and others.

Disagree with me all you want, but in till GW say different, that is my stance and I am sticking with it. I haven't seen or heard a convincing counter yet, imo.

It isn't a 'loop hole'--- it is explicitly written--- p.66 explains that, when needed, you measure to the hull of a vehicle to reach an embarked unit and p.3 tells you how to measure those distances.

There are MANY abilities in the game that effect embarked units, project out from a vehicle, and do both. 'Spirit Leech' is one of them. The rulebook explicitly also states how to shoot, and when shooting is disallowed.

As for cover saves: taking a cover save from 'exploding vehicles' is not actually permitted--- the vehicle explosion is not 'firing' at you and your opponent's models.


Ignoring the rules, just because you don't like them, is not an a reason. You have to point to rules that justify your case.

[Renegade]

It isn't a 'loop hole'--- it is explicitly written--- p.66 explains that, when needed, you measure to the hull of a vehicle to reach an embarked unit and p.3 tells you how to measure those distances.

Now here is where we disagree.

P66 just says to you can measure to where this unit is, not that the unit being measured to changes (states 'vehicle hull') . P3 states what a unit is and does so by explaining that the Model being measured to is the unit type.

If this was the case, you would be effecting Librarian Dreads, the are excluded from the rule being a vehicle, as are vehicle crew, but you are saying that for some reason a transported unit is not... I don''t see your logic.

This has of course been debated to death before.

Agree to disagree?

[HsojVvad]

Now here is where we disagree.

P66 just says to you can measure to where this unit is, not that the unit being measured to changes (states 'vehicle hull') . P3 states what a unit is and does so by explaining that the Model being measured to is the unit type.

If this was the case, you would be effecting Librarian Dreads, the are excluded from the rule being a vehicle, as are vehicle crew, but you are saying that for some reason a transported unit is not... I don''t see your logic.

This has of course been debated to death before.

Agree to disagree?

I think what he is trying to say, it the unit being transported is still an Infantry type unit it's still effected. Just because a unit is embarked in a transport dosn't become an vehicle now. He is still an Infantry type unit and can be effected. A dreadnaught is still a vehicle unit and therefore not effected from SL.

I am not shure what you mean by Librarian Dreads are excluded from the rule being a vehicle as are vehicle crew. Please explain.

[Tynskel]

This started with Grey Knights, I believe. Their Dreadnoughts have a leadership value for certain tests. However, 'Spirit Leech' specifically states 'non-vehicle units'.

[Tynskel]

Now here is where we disagree.

P66 just says to you can measure to where this unit is, not that the unit being measured to changes (states 'vehicle hull') . P3 states what a unit is and does so by explaining that the Model being measured to is the unit type.

If this was the case, you would be effecting Librarian Dreads, the are excluded from the rule being a vehicle, as are vehicle crew, but you are saying that for some reason a transported unit is not... I don''t see your logic.

This has of course been debated to death before.

Agree to disagree?

If you read the 'vehicle rules' the leadership checks are specifically wrapped into 'shaken/stunned' effects.

Besides, units do not lose any of their attributes for being embarked---- no where in the rules states that you become a vehicle by embarking.

Thirdly--- the 'Spirit Leech' rule states non-vehicle units---- an embarked unit (except for the case of the dreadnought) is still an non-vehicle unit.


Last thing--- what are you talking about?? p. 3 has this wonderful diagram showing what 'within' means. The p. 66 states if you need to measure something INVOLVING the embarked unit (ie Spirit Leech effects ALL non-vehicle units!), you measure to the hull. That would be 'within'.

[SeattleDV8]

If you read the 'vehicle rules' the leadership checks are specifically wrapped into 'shaken/stunned' effects.

Besides, units do not lose any of their attributes for being embarked---- no where in the rules states that you become a vehicle by embarking.


No, but by being embarked you do come under the shaken/stunned rules, is it unreasonable to think you would also gain the immunity to Ld tests when embarked?

Sadly this is only implied and can't be proven.

[HsojVvad]

No, but by being embarked you do come under the shaken/stunned rules, is it unreasonable to think you would also gain the immunity to Ld tests when embarked?

Sadly this is only implied and can't be proven.

Unreasonable no. But what is unreasonable is nobody can prove why a unit in a vehicle is immune to anything in 5th edtion rules. Almost everybody seems to be playing as if it was 4th edtion rules when it comes to units embarked in vehicles.

