So after reading a post by Gwar! I started reanalyzing the Leaping biomorph for Tyranids.

Since it does not make the unit beasts, they can only assault 1-6 inches through cover (as per infantry rules).
I missed that, but it did not seem to change TOO much.

Then I started nit-picking more.

Does Fast Charge of 12" even do anything anymore? Or is it another legacy rule that is lost?

By RAW does Leaping only let models engage if within 3" of another engaged model?

I would say that since fast charge is defined in the tyranid codex than codex trumps rulebook.

This means you take any part of the rule as defined by the codex. So 12 inch charge and 3" to make full attacks.

Any other rules, such as assaulting through cover would have to come from the BRB as they are not defined in the leaping entry.

Leaping does not define Fast Charge 12" though, that is most of my issue.

I see what your saying... This is like the Tau Marker Light Test where something was removed from the rule book and possibly broke a skill.... I would assume that by fast charge that the codex meant assault. My basis for this is that the codex specifically states "...though they do not become beasts." ('nid 'dex pg 33) This specific statement (IMO) insinuates that leaping gives those figures "beast-like" abilities without the problems associated with beasts (cannot change floors in ruins). Again, thats all IMO

Agreed on the assumptions. . . thus my taking this long to actualy bring it up. I was introduced in 4e.

That said, as I read the rules now, it is simply a really costly bonus to the 2" range for models in assault range changing to 3".

I get the RAI is charging = 12 instead of 6, but where is there RAW?

I stopped buying this thanks to Gwar! and I cannot fault his reasoning even if it was not related. ^^

Neither the 3rd edition or 4th edition rulebooks define a term "Fast Charge", either, but to my knowledge none of the FAQ's from that era chose to address the statement. One could conclude from that statement that 'a 12" Fast Charge' would mean 'a 12", fast, Charge'.

If only an elite team of editing Ninja (note that 'Ninja editors' would be ambiguous ) would descend upon the books at Games Workshop...

Page 54 of the BRB.

Beasts and Cavalry have a 12" charge, and when assaulting through cover they double the highest roll.

Unless you're going by the "codex trumps rulebook" rule which ALWAYS grants leaping Tyranids a 12" charge (regardless of terrain) then the next thing is to allow them the beast charge. Saying that they lose Leaping on account of cover (even though you paid for it and there are rules for it) is like saying that guardsmen lose grenades on account of cover (even though you paid for it and there are rules for it).

Ok, your analogy is a little flawed Broken as guardsmen dont lose grenades because of cover (as far as I know, assault grenades still prevent the assaulting figures from being dropped to I1 and guardsmen can still chuck grenades 6" should they have those grenade, but models would still get cover), but movement is hindered by moving through cover. I dont see where they are always granted 12" assaults though as assaulting through cover has specific rules.

Dont get me wrong, I think leaping still works considering that Solkan stated that the 3rd and 4th editions dont have the term fast charge and I believe the latest 'nid 'dex is 3rd edition IIRC and that the 'nid dex states that they get the abilitiy and do not become beasts (loosely paraphrased of course), I'm just not sure that it carries over to assaulting through cover, at least that I can find.

I think they would still get their 12 inch charge when not going through cover.

However since fast charge isn't a defined term, they would have to follow the normal rules for assaulting through cover.

Sure, it seems like they should charge 12", but why?

RAI no doubt they _should_, but other than "I think it works that way" I cannot find out why it _does_.

As for up to 12" through cover? No.
Only beasts/calvary can do that without special rules, and Leaping explicitly denies that.

Because in the leaping entry in the tyranid codex it says they get a "fast charge of 12inches"

Fast charge doesn't need to be defined in the BRB because its defined in the tyranid codex by the amount of inches they can move.

Timmah wrote:Because in the leaping entry in the tyranid codex it says they get a "fast charge of 12inches"

Fast charge doesn't need to be defined in the BRB because its defined in the tyranid codex by the amount of inches they can move.

It is not defined anywhere. Or in fact even suggested what the meaning is.

It is _perhaps_ implied that they can assault 12" (but only because it says "though they do not become Beasts"), but assuredly not move 12".

Do not get me wrong. . . Tyranids are my only army. And I rather like(d) Leaping. I just want to make sure I am not missing something.

Sure, they get a 12" charge..... in open terrain.

However, as they are not Beasts (Leaping specifically mentions this does not make them Beasts, in fact) or cavalry, nothing grants them the 2d6 take the highest and double it when assaulting into difficult terrain.

Should they have it? Yes, IMO they should, and I'll give it to my opponents as I believe it to be fair and proper. But do they have it by the rules? No, they don't. Just another glitch from the 5th ed changeover that GW has not seen fit to correct in writing.

kirsanth wrote:

Timmah wrote:Because in the leaping entry in the tyranid codex it says they get a "fast charge of 12inches"

Fast charge doesn't need to be defined in the BRB because its defined in the tyranid codex by the amount of inches they can move.

It is not defined anywhere. Or in fact even suggested what the meaning is.

It is _perhaps_ implied that they can assault 12" (but only because it says "though they do not become Beasts"), but assuredly not move 12".

Do not get me wrong. . . Tyranids are my only army. And I rather like(d) Leaping. I just want to make sure I am not missing something.

I guess the question would be:

Are charge and assault interchangable. You would need to prove that they are in order for this to work.
I guess I would have to check the exact wording on the leaping entry to make sure I am talking correctly about this.

Here's an odd thought: How about taking into account the fact that Tyranids ignore terrain features that aren't impassable terrain for the purposes of movement...


It's pretty clear in the army special rules, and spelled out quite expertly, to boot...

"All tyranids have the Move Through Cover special rule..." Codex: Tyranids p.28



Is this really an issue?

Dronze wrote:Here's an odd thought: How about taking into account the fact that Tyranids ignore terrain features that aren't impassable terrain for the purposes of movement...


It's pretty clear in the army special rules, and spelled out quite expertly, to boot...

"All tyranids have the Move Through Cover special rule..." Codex: Tyranids p.28



Is this really an issue?

Yes, this is really an issue. All move through cover does is allow units to roll an extra d6 and then pick the highest diewhen moving through difficult terrain. This just means that the unit gets to roll 3d6 and then pick one die that is has rolled the highest number. Maybe if you would read your BRB (BRB Pg 75) you would know that it does not mean that units with move through cover do not get to ignore difficult terrain.

Edit: Changed 2d6 to 3d6 because as I misread a previous post
Edit 2: added page number for Move through Cover for Dronze

s2ua7 wrote:

Yes, this is really an issue. All move through cover does is allow units to roll an extra d6 and then pick the highest diewhen moving through difficult terrain. This just means that the unit gets to roll 2d6 and then pick one die that is has rolled the highest number. Maybe if you would read your BRB you would know that it does not mean that units with move through cover do not get to ignore difficult terrain.

