The Doom of Malan'Tai

[Drahazar]

Well after reading all of this i have become an educated dude. I was against it at first being able to affect embarked units but now i agree with Mortis. I await still a FAQ to say it is not so but for now the way things are written it is.

[jeffersonian000]

Lascannons, psycannon and a crap-ton of bolter fire are what give Grey Knights a new lease on being competetive versus the New Nid. Add to that their being Fearless, and we escape the need to worry about breaking while embarked. Also, another point to consider is that Nidzilla is effectly dead with the overcost/underpowered Carnifex, which was the only big stalling point for our guys in grey (outside of CC vs Genestealers, of course).

 

All in all, even with The Doom of Malan'Tai, it looks like Guard is still the counter army in 5th, with Knights still being able to hang vs the Xeno onslaught.

 

I for one am convinced that embarked units can be effected by aura based effects, and that the most legal outcome of a failed Break test for an embarked unit is destruction. We all just need to play smarter. It's nothing more than the new Complex Nob Biker squad, which we all eventually figured out how to deal with.

 

SJ

[BOBMAKENZIE]

Yeah, this is wrong. Spirit Leech doesn't have to measure to any particular models--it just has to measure to the unit. That's why the rule on page 66 is sufficient to allow it to affect embarked units.

 

Shooting, on the other hand, has to measure to a particular model, not to the unit. That's why you can't shoot embarked units.

 

 

"If the players need to measure a range involving the embarked unit (except its shooting), this range is measured to or from the vehicle's hull." pg66

 

Isnt measuring to a model in a unit a range which involves the unit? You're still measure to a model "in the target unit" Pardon me but it seems to me as though it is. perhaps we just read that differently.

 

 

Also, another point to consider is that Nidzilla is effectly dead with the overcost/underpowered Carnifex, which was the only big stalling point for our guys in grey (outside of CC vs Genestealers, of course).

Carnis became considerably stronger and increased only minorly in points. They went from being alright in combat to being combat beasts with added shooting benefits. They are hardly overcosted/underpowered.

[Mortifis]

The very fact that this thread has gone on so long should be arguement enough that the unit needs a FAQ from GW.

I disagree, as I stated in my last post. The thread over in the BoLS Lounge went for 35 pages, because the "pro-Doom" camp stated facts and rules, while the "anti-Doom" camp tried all manner of insanity, misdirection and emotional tactics that didn't address the main point. As happens in conversations with different people when you talk about it in person. I'll link a summary at the bottom of this thread.

 

Well after reading all of this i have become an educated dude. I was against it at first being able to affect embarked units but now i agree with Mortifis. I await still a FAQ to say it is not so but for now the way things are written it is.

My work here has been worthwile, after all :devil:

 

Isnt measuring to a model in a unit a range which involves the unit? You're still measure to a model "in the target unit" Pardon me but it seems to me as though it is. perhaps we just read that differently.

Yes and no. For shooting, it explicity states you must measure range to a model from the target unit. Hence no models = no shooting.

For Spirit Leech to work, it measures range to the unit, which is a different story altogether.

 

Models /= Unit. I tried to point this out in my linked article. Cale has also pointed this out.

 

 

So, with the BoLS Lounge 35 page epic thread of DOOM having finally been locked, I'd like to link the final post. An impartial mind sat down on a long flight with free wi-fi, so he slogged his way through all 341 posts in the thread. This is how he summarised the highs and lows of the topic:

 

>>>>PLEASE READ THIS<<<<

 

Your own opinion of whether is should work or not is fine. I respect your right to have an opinion, even if it differs from mine. But when it comes to the actual rules that we have to play the game by, there is only one logical conclusion to draw.

[number6]

But when it comes to the actual rules that we have to play the game by, there is only one logical conclusion to draw.

FWIW, I have read and fully understood your argument's logic. And I still am not convinced that it's truly RAW the way you have explained it.

 

This has nothing to do with your actual logic, which is quite consistent. But the rules themselves are not explicit enough to give any real weight to your interpretation that renders it clearly more "correct" than any of the counter interpretations. Interpretations which are themselves internally consistent, logically-speaking.

 

This is an example of rule-writing FAIL. There's no getting around it. Without more air-tight rules underpinning this discussion, that's all this can be. An exercise in trying to determine who's logic seems "most" correct. It doesn't actually mean you're wrong. Nor does it mean the opposition is wrong either. The fact that all sides have legitimate logic defending their position is, in fact, the exact reason why this issue needs to be Errata'd directly by GW. Otherwise, there is no final settling of it.

 

I'm not officially closing this topic, but I seriously doubt there are any new arguments to be had here. Despite my previous in-topic nudge, I'm not seeing anything new expressed. So if there are any further posts, they had better be really and truly NEW. They must really and truly ADD something to the discussion.

 

As I've said before, this topic is neither power-armour related nor Inquisition-related except in the absolute loosest, most indirect sense. Typically, such topics are either closed outright or at least booted to the Official Rules forum. So I think this one has run it's course.

 

If you can convince me otherwise, have at it. Otherwise, expect this topic to be officially closed if I don't see anything truly productive on offer in any subsequent posts.

[BOBMAKENZIE]

Isnt measuring to a model in a unit a range which involves the unit? You're still measure to a model "in the target unit" Pardon me but it seems to me as though it is. perhaps we just read that differently.

Yes and no. For shooting, it explicity states you must measure range to a model from the target unit. Hence no models = no shooting.

For Spirit Leech to work, it measures range to the unit, which is a different story altogether.

 

Models /= Unit. I tried to point this out in my linked article. Cale has also pointed this out.

 

Except the whole method of drawing ranges to a unit is based on models..."When measuring distances between two units, use the closest models are your reference points..." Pg 3.

 

Since: Measuring Range between 2 units requires you to draw range model to model.

Therefore: Drawing Range for No LOS Weapons is indentical to doing it for Unit Based Powers:

QED: You can shoot into Transports with Hive Guard and Spirit Leech. OR You can't do either. Take your pick.

 

(Sorry Number6 This just really confuses me. And it seems like this is the simplest arguement for/against that no one seems to have mentioned yet?)

[Verythrax Draconis]

Well, seems to me that by the rules (or RAW if someone prefer) it indeed affect the embarked troops.

 

I was about to argue with Motifis that despite all that points presented in the rulebook pages, I would say all of that still falls flat IMO, cause it goes SO nitpicking in the rules that it is simply insane. Not that Mortifis si wrong in his conclusion, the opposite. My argument is that obviously the rule for the Doom wasn't written based on that. It's not like the author would say "oh, we have rule A in this page, rule B in this other, rule C in that other page, so everybody knows that rule D is an unspoken rule, so I don't need to write it myself here in the codex :mellow: " It's water clear that the rulebook is not prepared for such a rule (if we consider this as a "new direction" in the rules) or vice versa (for the bad wording).

 

My conclusion about this whole mess is:

 

- the rule for Doom is badly written, in both ways, and like Mortifis said, we can't really imagine what was the real intention

- by RAW, it affects embarked troops

 

But, the most important thing for me is: even if GW never release a FAQ and we need to follow it by RAW for now on, or if they FAQ it clearly as affecting embarked troops, this rule is CHEESY AS HELL AS THIS :P If this was really intended to work this way, it's even worse than the bad text used to describe it ;)

[number6]

Two strikes and you're out. This topic has been indulged long enough.