So since being in a vehicle makes you immune to anything, does that mean someone with a psychic hood can't affect a psyker in a vehicle then? Does this means the Tyranids Shadow in the Warp dosn't work either? It's not an attack and makes you roll on the Ld since the psycher in the vehicle wants to use a psychic power.

[Bean]

P3 states what a unit is and does so by explaining that the Model being measured to is the unit type.


Really? I just read Page 3 of the BRB three times, and I can't find anything which states this or anything equivalent to this anywhere on Page 3 at all.

Given how critical this assertion is to your argument, I think you'd probably better provide an actual quote of a rule which asserts what you've asserted above or abandon your position.

[synack]

is it unreasonable to think you would also gain the immunity to Ld tests when embarked?


Leaderships test, no. Morale Test, yes.

[Tynskel]

Leaderships test, no. Morale Test, yes.

please justify that one: Morale Tests are a type of Leadership Test.

[gannam]

I thought we were done with this crap for a while.

Just ask the tournament organizers. I bring the doom to every tournament and I have a conversation with my opponent and I explain to him how it works "for this tournament" as every tournament seems to rule on it differently.

Always check with the TO before hand and make sure you know the rules.

You just need to understand that people might give you a bad sportmanship score for using the doom because they think its a very cheating unit.

both sides make good solid arguments, so we aren't going to solve anything by rehashing this argument. I hope the moderator locks this thread like they have to for all the other DOM threads.

[Tynskel]

I disagree.

One side uses what the rules state in the rulebook.

The otherside cannot point to rules in the rulebook to support their argument; they'll leave rules out, cite incorrectly, ect.


This really isn't an argument more of a situation of a group of people who 'fear the Doom'. There is nothing to fear, but fear itself.

Your Emperor will protect you from the 'Doom'. Use ~6 Meltaguns to get the job done... or missiles, or a combination of Str 8 weapons... whatever.

[Cossack]

As for the rules on this thing - I have no opinion. I just attack it.

[Melissia]

The otherside cannot point to rules in the rulebook to support their argument; they'll leave rules out, cite incorrectly, ect.

Don't be so hard on yourself.

[Renegade]

Really? I just read Page 3 of the BRB three times, and I can't find anything which states this or anything equivalent to this anywhere on Page 3 at all.

Given how critical this assertion is to your argument, I think you'd probably better provide an actual quote of a rule which asserts what you've asserted above or abandon your position.

Really? What rule book do you have... P3 covers Models and units, page 4-5 for unit type clarification. P66 states that you measure to a unit type "vehicle", no "ifs" or "buts" about it.

This has been done to death. Waiting GW! FAQ to stop this arguing PLEASE!

[HsojVvad]

You just need to understand that people might give you a bad sportmanship score for using the doom because they think its a very cheating unit.



Forget sportmanship scores, I want a sticker. Geez how old are we? Sportsmanship scores? We are playing a game to win and loose and because you have a difference of opnion of something someone is going to give you low sportsmanship?

So does this mean a Tyranid Player should win if he let's his DoM not effect vehicles and let the opponent have cover saves even though it says other wise?

I guess the person who thinks a unit embarked is immunte to anything and is safe from everything in 5th edtion rules should be recieving 0 sportsmanship scores for not proving it. Then again give me poor sportsmanship scores when I just smash your minis and see if you are correct if the DoM has a 3++. Oh wait, sorry bud, you are right, the minis do not have a 3++ they got all smashed up, sorry, I guess you are right after all. You win. Here is a sticker, feel better now?

[Tynskel]

Don't be so hard on yourself.

Hah!
Funny!

[Cossack]

Are the wheels coming off there, HSO?

[Bean]

Really? What rule book do you have... P3 covers Models and units, page 4-5 for unit type clarification. P66 states that you measure to a unit type "vehicle", no "ifs" or "buts" about it.

This has been done to death. Waiting GW! FAQ to stop this arguing PLEASE!

Not good enough, Renegade.

You made this assertion:

"P3 states what a unit is and does so by explaining that the Model being measured to is the unit type."

This assertion is integral to your argument, which, if I understand it, goes like this:

1. Spirit Leech only affects non-vehicle units

2. When measuring to an embarked unit, you measure to the transport in which it is embarked

3. That transport is a vehicle unit

4. A unit's type is dictated by the model to which you are measuring (the assertion you claim is made by the rules page 3)

5.) Therefore, an embarked unit is a vehicle unit when measuring to it.