Edit: Changed 3d6 to 2d6 because I forgot that only beast and cavalry get the 3d6 when going through cover. Thanks Don

Moving through difficult terrain is already 2d6 and pick highest (BRB p14). Assaulting doesn't change that fact (BRB p36). And Move Through Cover grants an extra dice to roll, making it 3d6. The only thing Beasts & Cavalry get 3d6 instead of the regular 2d6 is in Fall Back moves. Beasts & Cavalry do not automatically get the Move Through Cover rule, they do get Fleet though.

I play leaping the same as the Charge Beasts get, but without changing their type, so they can still change floors in ruins, deepstrike in planetstrike, but don't get Fleet.

The Leaping bio-morph on the top of page 33 Tyranid Codex clearly states all of this.

Redemption, I misread Don's post then, thats my bad.

Edit: Polyphemus, where does it clearly state what a fast charge is? Thats what is at discussion here it states:

"Leaping creatures gain a Fast Charge of 12" though they do not become Beasts. A creature with Leaping may make its full attacks when within 3" of a friendly model in base contact rather than the usual 3."

Ok, so we know that leaping provides:

1. A Fast Charge of 12" and does not make the figure a beast.
2. Can make full attacks when within 3" of BTB figures.

What we do not know:
1. What Fast Charge is

I agree with most here that Fast Charge is refrence to an assault of 12" as beasts move like infantry (6"), but assault like beasts and both are impeaded by difficult terrain.

The fast charge is an assault move that you can make up to 12". The confusion arises from the fact that in 4th edition, when this codex was current, the assault phase had you declaring charges. Now in 5th you declare assaults. But they're still the same thing. Consistency is not GW's strong point. We have a rule now called Furious Charge that gives a bonus when you assault. The rule used to be called Furious Assault and gave a bonus when you charged.....

s2ua7 wrote:Redemption, I misread Don's post then, thats my bad.

Edit: Polyphemus, where does it clearly state what a fast charge is? Thats what is at discussion here it states:

"Leaping creatures gain a Fast Charge of 12" though they do not become Beasts. A creature with Leaping may make its full attacks when within 3" of a friendly model in base contact rather than the usual 3."

Ok, so we know that leaping provides:

1. A Fast Charge of 12" and does not make the figure a beast.
2. Can make full attacks when within 3" of BTB figures.

What we do not know:
1. What Fast Charge is

I agree with most here that Fast Charge is refrence to an assault of 12" as beasts move like infantry (6"), but assault like beasts and both are impeaded by difficult terrain.

Mostly correct. . . They do not actually assault like Beasts, perhaps as far as beasts, but not like. (Tyranid) Beasts roll 3d6 and multiply the the highest by two when assaulting through cover. Tyranids with Leaping roll 3d6 and choose one when assaulting through cover.

That was what made me start looking harder at the rest of Leaping - I had never caught that the x2 is lacking.

Arschbombe wrote:The fast charge is an assault move that you can make up to 12". The confusion arises from the fact that in 4th edition, when this codex was current, the assault phase had you declaring charges. Now in 5th you declare assaults. But they're still the same thing. Consistency is not GW's strong point. We have a rule now called Furious Charge that gives a bonus when you assault. The rule used to be called Furious Assault and gave a bonus when you charged.....

That is an obvious assumption. And one I have always made. What I am wondering is, why is it valid?

Then technically you do not get your 12 inch charge. Just a problem with old codex / new rules. Unless GW errataed it, which I doubt.

My thoughts too.
I have stopped paying for that recently.

And 5e killed the Hormagaunt.
^^

If you don't get the cavalry cover charge, then you automatically get the 12" charge because the Tyranid codex SAYS you get a 12" charge (without saying what circumstances you DON'T get a 12" charge in) and codex trumps rulebook.

So, either they roll difficult and multiply like cavalry, or they don't roll at all. Pick one or provide logic.

Broken Loose wrote:If you don't get the cavalry cover charge, then you automatically get the 12" charge because the Tyranid codex SAYS you get a 12" charge (without saying what circumstances you DON'T get a 12" charge in) and codex trumps rulebook.

So, either they roll difficult and multiply like cavalry, or they don't roll at all. Pick one or provide logic.

You are now basing your entire argument on the idea that "the rules don't say I can't" and I wish you luck with that.

Sorry Broken, but your argument is, well, broken. Primarily because there is nothing in the Nid codex detailing how the leaping charge interacts with difficult terrain. Sure, they get a 12" charge. Then they try to charge into difficult terrain. The charge rules in the Nid codex don't cover that, so you have to default to the main rules, roll for difficult terrain and only use the highest single die not doubled for how far they can charge. Silly RAW, but RAW nonetheless.

I see where kirsanth is heading with this. Pg. 33 of the nid dex says leaping gives a model a Fast Charge of 12" Considering it does not tell you when to use this fast charge rule it is worthless when taken as RAW. Much like a lot of DH rules refrencing things that don't exist.

So a nidin 5th edition that has leaping will have the ability to throw its attacks in from three inches away and nothing more. Of course this can be cleared up before heading to a tournament by speaking with the TO. Then even if you play a RAW stickler you have the permission of the TO to play it the way it commonly interpreted.

AdeptArtificer wrote:I see where kirsanth is heading with this. Pg. 33 of the nid dex says leaping gives a model a Fast Charge of 12" Considering it does not tell you when to use this fast charge rule it is worthless when taken as RAW. Much like a lot of DH rules refrencing things that don't exist.

So a nidin 5th edition that has leaping will have the ability to throw its attacks in from three inches away and nothing more. Of course this can be cleared up before heading to a tournament by speaking with the TO. Then even if you play a RAW stickler you have the permission of the TO to play it the way it commonly interpreted.

Which would still anger some people seeing as the TO is basically playing house rules but whacha going to do.
But yea, seeing as we don't have anything called a charge anymore, until its Errataed your stuck with your 6" assault.

Timmah wrote:But yea, seeing as we don't have anything called a charge anymore, until its Errataed your stuck with your 6" assault.

That's just slowed. A charge is an assault. The beast rules include similar verbage for a fast assault that allows you to charge 12".

But there is no such thing as a charge anymore. I realize you and your gaming group may play it differently.

However in a Rules forum I believe we should stick to the actual RAW when discussing rules. (hint: theres a proposed rules forum for house rules and such)

And per actual RAW charge =! assault.

Ok Timmah, the question then because, when did it exist? If I remember right, the latest Tyranid codex it 4th edition. There is no "fast charge" in the fourth edition rule book as well (that I can find... if anyone can, please post it)... the only specific thing I can find in 5th edition is a rule on page 54 of the BRB) that states "Beast and cavalry are capable of making an especially fast assault to charge their enemies. When assaulting they move up to 12."

This is close to the same rule that the BGB states in its beast entry as well....

Arschbombe wrote:That's just slowed.

You are telling me? Tyranids are my only army.
I have a thornbacked carnifex and every model that could was based with rippers.

Now this, and again it's my own fault.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

s2ua7 wrote:This is close to the same rule that the BGB states in its beast entry as well....
"

Horseshoes? Handgrenades?

No. . . Warhammer 40k.