6.) Therefore, Spirit Leech does not affect embarked units.



This argument is valid--that is, if the premises (points 1 through 4) are true, then the conclusions are also true.

Further, I would be willing to stipulate to points one, two, and three. Each seems undeniably correct.

However, point four doesn't seem to have any basis whatsoever in the rules. You claim that it is explained on page 3, however I can't find anything on page three that explains or even suggests it.

How can you possibly expect anyone to take your argument seriously if you can't provide a quote which supports point 4? How can you take it seriously, yourself?

[Renegade]

Not good enough, Renegade.

You made this assertion:

"P3 states what a unit is and does so by explaining that the Model being measured to is the unit type."

This assertion is integral to your argument, which, if I understand it, goes like this:

1. Spirit Leech only affects non-vehicle units

2. When measuring to an embarked unit, you measure to the transport in which it is embarked

3. That transport is a vehicle unit

4. A unit's type is dictated by the model to which you are measuring (the assertion you claim is made by the rules page 3)

5.) Therefore, an embarked unit is a vehicle unit when measuring to it.

6.) Therefore, Spirit Leech does not affect embarked units.



This argument is valid--that is, if the premises (points 1 through 4) are true, then the conclusions are also true.

Further, I would be willing to stipulate to points one, two, and three. Each seems undeniably correct.

However, point four doesn't seem to have any basis whatsoever in the rules. You claim that it is explained on page 3, however I can't find anything on page three that explains or even suggests it.

How can you possibly expect anyone to take your argument seriously if you can't provide a quote which supports point 4? How can you take it seriously, yourself?

Not Arguing with you Bean, I say that it is clear. You read/interpret the rules how you want as its unlikely that we will ever play each other, it doesnt matter.

[synack]

Not Arguing with you Bean, I say that it is clear. You read/interpret the rules how you want as its unlikely that we will ever play each other, it doesnt matter.

You say, but you don't explain.

I get the picture of you sticking your fingers in your ears, screaming "LaLaLaLaLa I can't hear you"

[Aldramelech]

FAQ is up! You can all go back to your lives now.......

[Renegade]

Go read for yourself synack, its clear what is on the board, what is being measured to, all from those rules (model/unit) go read page 4-5 if it is not clear enough.

You sure Aldramelech?

Checked, cover saves are in and it does not effect units in transports either!

[andrewm9]

Go read for yourself synack, its clear what is on the board, what is being measured to, all from those rules (model/unit) go read page 4-5 if it is not clear enough.

You sure Aldramelech?

Checked, cover saves are in and it does not effect units in transports either!

Well it seems the new FAQ disagrees with RAW as the Doom may not affect units in transports according to it. Hopefully this will somewhat cool the heatedness of the discussion

Q: Does the Doom of Malan’tai’s Spirit Leech ability affect units embarked in transport vehicles?
A: No.

YMMV

[Renegade]

Well it seems the new FAQ disagrees with RAW as the Doom may not affect units in transports according to it. Hopefully this will somewhat cool the heatedness of the discussion

Q: Does the Doom of Malan’tai’s Spirit Leech ability affect units embarked in transport vehicles?
A: No.

YMMV

GW not applying RAW? It their rules! They are the great GM of 40K, of course GW has applied RAW, its their rules!

I guess this ends the discussion though, GW have ruled it.

[Aldramelech]

FAQ is up! You can all go back to your lives now.......


You sure Aldramelech?

Yep :D

[Renegade]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aldramelech View Post
FAQ is up! You can all go back to your lives now.......
Quote:
You sure Aldramelech?
Yep

Cant blame a guy for being sceptical. :P Do thinik these are some of the best GW have done though and hope they keep it up.

[HsojVvad]

Don't forget that the FAQ is not official. It is only GW "house rules" only the Errata is official. But at least it's a good place to start when playing and using it as an acceptable standard though.

It just shows you how crappy GW is at writing. 40K is not made for new gamers at all. You have had to be a 4th edtion gamer to play, and not a newbie, otherwise we wouldn't have such contradictions in the codex to FAQ without explanations.

Oh well, it's done with like it or not. Now it's time for us Tyranids to adapt to then new FAQ.

[Javin]

Oh this will be used in every event from now on. Once GW publishes a FAQ most people take it as Holy Writ. Only a few die hards who liked the old ways will continue to cling and fight against the faqs.

[Melissia]

Don't forget that the FAQ is not official.

Yes it is. It's a list of frequently asked questions and answers for said question given by the company. Just because they say "use these if you want, or don't" doesn't mean anything-- they say that about EVERY rule.

[BuFFo]

Yes it is. It's a list of frequently asked questions and answers for said question given by the company. Just because they say "use these if you want, or don't" doesn't mean anything-- they say that about EVERY rule.

http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/content/article.jsp?categoryId=1000018&pIndex=2&aId=3400019&_requestid=2068658

FAQs have never been official.

Don't argue with me on this subject. Take it up with GW, because they wrote the 'rules' on Erratas and FAQs.

Just because everyone believes the world is flat does not make it so.

In my store, I have been playing with IG Reserve Bonuses stacking since the codex came out.

I am sure the nid players in my area will STILL be putting ICs inside Spore Pods along side units despite what the 'faq' says.

You are right that most people use GW's FAQs as official rules canon, though.

Personally, I don't care what a FAQ says. I just play for fun, and whatever my opponent wants to do is fine by me, as long as he is happy and the game is played smoothly and without incident!

[Aldramelech]

Don't forget that the FAQ is not official. It is only GW "house rules" only the Errata is official. But at least it's a good place to start when playing and using it as an acceptable standard though.

It just shows you how crappy GW is at writing. 40K is not made for new gamers at all. You have had to be a 4th edtion gamer to play, and not a newbie, otherwise we wouldn't have such contradictions in the codex to FAQ without explanations.

Oh well, it's done with like it or not. Now it's time for us Tyranids to adapt to then new FAQ.


Yes it is. It's a list of frequently asked questions and answers for said question given by the company. Just because they say "use these if you want, or don't" doesn't mean anything-- they say that about EVERY rule.


http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/content/article.jsp?categoryId=1000018&pIndex=2&aId=3400019&_requestid=2068658

FAQs have never been official.

Don't argue with me on this subject. Take it up with GW, because they wrote the 'rules' on Erratas and FAQs.

Just because everyone believes the world is flat does not make it so.

In my store, I have been playing with IG Reserve Bonuses stacking since the codex came out.

I am sure the nid players in my area will STILL be putting ICs inside Spore Pods along side units despite what the 'faq' says.

You are right that most people use GW's FAQs as official rules canon, though.

Personally, I don't care what a FAQ says. I just play for fun, and whatever my opponent wants to do is fine by me, as long as he is happy and the game is played smoothly and without incident!

Here we go again.......

Dont matter what GW says, If the vast majoity of gamers and tournament organisers treat them as official, then that is what they become, whether GW like it or not. Way of the world.....

[BuFFo]

Here we go again.......

Dont matter what GW says, If the vast majoity of gamers and tournament organisers treat them as official, then that is what they become, whether GW like it or not. Way of the world.....

Actually, I don't play with the 'vast' majority of gamers. I only plau with one gamer at a time, and I have played with people who use the FAQs, yet most do not. Most people do not carry the FAQ around with them in their pocket. I don't even remember the last time someone has even brought a FAQ of any sort to any games I have played in recent memory.

As for tourneys, GW FAQs are as subjective as the tourneys own rules, as the organizer can and does make up their own rules for their events.

"Way of the world" in real life =/= the "perceived gaming world" on the internet.

I provided a link that shows empirical proof that FAQs are NOT official, despite what that 'majority' of internet gamers who read a few 40k forums, may delude themselves into thinking.

At best, on the internet, FAQs are made official unofficially.

[Renegade]

Actually, I don't play with the 'vast' majority of gamers. I only plau with one gamer at a time, and I have played with people who use the FAQs, yet most do not. Most people do not carry the FAQ around with them in their pocket. I don't even remember the last time someone has even brought a FAQ of any sort to any games I have played in recent memory.

As for tourneys, GW FAQs are as subjective as the tourneys own rules, as the organizer can and does make up their own rules for their events.

"Way of the world" in real life =/= the "perceived gaming world" on the internet.

I provided a link that shows empirical proof that FAQs are NOT official, despite what that 'majority' of internet gamers who read a few 40k forums, may delude themselves into thinking.

At best, on the internet, FAQs are made official unofficially.