I realize its stupid and I am pretty sure any group of friends and probably even most TO's would allow it.

However that doesn't make it correct. In 4th ed there was such a thing as charging so a 12" charge was fine.

However, now charge has been replaced with assault. So things that reference special types of "charges" don't actually work anymore.

s2ua7 wrote:Ok Timmah, the question then because, when did it exist? If I remember right, the latest Tyranid codex it 4th edition. There is no "fast charge" in the fourth edition rule book as well (that I can find... if anyone can, please post it)... the only specific thing I can find in 5th edition is a rule on page 54 of the BRB) that states "Beast and cavalry are capable of making an especially fast assault to charge their enemies. When assaulting they move up to 12."

This is close to the same rule that the BGB states in its beast entry as well....
"

4th ed, Beasts and Cavalry section, page 57:
"Beasts and Cavalry are capable of making an especially FAST CHARGE to assault their enemies."

Also, at least one FAQ (Can't remember if they were "official" back then or not, but who really cares) stated that a model that charged 12" would double the highest die just like Beasts and Cavalry.

Timmah wrote:I realize its stupid and I am pretty sure any group of friends and probably even most TO's would allow it.

However that doesn't make it correct. In 4th ed there was such a thing as charging so a 12" charge was fine.

However, now charge has been replaced with assault. So things that reference special types of "charges" don't actually work anymore.

What is the difference between charging and assault then? When you read the beast entry, it talks about their assault, not their charge. In fact, in the index of the fourth edition rulebook, it lists assaults, but not charges. Thats where I am getting confused. I joined WH40k in 5th edition so I am not familiar with earlier rules, but I could not find charge taking the place of assault.

don_mondo wrote:Also, at least one FAQ (Can't remember if they were "official" back then or not, but who really cares) stated that a model that charged 12" would double the highest die just like Beasts and Cavalry.

Do you recall which one? I shall have to go read them all again to see if I can find anything helpful.
I would hate to see another biomorph senselessly ruined.

Truthfully, no difference, which is why most of us will indeed say, go for it, roll your 3d6 (due to Move Through Cover) and take the highest and double it to determine charge distance when your Leaping non-Beasts assault into difficult terrain.

With that said, charge and assault are different words, and a change in words can indicate a change in rules. Sooooo, there is currently no rules support for your Leaping non-Beasts to gain a Beast-like assault move, primarily due to that change of a single word. Just one of those things that happens when they change editions, happens every time (and I go back to 2nd ed).

And actually, Nids may not be the only ones in this boat. Have to check the phrasing, but Dark Eldar wyche drugs and Eversor assassin may also have this same problem.

"Q. What happens if a model that is allowed to
assault 12" due to combat drugs is affected by
difficult terrain?
A. The model rolls two dice and double sthe
result of the highest dice to determine how far it
can move, just like beasts & cavalry."
Not sure that helps (I am pretty sure it does not), but this led me to another gem for another thread.

Thanks, Kirsanth, you beat me to it.
OK, so Dark Eldar are covered (unofficially, by FAQ) and MOST of us would say that that answer could reasonably be applied to any other non-Beast that has a 12" assault/charge. But the nay-sayers will cry out that the answers in one FAQ apply only to that FAQ and may not cross over to other armies, along with the "FAQs aren't official" crowd.

Ahhhhh, for the good old days of Chapter Approved and "OFFICIAL" FAQs.......................

I would be one of those, generally speaking.
Not so much the "Not official" group, but yea. . .

I guess that is sort of obvious though, as I started this thread.

Heh, so you did, didn't you.............

Timmah wrote:But there is no such thing as a charge anymore. I realize you and your gaming group may play it differently.

However in a Rules forum I believe we should stick to the actual RAW when discussing rules. (hint: theres a proposed rules forum for house rules and such)

And per actual RAW charge =! assault.

Charge does equal assault. In 5th edition an assault is a 6" move that takes place during the assault phase and brings units into contact for close combat. The Nid codex was written for 4th edition when the 6" move in the assault phase that brought units into contact was called a charge. The game mechanic has not changed, it was just a name change. It is not at all like the deletion of the mechanic that counted models for outnumbering that affects biomorphs like thornback and symbiote rippers.

Yes, AB, charge = assault. Now find something that says that leaping assault/charge into difficult terrain gets to double their highest die............ That's the sticky bit. I think we all (or at least most of us) agree that they should get it, it's just supporting that belief.........

don_mondo wrote:Yes, AB, charge = assault. Now find something that says that leaping assault/charge into difficult terrain gets to double their highest die............ That's the sticky bit. I think we all (or at least most of us) agree that they should get it, it's just supporting that belief.........

I think you've hit the nail on the head there Don.... While it is relitively easy to support the charge = assault arguement, because the rule states they do not become beasts it is harder to justify the d6x2 arguement.

s2ua7 wrote:
I think you've hit the nail on the head there Don.... While it is relatively easy to support the charge = assault argument, because the rule states they do not become beasts it is harder to justify the d6x2 argument.

It's not hard to support or justify it at all. What you are having hard doing is realizing that your a huge pile of gak who can't spell.
Leaping grants the unit a 12" assault that uses the following rule when assaulting through difficult terrain: roll 2d6 (or 3d6) and multiply the highest by two.

This is not a matter of RAW or RAI it is a matter of GW sucks as writing rules. In extreme situations like this just go with what everyone knows is right, in the case of Tyranids it's 3d6 PTHx2, and not what you want it to be because you are a power gaming loser who throws a fit every time they are proven wrong. It's called being an adult. Also, go take a bath because I'm tired of going into a hobby store and having it smell like a trash can.
On a side note, whenever someone is actively trying to ruin an aspect of a game due to being a huge pile of gak they shall be called a "s2ua7."

Kwosge wrote:

s2ua7 wrote:
I think you've hit the nail on the head there Don.... While it is relatively easy to support the charge = assault argument, because the rule states they do not become beasts it is harder to justify the d6x2 argument.

It's not hard to support or justify it at all. What you are having hard doing is realizing that your a huge pile of gak who can't spell.
Leaping grants the unit a 12" assault that uses the following rule when assaulting through difficult terrain: roll 2d6 (or 3d6) and multiply the highest by two.

This is not a matter of RAW or RAI it is a matter of GW sucks as writing rules. In extreme situations like this just go with what everyone knows is right, in the case of Tyranids it's 3d6 PTHx2, and not what you want it to be because you are a power gaming loser who throws a fit every time they are proven wrong. It's called being an adult. Also, go take a bath because I'm tired of going into a hobby store and having it smell like a trash can.
On a side note, whenever someone is actively trying to ruin an aspect of a game due to being a huge pile of gak they shall be called a "s2ua7."

Ah I love new people coming into YMDC. Always good times.

Btw, YEA s2ua7 what a jerk. I'd punch you in the face for that!

Holy thread necromancy Batman!

Its only like a month old. And its better than starting a new thread on this topic.

Aye, thank you Timmah.

I'm being schooled in all the 'non' rules of Tyranids. The sweet sweet knowledge of a broken codex is becoming mine! (not getting bitter at all)

omg, do I get to report my own thread instead of my own posts now?

There is absolutely no reason to believe (non Beast) Tyranids with Leaping can assault with the x2 to the related die roll.

Even the 12" charge is . . . moot.
Being generally unsupported by the rules, even if no one I have ever met gets that on the first read.

Timmah wrote:

Kwosge wrote:

s2ua7 wrote:
I think you've hit the nail on the head there Don.... While it is relatively easy to support the charge = assault argument, because the rule states they do not become beasts it is harder to justify the d6x2 argument.

It's not hard to support or justify it at all. What you are having hard doing is realizing that your a huge pile of gak who can't spell.
Leaping grants the unit a 12" assault that uses the following rule when assaulting through difficult terrain: roll 2d6 (or 3d6) and multiply the highest by two.

This is not a matter of RAW or RAI it is a matter of GW sucks as writing rules. In extreme situations like this just go with what everyone knows is right, in the case of Tyranids it's 3d6 PTHx2, and not what you want it to be because you are a power gaming loser who throws a fit every time they are proven wrong. It's called being an adult. Also, go take a bath because I'm tired of going into a hobby store and having it smell like a trash can.
On a side note, whenever someone is actively trying to ruin an aspect of a game due to being a huge pile of gak they shall be called a "s2ua7."

Ah I love new people coming into YMDC. Always good times.

Btw, YEA s2ua7 what a jerk. I'd punch you in the face for that!

This is to both Kwosge and to Timmah, I would just like to know what the heck I did to get his attitude from both of you... I did not actually notice this post until it was revived, but I dont feel that I have said anything more than what some other people have said in the forums and do not feel that I should be flamed like that, especially by Kwosge swearing at me...

Edit: Weird, when I quote, it shows me what Kwosge actually typed... interesting...

s2ua7 wrote:Edit: Weird, when I quote, it shows me what Kwosge actually typed... interesting...

I love that part.

It took me a bit to realize where some of the "slang" came from too.

I dont mind disagrements or arguements, but the personal attacks are where I draw the line. Had I actually seen this when it originally was posted I would have prob. reported it as a personal attack and offensive, but seeing as this is over a month old its not worth getting worked up over, I would just like to know why/how what I said was offensive enough to name me as TFG (I know we are not supposed to use that here, ban me if you must, but I am just replying to how I have been refered to), and while I am sure that Timmah would not actually punch me in the face, it is disconcerting that Timmah would actually resort to violence over a rules interpretation discussion.

It was a joke s2ua7. I find it funny that not only did someone semi necro and old thread but they also got mad at you.

So I continued it on with the over the top violence and getting mad in a rules forum.

Sorry if that was not clear in my original post.



On a slightly funny note. I played a tyranid player a couple weeks ago. I was thinking about pulling this gem out on him just for a laugh.
"No sir, your hormogaunts do not assault 12", only 6". " But then I thought better of it.

Lol, thats my bad then Timmah, sarcasm does not translate well over forums, thats my bad really... I thought as much at first, but then when I hit reply I saw what the other guy said. I was a little confused as you and I have had discussions on other threads with no problem. As I said, it was a month old and I'm not concerned, glad to see that my original hunch was correct lol

kirsanth wrote:My thoughts too.
I have stopped paying for that recently.

And 5e killed the Hormagaunt.
^^

Hormagaunts aren't the issue. Hormagaunts are beasts. Just because they're also leaping doesn't take away the fact that they're beasts. The only time I think this would be any sort of issue is if you had leaping warriors or rippers.

Edited for clarification.

5e Killed the Hormagaunt for a lot of other different reasons

The intention of leaping is to give a 12 inch charge or assault but not to make them beasts. 12 inch charges roll 2d6 and pick the highest.

In the case of Hormagaunts since they have move through cover it would be 3d6 and pick the highest.

Hollismason wrote:The intention of leaping is to give a 12 inch charge

Wow, you must have written a lot of codex's to know all these intentions!

I can't find a "Fast Charge" USR in the fourth edition rule set. Sooooo, I'm thinking either Hormagaunts have a fast charge (of 12") or GW just wants to misdirect readers. Of course, some will adamantly (an irrationally) claim that GW did indeed intend to deliberately convinve people that hormagaunts can charge 12" even if that wasn't what the writers wanted.

Gwar! wrote:

Hollismason wrote:The intention of leaping is to give a 12 inch charge

Wow, you must have written a lot of codex's to know all these intentions!

No, I have lived as functioning human being in society for the last 29 years this along with social skills above that of someone who seemingly never advanced beyond games of social grace such as " POW YOUR DEAD NO IM NOT" cowboys and indians which seemlingly unfortunately large numbers of the people who frequent YMDC never have.


The basic idea is that I unlike the seemingly autistic masses have developed what can best be described as intelligence and understanding.


It's unfortunate that so many peoples apparent crippling comprehension of the world around has led them to try and focus their black and white view of people , motives, world events as well as general social conditions to the focal point of a game that people play to enjoy to the detriment of others who view their constant baying to be nothing more than the equivalent of a child playing a game of cowboys and indians and insisting that he is in fact not dead.


It would benefit and behoove us all if some could take a step back and stop trying to reinforce their own belief structure onto a product intended to bring joy to people instead of the constant berating of their inadequate assumption that the world exists in a vacuum and that others may have insight into matters that they do not simply because they have learned to live and interact with others outside in society instead of constructing realms of realities within their own minds.


Fortunately, I do not game with people who seem to be autistic at best and sociopaths at worst so that I benefit from a enjoyable gaming experience. Unlike no doubt through example of words and attitudes many in YMDC and Dakka have inflicted horror stories upon during a game of plastic miniatures.

Hollismason wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

Hollismason wrote:The intention of leaping is to give a 12 inch charge

Wow, you must have written a lot of codex's to know all these intentions!

No, I have lived as functioning human being in society for the last 29 years this along with social skills above that of someone who seemingly never advanced beyond games of social grace such as " POW YOUR DEAD NO IM NOT" cowboys and indians which seemlingly unfortunately large numbers of the people who frequent YMDC never have.


The basic idea is that I unlike the seemingly autistic masses have developed what can best be described as intelligence and understanding.


It's unfortunate that so many peoples apparent crippling comprehension of the world around has led them to try and focus their black and white view of people , motives, world events as well as general social conditions to the focal point of a game that people play to enjoy to the detriment of others who view their constant baying to be nothing more than the equivalent of a child playing a game of cowboys and indians and insisting that he is in fact not dead.


It would benefit and behoove us all if some could take a step back and stop trying to reinforce their own belief structure onto a product intended to bring joy to people instead of the constant berating of their inadequate assumption that the world exists in a vacuum and that others may have insight into matters that they do not simply because they have learned to live and interact with others outside in society instead of constructing realms of realities within their own minds.


Fortunately, I do not game with people who seem to be autistic at best and sociopaths at worst so that I benefit from a enjoyable gaming experience. Unlike no doubt through example of words and attitudes many in YMDC and Dakka have inflicted horror stories upon during a game of plastic miniatures.