The group in my area use them because we use a GW store, and it makes life easier if we are all using rules that are easy to access (the store has a computer linked to the GW site if need be) Not that the errata is on the same page as the FAQ''s

[Aldramelech]

Actually, I don't play with the 'vast' majority of gamers. I only plau with one gamer at a time, and I have played with people who use the FAQs, yet most do not. Most people do not carry the FAQ around with them in their pocket. I don't even remember the last time someone has even brought a FAQ of any sort to any games I have played in recent memory.

As for tourneys, GW FAQs are as subjective as the tourneys own rules, as the organizer can and does make up their own rules for their events.

"Way of the world" in real life =/= the "perceived gaming world" on the internet.

I provided a link that shows empirical proof that FAQs are NOT official, despite what that 'majority' of internet gamers who read a few 40k forums, may delude themselves into thinking.

At best, on the internet, FAQs are made official unofficially.

In the real world I belong to a gaming club of 25 people. In the real world I attend events all over the country. In the real world I have met hundreds of gamers. In the real world I have never met anyone who does not regard them as anything but official.

If a FAQ is published that pertains to any army I own it gets printed off and put in the back of the army book and that book will go to any game I play with that army. So yes, I do carry it around in "My back pocket". Most people I know do this. Do you not have computer printers in Brazil?

[Melissia]

Indeed, it's really only on the internet that people claim that FAQs aren't official in my experience as well.

We might throw them aside if we agree to houserule it, but we use FAQs by default.

[BlackKnight15624]

If the FAQ isn't official, why does it say "OFFICIAL UPDATE" in big letters up top in the Tyrands one? I'll take it as official, because it says it's official.

If someone wants to house rule it and say Doom can affect enemies in transport vehicles, then by all means- it's your game... just make sure your opponent is either a) unaware of the FAQ, or b) OK with it.

[Melissia]

Actually it says Official Update in the Blood Angels one, too...

[Faultie]

Indeed, it's really only on the internet that people claim that FAQs aren't official in my experience as well.

We might throw them aside if we agree to houserule it, but we use FAQs by default.
It's cool that that is what you and your friends do with the FAQs, but please don't claim that the internet is the only place where people view the FAQs are GW's 'Studio House Rules'.

That said, these new Errata/FAQs are different from any that have come before. On the documents themselves, they state that they are "Official Update"s to the mentioned Codex. In light of this, and the concise, specific Q&As, I believe these FAQs are truly intended to be guidance documents on how to play with the respective armies.

BTW: I think this is a good idea, a good change, and GW should continue with this style in the future.

[Melissia]

It's cool that that is what you and your friends do with the FAQs, but please don't claim that the internet is the only place where people view the FAQs are GW's 'Studio House Rules'.

Let me emphasize this for you so you can stop making an *** of yourself by reading something into my post that wasn't there:


Indeed, it's really only on the internet that people claim that FAQs aren't official in my experience as well.

[HsojVvad]

If the FAQ isn't official, why does it say "OFFICIAL UPDATE" in big letters up top in the Tyrands one? I'll take it as official, because it says it's official.

If someone wants to house rule it and say Doom can affect enemies in transport vehicles, then by all means- it's your game... just make sure your opponent is either a) unaware of the FAQ, or b) OK with it.

Because it's GW, that is why. So you explain to me why does GW says that the FAQ is "Studio House rules"

The reason it's official because they are Frequently Asked Questions, but the answers are now "official". If they were "Official" they wording would have been changed in the Errata then.

Go read it on thier website. GW also says there is no right or wrong answers in the FAQs. While it's a good place for pick up games or Tournaments.

Again I say 99.99999999% would not go agaisnt the GW FAQs. I wouldn't either, but if it was an Official Update, the all the stuff would have been Errated not FAQed.

We have to obey the Errata no matter what, but no so with the FAQ. GW even says so.

[Cossack]

We have to obey the Errata no matter what

Because if we don't they'll take our miniatures away!

[SeattleDV8]

BRB pg. 2 " The most important rule then is that the rules aren't all that important! So long as both
Players agree, you can treat them as sacrosanct or mere guidelines- the choice is entirely yours."