Hi, Welcome to YMDC where we debate OUTSIDE OF A GAME what the actual RAW is. Even though most of us would never play this way in a friendly or even competitive game. Making personal attacks in this forum about us being TFG does nothing to prove your point and just shows that you can't have an intelligent rules debate without getting upset.

If this forum and our discussions about actual RAW and not RAI is too much for you, feel free to not post in this forum.

Thanks.

RustyKnight wrote:I can't find a "Fast Charge" USR in the fourth edition rule set. Sooooo, I'm thinking either Hormagaunts have a fast charge (of 12") or GW just wants to misdirect readers. Of course, some will adamantly (an irrationally) claim that GW did indeed intend to deliberately convinve people that hormagaunts can charge 12" even if that wasn't what the writers wanted.

Hormagaunts can make an assault move of 12" even if it said they have a "Slow charge of Banana Pudding". They are beasts, beasts have an assault move distance of 12" and have rules for doing so though cover.

The "issue" are Warriors with Leaping, as there is nothing to 100% confer a 12" assault move, nor the ability to have the beasts special Cover charging rules.

Let's add more fuel to the flames!

If you -assault- my Necron Lord equipped with Gaze of Flames, you get your +1A for assaulting now, since Gaze of Flame denies the bonus if you -charge-. Sure, the description makes it obvious that it applies to Assaults, but they say Charge instead. :(

Amusingly, the C'Tan special rules that requires units to make a LD test if they want to -assault- still works, since they use the term -Assault-.

Yay GW!

Timmah wrote:Hi, Welcome to YMDC where we debate OUTSIDE OF A GAME what the actual RAW is. Even though most of us would never play this way in a friendly or even competitive game. Making personal attacks in this forum about us being TFG does nothing to prove your point and just shows that you can't have an intelligent rules debate without getting upset.

If this forum and our discussions about actual RAW and not RAI is too much for you, feel free to not post in this forum.

Thanks.

Understanding RAW where it will actually apply to a game is great, but why spend all the time people seem to debating things that (supposedly) never actually play that way?

Codex authors have posted and said in interviews multiple times that the game is not meant to legislate every eventuality. "Using the rules in that fashion creates a mindset of false legitimacy. By moving away from a set of rules that tries to legislate for every single possibility, and instead return to the original idea that these books are as much a guide to players as they are rulebooks, we sought to bring back both the responsibility and the power for players to make the decisions for themselves. They are a framework for players to play an army of miniature soldiers not a dictate on the way they must do so."

That's a quote from an actual current codex author. Intentionally blinding yourself with pure RAW-ism means your doing it wrong. That isn't just my opinion, that's the guys that wrote the game's opinion.

Saying you can't get your 12" charge because you can show a loophole in the text even though the intention is clear to anyone with half a brain is indeed playing the game in a way opposite from the way the designers wrote it and intended it to function. Enjoy your forum bones if that's your thing by all means, but don't for a moment think you shouldn't have that ability or model in your Tyranid army because you found a loophole.

/rant off
Now back to the regularly scheduled RAW purist discussions.

Kaaihn wrote:Codex authors have posted and said in interviews multiple times that the game is not meant to legislate every eventuality.

[Citation Needed]

you're miss the point i think Kaaihn. It's not they don't get the 12" movement its they don't get it through difficult terrain. That's rules as written. But fluff wise they don't want to risk jumping forwards, tripping over a rock and land flat on their face in-front of the enemy.

Kaaihn wrote:

Timmah wrote:Hi, Welcome to YMDC where we debate OUTSIDE OF A GAME what the actual RAW is. Even though most of us would never play this way in a friendly or even competitive game. Making personal attacks in this forum about us being TFG does nothing to prove your point and just shows that you can't have an intelligent rules debate without getting upset.

If this forum and our discussions about actual RAW and not RAI is too much for you, feel free to not post in this forum.

Thanks.

Understanding RAW where it will actually apply to a game is great, but why spend all the time people seem to debating things that (supposedly) never actually play that way?

Codex authors have posted and said in interviews multiple times that the game is not meant to legislate every eventuality. "Using the rules in that fashion creates a mindset of false legitimacy. By moving away from a set of rules that tries to legislate for every single possibility, and instead return to the original idea that these books are as much a guide to players as they are rulebooks, we sought to bring back both the responsibility and the power for players to make the decisions for themselves. They are a framework for players to play an army of miniature soldiers not a dictate on the way they must do so."

That's a quote from an actual current codex author. Intentionally blinding yourself with pure RAW-ism means your doing it wrong. That isn't just my opinion, that's the guys that wrote the game's opinion.

Saying you can't get your 12" charge because you can show a loophole in the text even though the intention is clear to anyone with half a brain is indeed playing the game in a way opposite from the way the designers wrote it and intended it to function. Enjoy your forum bones if that's your thing by all means, but don't for a moment think you shouldn't have that ability or model in your Tyranid army because you found a loophole.

/rant off
Now back to the regularly scheduled RAW purist discussions.

If an author said that it is just a line to excuse their terrible rule writing.

As far as intent, how can we assume to know an authors intent. maybe the authors of the BRB changed the word charge to assault know all of these old interactions would change and that is what they wanted.

Pretending you know the authors intent without having written the rules is a joke. As is your claim that anyone who doesn't agree with you is dumb.

Timmah wrote:As far as intent, how can we assume to know an authors intent. .

Exactly. Yet people do it constantly here, by assuming they know or understand the intent of the structure of the rules. Bit hypocritical there.

It gets especially comical when the beliefs some folks labor under are shown to be wrong by the game designers, but they plug their ears and go lalalalalalal the designers are wrong, I'm right! That always makes me laugh.

No, they explain what the structure of the rules means using the english language. No intent added in there, you're just making that up.

It relies on interpreting the written word, but at least that is fixed: "designer intent" changes so often it is laughable to use it as a rules basis.

Gwar! wrote:Hormagaunts can make an assault move of 12" even if it said they have a "Slow charge of Banana Pudding". They are beasts, beasts have an assault move distance of 12" and have rules for doing so though cover.

The "issue" are Warriors with Leaping, as there is nothing to 100% confer a 12" assault move, nor the ability to have the beasts special Cover charging rules.

I know, I posted in a rush and put hormagaunts instead of warriors with leaping.

I can't find a "Fast Charge" USR in the fourth edition rule set. Sooooo, I'm thinking either Warriors with Leaping have a fast charge (of 12") or GW just wants to misdirect readers. Of course, some will adamantly (an irrationally) claim that GW did indeed intend to deliberately convinve people that Warriors with Leaping can charge 12" even if that wasn't what the writers wanted.

The thing I find funniest about the "you want to abuse the loophole" crowd is that I started this thread, and I play only Tyranids. What abuse do you think I am aiming for?

I was looking for a rule letting Leaping give 12" assault moves - perhaps that is abuse?

As for what people think should be done, yes that is obvious, it should be allowing 12" assault moves.

Unfortunately it does not actually say that, explain that, or allow that anywhere - technically.

So, if I play some random opponent (who is apparently TFG, based on the comments here) who asks me why Leaping lets my warriors move 12" in the assault phase, as of now my only response is "Read this, but realize that they MEANT to write it like this. . ."

Is it just me or does that sound sort of . . . lacking? So, to avoid this, I have stopped using it myself (playing the least advantageous interpretation and all).

As a funny note, the fact that a rule was not defined in a previous edition, despite how people played it, does not really help the discussion (or matter) - other than to perhaps imply that people, including GW (gasp!) missed something, are not critically reading, or are making assumptions with absolutely no backing.

shrug

kirsanth wrote:So, if I play some random opponent (who is apparently TFG, based on the comments here) who asks me why Leaping lets my warriors move 12" in the assault phase, as of now my only response is "Read this, but realize that they MEANT to write it like this. . ."

Is it just me or does that sound sort of . . . lacking? So, to avoid this, I have stopped using it myself (playing the least advantageous interpretation and all).

As a funny note, the fact that a rule was not defined in a previous edition, despite how people played it, does not really help the discussion (or matter) - other than to perhaps imply that people, including GW (gasp!) missed something, are not critically reading, or are making assumptions with absolutely no backing.

shrug

And the Irony of the situation is that if this happened, I would ask, nay, INSIST you resolve the Assault move as beasts If you went "WAAAA WAAAAA RAI BLAAAAAAAA!" I'd make damn sure you use RaW

kirsanth wrote:So, if I play some random opponent (who is apparently TFG, based on the comments here) who asks me why Leaping lets my warriors move 12" in the assault phase, as of now my only response is "Read this, but realize that they MEANT to write it like this. . ."

Is it just me or does that sound sort of . . . lacking? So, to avoid this, I have stopped using it myself (playing the least advantageous interpretation and all).

As a funny note, the fact that a rule was not defined in a previous edition, despite how people played it, does not really help the discussion (or matter) - other than to perhaps imply that people, including GW (gasp!) missed something, are not critically reading, or are making assumptions with absolutely no backing.

shrug

And if you played Necrons, you would play that Gaze Of Flame doesn't remove the +1 attack from assaulting opponents?

There's RAW, and then there's RAW.

If it were questionable, I would err on the side of the least advantageous to myself.

Still.

Barakia wrote:And if you played Necrons, you would play that Gaze Of Flame doesn't remove the +1 attack from assaulting opponents?

There's RAW, and then there's RAW.

I have played Necrons (I have played every army, I borrow them ya see ) and we have discussed this, and we decided to house rule it for that game, despite it being RaW (For the record, I wanted to Play RaW, not that it mattered as I was not using it, but that's beside the point), just like with Banshees, which no longer have advantages when Assaulting through cover.

Oh, also, according to the Dark Eldar codex, Warp Beasts may charge 12", in the same way cavalry do. But Cavalry do not charge 12', they assault 12".. So what happens there?

For extra fun, when they do so through difficult terrain, it uses the term assault, and they double the dice. So... Warp Beasts, in many cases, are actually better off assaulting through difficult terrain.

Barakia wrote:Oh, also, according to the Dark Eldar codex, Warp Beasts may charge 12", in the same way cavalry do. But Cavalry do not charge 12', they assault 12".. So what happens there?

Well, by strict RaW, Cavalry no Longer Charge, they make 12" assault moves, so they do not get a bonus. However, as it says "in the same way cavalry do" one can assume that BOTH rules apply, so they both Charge 12" and Make Assault Moves of 12"


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Barakia wrote:For extra fun, when they do so through difficult terrain, it uses the term assault, and they double the dice. So... Warp Beasts, in many cases, are actually better off assaulting through difficult terrain.

Well, them's the breaks I suppose. Not my fault GW cannot write is it?

You are actually all still argueing RAI regardless of your claim to RAW with the following assumptions made

1. GW has stated and is obvious to disregard rules that refer to the 4th edition of the game such as target priority tests and combat rules that no longer apply.

2. For all intents and purposes you are stating that there are rules and statements in codexes that do not exist due to wording.



Only specific parts of the games and codexes such as target priority etc. are non functioning parts of the rules as they have no equivalent inside the rules of the game.


This is a instance where there is not only a rule equivalent but a rule statement.


Just because you can produce a means of breaking a portion or rule of the game through strict interpretation does not mean you are correct.


I can tell you right now that the game designers did not write portions of the game to be nonfunctioning except in very specific circumstances is incongruous at best and ridiculous at worst , I make the Rules as intended argument without needing prior knowledge of the author by simply following the logical assumption that the game is meant to function. I can also interpret work with out needing a direct line to the author. It is not neccessary to have first hand knowledge in order to understand something otherwise society would not be functional and you would not be a functional person if you could not interpret without first hand knowledge. Thats just a illogical statment.

A bird has feathers, I place Feathers on my Horse , My horse is a Bird.

That is not a logical statement.


Personally the assumption that I cannot not make reasonable decisions not only based on the fact that the intention of the rules are to basically function.


That's it the rules are meant to function.

The rules are not written with the intention initially of being nonfunctioning.


This is why I can make a rules as intention argument and disregard the fact that everyone here seems to believe that the world is like a Joseph Heller novel and we all live on Pianosa.

Hollismason wrote: I can tell you right now that the game designers did not write portions of the game to be nonfunctioning except in very specific circumstances.

[Citation Needed]

Hollismason wrote:text

For whom?

I am not parsing "Fast Charge" and saying charge is irrelevant. The people saying Leaping gives 12" assault range are.

I am questioning what "Fast Charge" as a rule does - as it is not ever addressed.
Much like Thornback (and symbiote Rippers, etc) are perfectly fine to pay for, but the rules for having them do anything are lacking, so they do nothing.

Gwar! wrote:

Kaaihn wrote:Codex authors have posted and said in interviews multiple times that the game is not meant to legislate every eventuality.

[Citation Needed]

http://mechanicalhamster.wordpress.com/2009/09/10/differences-of-opinion/

"An army (and a Codex) are more than just a set of rules. In the scheme of things, rules come and go; they are an abstract mechanical representation of something else. The exact rules representation may change from edition to edition, but hopefully they fundamentally represent the same thing. The previous edition of the Codex was over-the-top on rules, trying to legislate for every eventuality on the tabletop and trying to represent in detail every aspect of a player’s miniature army.

"This approach has two main problems. Firstly, it creates a mindset of false legitimacy. This isn’t just in gaming, it’s in wider society as well. Some people feel entitled to place all responsiblity on the rules-makers (or lawmakers…) with the argument, ‘Well, the rules say I can do it.’ This fundamentally diverts the choices a person makes onto somebody else, absolving them of blame (in their mind). By moving away from a set of rules that tries to legislate for every single possibility, and instead return to the original idea that these books are as much a guide to players as they are rulebooks, we sought to bring back both the responsiblity and the power for players to make the decisions for themselves. They are a framework for players to collect an army of miniature soldiers not a dictat on the way they must do so."