This is old news ,yes the FAQs are 'soft ' rules but really GW treats all of the rules as soft.
Which is one of the reasons they are such a mess in places.
As far as rules debates go the FAQs are RAW.
Disagree , houserule, knock yourself out, My group does but that said in a Rules forum please leave the "the FAQs are soft rules!" whine with the cheese in the mousetrap.
The reason I read and debate here is to discover what the rules actually say and can houserule the cases of 'silly RAW' when I play or discuss possible problems pre-game.

[Melissia]

Indeed, SeattleDV8. But when GW makes a ruling they disagree with, that's their first instinctive reaction-- say the FAQ isn't official (even though the FAQ says official).

[Kloud]

I offered Bean a chance to put a Wager on this FAQ, I sure wish he would have gone for it.

And Bean? If you missed my other post. :p PBBFFFTTTTTTTT!!!!!!!!!!!

No hard feeling? OK?

[Bean]

I offered Bean a chance to put a Wager on this FAQ, I sure wish he would have gone for it.

And Bean? If you missed my other post. :p PBBFFFTTTTTTTT!!!!!!!!!!!

No hard feeling? OK?

I seem to recall saying that, were I to wager, I'd wager on this outcome. GW is pretty inconsistent with their FAQs, but it certainly wasn't a surprise that they decided to change the rules in the way they have.

No hard feelings. =)

[Bean]

GW not applying RAW? It their rules! They are the great GM of 40K, of course GW has applied RAW, its their rules!

I guess this ends the discussion though, GW have ruled it.

GW didn't apply RAW; they changed RAW. The rules said one thing. Now, thanks to this FAQ, they say something different. What the rules are, now, doesn't change what they were.

It does end the discussion, though; you're right about that.

[Melissia]

The rules said one thing.Yes, which didn't coincide with your beliefs to begin with.

[Bean]

Yes, which didn't coincide with your beliefs to begin with.

Really? You want to keep arguing about that even now that the argument has been rendered completely moot?

Why?

Just so that you can get a kick out of saying "I was right all along?"

Honestly, Melissia, this is just pathetic.

[Melissia]

No, I just get amused by contradicting the people who claim that somehow their interpretations of GW's rules are the only right interpretations.

[Angelofblades]

No, I just get amused by contradicting the people who claim that somehow their interpretations of GW's rules are the only right interpretations.

But...we .... all .. do that...

Hence the heated rules arguments. ...

contradiction much?

[Melissia]

Then you might guess that this is why I don't participate in rules arguments very often.

Hell, half the time I'm not even arguing what I actually believe is true in the rules anyway, just a devil's advocate position...

[Kloud]

The thing about this argument all along was that RAW was anything but clear. Don't you dare say RAW was definitive, because it was not.

And when RAW is not clear, we have to fall back, and look at RAI. Now some people say since RAI is not RAW, RAI is not relevant, but I think in this argument, and even more so in the case of the Mawloc Deepstriking, RAI was so obvious, that we ALLL knew what would, and has been written in the FAQ.

[HsojVvad]

The thing about this argument all along was that RAW was anything but clear. Don't you dare say RAW was definitive, because it was not.

And when RAW is not clear, we have to fall back, and look at RAI. Now some people say since RAI is not RAW, RAI is not relevant, but I think in this argument, and even more so in the case of the Mawloc Deepstriking, RAI was so obvious, that we ALLL knew what would, and has been written in the FAQ.

Actually I thought GW would rule the other way for the Mawloc Deepstriking. I believe GW would say SL coudln't effect units in vehicles, but then to say SitW can't either just stunned me, and others from what I have been reading as well.

I just find it funny that GW is saying that 5th edtion is suppose to be streamlined, but they have same named war gear that have different stats, same names that do different things, and similiar ability things that work totally the same but are effected different.

I think 5th edtion is more confusing that 4th edtion ever was, from what I have been reading. Hell I think Rouge Trader with all the rules in therer are less confusing than 5th edtion. :eek:

[Tynskel]

Hmmm... I think there are select individual parts of 5th edition that are confusing-- not from the way they are written, but instead from the way they are FAQed.

Overall, 5th is a much better ruleset from 4th, 3rd, and 2nd.

[Hugz4Genestealers]

Hell I think Rouge Trader with all the rules in therer are less confusing than 5th edtion. :eek:

I swear I'm not a spelling ****, but I couldn't pass this one up. Rouge Trader? I think that's little out of character for the grim and dark 41st millennium...

Edit: Because apparently "****" is censored, I'll clarify. Fascist 1940's-Era German.