Gav Thorpe (http://mechanicalhamster.wordpress.com/2009/09/10/differences-of-opinion/)

puma713 wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

Kaaihn wrote:Codex authors have posted and said in interviews multiple times that the game is not meant to legislate every eventuality.

[Citation Needed]

http://mechanicalhamster.wordpress.com/2009/09/10/differences-of-opinion/

"An army (and a Codex) are more than just a set of rules. In the scheme of things, rules come and go; they are an abstract mechanical representation of something else. The exact rules representation may change from edition to edition, but hopefully they fundamentally represent the same thing. The previous edition of the Codex was over-the-top on rules, trying to legislate for every eventuality on the tabletop and trying to represent in detail every aspect of a player’s miniature army.

"This approach has two main problems. Firstly, it creates a mindset of false legitimacy. This isn’t just in gaming, it’s in wider society as well. Some people feel entitled to place all responsiblity on the rules-makers (or lawmakers…) with the argument, ‘Well, the rules say I can do it.’ This fundamentally diverts the choices a person makes onto somebody else, absolving them of blame (in their mind). By moving away from a set of rules that tries to legislate for every single possibility, and instead return to the original idea that these books are as much a guide to players as they are rulebooks, we sought to bring back both the responsiblity and the power for players to make the decisions for themselves. They are a framework for players to collect an army of miniature soldiers not a dictat on the way they must do so."

Gav Thorpe (http://mechanicalhamster.wordpress.com/2009/09/10/differences-of-opinion/)

A Web Log that can be easily forged by anyone is hardly a good source.

Gwar! wrote:

puma713 wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

Kaaihn wrote:Codex authors have posted and said in interviews multiple times that the game is not meant to legislate every eventuality.

[Citation Needed]

http://mechanicalhamster.wordpress.com/2009/09/10/differences-of-opinion/

"An army (and a Codex) are more than just a set of rules. In the scheme of things, rules come and go; they are an abstract mechanical representation of something else. The exact rules representation may change from edition to edition, but hopefully they fundamentally represent the same thing. The previous edition of the Codex was over-the-top on rules, trying to legislate for every eventuality on the tabletop and trying to represent in detail every aspect of a player’s miniature army.

"This approach has two main problems. Firstly, it creates a mindset of false legitimacy. This isn’t just in gaming, it’s in wider society as well. Some people feel entitled to place all responsiblity on the rules-makers (or lawmakers…) with the argument, ‘Well, the rules say I can do it.’ This fundamentally diverts the choices a person makes onto somebody else, absolving them of blame (in their mind). By moving away from a set of rules that tries to legislate for every single possibility, and instead return to the original idea that these books are as much a guide to players as they are rulebooks, we sought to bring back both the responsiblity and the power for players to make the decisions for themselves. They are a framework for players to collect an army of miniature soldiers not a dictat on the way they must do so."

Gav Thorpe (http://mechanicalhamster.wordpress.com/2009/09/10/differences-of-opinion/)

A Web Log that can be easily forged by anyone is hardly a good source.

Really Gwar? Really? lol

In fairness, that is why YMDC tenet 2 =
"The only official sources of information are the current rulebooks and the Games Workshop FAQs. Emails from Askyourquestion@games-workshop.com are technically official, but they are easily spoofed and should not be relied on."

That said, it is funny because the query was about

Kaaihn wrote:Codex authors have posted and said in interviews multiple times that the game is not meant to legislate every eventuality.

shrug

I don't need to post a source to say that common knowledge is applicable to the statement.

" The rules are meant to serve the functionality of the game and are a guideline to understanding the progressions made with in said game"


I do not need to state common knowledge that rules are written to be functional at their core. When functionality due to a new edition or change in understanding occurs you generally can disregard them which has been proven not only by Gamesworkshop despite what you claim about faqs are in fact the creators of the product.


The rules serve functionality of the game.


By your logic I can play you in a game of Monopoly and just [Modquisition Edit for being more than a little over the top]

Simply because this common sense adage is not applied in the set rules of the game.

kirsanth wrote:

Hollismason wrote:text

For whom?

I am not parsing "Fast Charge" and saying charge is irrelevant. The people saying Leaping gives 12" assault range are.

I am questioning what "Fast Charge" as a rule does - as it is not ever addressed.
Much like Thornback (and symbiote Rippers, etc) are perfectly fine to pay for, but the rules for having them do anything are lacking, so they do nothing.

The problem is that in older codexii, they used charge and assault interchangably. I'll grant you that the addition of the word "Fast" in the leaping entry confuses things even further, but if you are going to play it that anything in an old codex that uses charge instead of Assault doesn't do anything, you are left with situations that make no sense. My favorite is the Warp Beasts, who assault only 6", but assault 3d6 take highest and double it in difficult terrain, and have a beastmaster that assaults 12" "in order to keep up with them", even though they only assault 6".

I understand that using RAI is very iffy in many cases, as reasonable people may very well disagree as to what constitutes RAI. But I'd submit that when every reasonable person would agree, as I think must be the case here, it's rather safe to do so.

Barakia wrote:The problem is that in older codexii, they used charge and assault interchangably.

So? The current edition does not.

Gwar! wrote:

Kaaihn wrote:Codex authors have posted and said in interviews multiple times that the game is not meant to legislate every eventuality.

[Citation Needed]

I know I'm a bit late, but I couldn't help but chime in at seeing this.

Gav Thorpe, re: Codex Chaos Space Marines wrote:http://mechanicalhamster.wordpress.com/2009/09/10/differences-of-opinion/

The previous edition of the Codex was over-the-top on rules, trying to legislate for every eventuality on the tabletop and trying to represent in detail every aspect of a player’s miniature army.

This approach has two main problems. Firstly, it creates a mindset of false legitimacy. This isn’t just in gaming, it’s in wider society as well. Some people feel entitled to place all responsiblity on the rules-makers (or lawmakers…) with the argument, ‘Well, the rules say I can do it.’ This fundamentally diverts the choices a person makes onto somebody else, absolving them of blame (in their mind). By moving away from a set of rules that tries to legislate for every single possibility, and instead return to the original idea that these books are as much a guide to players as they are rulebooks, we sought to bring back both the responsiblity and the power for players to make the decisions for themselves. They are a framework for players to collect an army of miniature soldiers not a dictat on the way they must do so.

Admittedly they deal with different issues, but the exact same wording being used made me think of it.

Kwosge wrote:

s2ua7 wrote:
I think you've hit the nail on the head there Don.... While it is relatively easy to support the charge = assault argument, because the rule states they do not become beasts it is harder to justify the d6x2 argument.

It's not hard to support or justify it at all. What you are having hard doing is realizing that your a huge pile of gak who can't spell.
Leaping grants the unit a 12" assault that uses the following rule when assaulting through difficult terrain: roll 2d6 (or 3d6) and multiply the highest by two.

This is not a matter of RAW or RAI it is a matter of GW sucks as writing rules. In extreme situations like this just go with what everyone knows is right, in the case of Tyranids it's 3d6 PTHx2, and not what you want it to be because you are a power gaming loser who throws a fit every time they are proven wrong. It's called being an adult. Also, go take a bath because I'm tired of going into a hobby store and having it smell like a trash can.
On a side note, whenever someone is actively trying to ruin an aspect of a game due to being a huge pile of gak they shall be called a "s2ua7."

Modquisition on. In addiiton to the warning this poster is about to receive I am putting a reminder out to all posters-lets remember Rule #1, or you will be potentially liable for disciplinary actions.

Gwar! wrote:5e Killed the Hormagaunt for a lot of other different reasons

Well, to be fair, 4rth edition started digging the grave: Genestealers, no synapse mutants, mono flyrants, fragile/expensive winged warriors, and otherwise lack of strong fast synapse. Fith Edition was just some GW employee's temper-tantrum with Nids. Nerf to guants/hormies due to fearless wounds in CC. Nerf to venom cannons due to OMFH vehicles. Nerf to rending. Nerf to MC cover. Nerf to consolidation. Nerf to hiding. Nerf to rending and wound consolidation. Nerf to Biovores and KP (nerf Biovores...was that REALLY nessessary).

wyomingfox wrote:Well, to be fair, 4rth edition started digging the grave: Genestealers, no synapse mutants, mono flyrants, fragile/expensive winged warriors, and otherwise lack of strong fast synapse. Fith Edition was just some GW employee's temper-tantrum with Nids. Nerf to guants/hormies due to fearless wounds in CC. Nerf to venom cannons due to OMFH vehicles. Nerf to rending. Nerf to MC cover. Nerf to consolidation. Nerf to hiding. Nerf to rending and wound consolidation. Nerf to Biovores and KP (nerf Biovores...was that REALLY nessessary).

And no Carnifexes holding objectives.

But Lictors and Spore Mines can contest objectives!

I had both do that for different objectives in one game letting me win by holding the third objective with gaunts.

Good times.

You have to target a unit with Biovores, right? You cannot just target the objective?

FoolWhip wrote:You have to target a unit with Biovores, right? You cannot just target the objective?

No, you have to target a unit.

Gwar! wrote:

FoolWhip wrote:You have to target a unit with Biovores, right? You cannot just target the objective?

No, you have to target a unit.

unless your a mad person thats take them as fast attack ... or should that be madder?

Tri wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

FoolWhip wrote:You have to target a unit with Biovores, right? You cannot just target the objective?

No, you have to target a unit.

unless your a mad person thats take them as fast attack ... or should that be madder?

I would go with Madderist. Unless it is Apoc, then you take 1 Spore Mine for each other unit in the army and Deep Strike them all Turn 2

1000 points in spore mines is fun.

Takes too long to resolve, but really fun.

(especially with Meiotic Spores)

Reading through this thread does bring up one question (well one more question).

How and why do we change the definition of rules terms, IE at one time the BRB used charge and assault interchangeably but now uses assault. However, if older rules in a codex still use both terms why do we not still use both those terms to mean the same thing?

Its not that the BRB has now told us that charge means anything at all, it just quits using the term. But since we know from previous usage that GW considers the terms to have the same meaning....

Im not arguing that if there is a rule change we shouldnt acknowledge and follow the rule change. What Im asking is why do we assume a rules change when its only verbage change?


If at one time we knew that assault and charge have the same meaning in GWspeak, why would we now think that they do not?




The eldar banshee rules and some of the tyranid biomorphs are different in that we know exactly how they work, they just dont have any effect under the current rules. But charge and assault involves a matter of word definitions, which really doesnt change in the same way.



Sliggoth

Rules change between editions. Live with it.

But that in and of itself is the point ..... Im not talking about rules that change, Im talking about the language of GW speak.


There is nothing in 5th edition that indicates that charge and assault are not the same thing. They used the terms charge and assault interchangeably at one time, now in 5th they do not. That would all be well and good except that the term charge is still used in some other rules. That is the problem.

We have nothing in 5th edition telling us that charge has changed, so why do we somehow make an assumption that it no longer means the same as assault?

Thats the question. Not a rules change at all. It is now a lack of a term in the BRB that is still used elsewhere.


At one point the BRB used assault and charge as meaning the same thing. We had rules in other books that used the term charge and we were happy with that. All was good.

Now the BRB no longer uses the term charge, but other books still use the term. We used to know what charge meant, we applied those rules in keeping with the charge/ assault rules. Now suddenly we are struck with amnesia and no longer can apply the assault rules to leaping or the necron gaze?



Its not a rules change per se. We still have the rules, we just do not RIGHT NOW have a definition for the words in the BRB.


Im arguing that since we still have the term charge in the tyranid rules we should still apply the assault rules to charge. And in the necron book.

Because we still do know that charge = assault in the GW version of the language.

Think this might be worth a new thread actually.



Sliggoth

I think it is generally played with the legacy in mind (see Ghazgull's Waaagh! for Fleet movement).

I am not certain that is correct, as this puts undue pressure on players that have not played the previous/alternate versions.

In this case, as I mentioned earlier, the issue is not really a "Charge = Assault" issue. To rephrase my concern - "Fast Assault of 12" would not really help.

The rule itself - Fast Charge - is not defined. Capitalization (also) in it makes it rather obvious that they are refering to a specific rule, not the general function of charging/assaulting. Even if that was the intent.

kirsanth wrote:I think it is generally played with the legacy in mind (see Ghazgull's Waaagh! for Fleet movement).

I am not certain that is correct, as this puts undue pressure on players that have not played the previous/alternate versions.

In this case, as I mentioned earlier, the issue is not really a "Charge = Assault" issue. To rephrase my concern - "Fast Assault of 12" would not really help.

The rule itself - Fast Charge - is not defined. Capitalization (also) in it makes it rather obvious that they are refering to a specific rule, not the general function of charging/assaulting. Even if that was the intent.

Actually, to clarify, (and I am mainly a lurker/CSM player, but) on pg 54 of the BRB it does state "an especially fast assault to charge their enemies. When assaulting they move up to 12"." So I would say could we not argue that they now interchangeably use assault/charge? And that a Fast Charge is just like a Fast Assault to charge their enemies, or when assaulting they move 12"?

Fluff != Rules.

Learn to differentiate.

"an especially fast assault to charge their enemies." = Fluff
When assaulting they move up to 12"." = Rules.

Poor Editing + Lack of Play Testing + Refusal to Invest Time and Effort into a Comprehensive FAQ when a new edition comes out = Conflict.

Of course according to GW, those of us who wish for better rule making are a minority and are comprised solely of power gaming Trolles who lack the common civility to discuss rules beyond the illogical quagmire that is RAW -- a discource in abject stupidity where leaping does not provide a 12" assualt movement, where Flyrants are not MC, and where Tyrant Guards are retinues even though the Tyrant is also stated to be an upgrade character in the same FAQ language.

Nevertheless. This is 5th edition. Why is anyone wanting to play hormies?