So, some people say that this is possible.....but according to the Codex this rule can only apply to infantry.
Did i miss something?

C:SM Khan gives Dedicated Transport Outflank. Not sure if there are other cases. But you can't charge from the turn you come in from Reserve so don't worry.

If you get the right things, yeah you can. I think Khan allowed the normal marines to, as it mentioned applying to dedicated transports if I remember correctly. Which would allow just one to.

I was meaning in terms of Saga Of The Hunter.

Saga of the Hunter gains Outflank, and the new rules for Outflank allow one model int he unit having the rule to give the rule to the unit. You then give the IC with Saga to a unit which has a LR Dedicated transport, and because they can Outflank so can the dedicated transpoitr (from memory)

So yes, legal, But given you CANNOT charge the turn you arrive from reserves, not as useful as it would have been in 5th

nosferatu1001 wrote:Saga of the Hunter gains Outflank, and the new rules for Outflank allow one model int he unit having the rule to give the rule to the unit. You then give the IC with Saga to a unit which has a LR Dedicated transport, and because they can Outflank so can the dedicated transpoitr (from memory)

So yes, legal, But given you CANNOT charge the turn you arrive from reserves, not as useful as it would have been in 5th

You pretty much hit the nail right on the head.

Does Saga of the Hunter saying "The character has the ability to outflank" necessarily equate to having the Outflank USR by RAW?

It seems to me like it doesn't, and if it in fact does not, a Saga of the Hunter IC couldn't bring a unit with them (unless it separately had permission to outflank).

Drunkspleen wrote:Does Saga of the Hunter saying "The character has the ability to outflank" necessarily equate to having the Outflank USR by RAW?

It seems to me like it doesn't, and if it in fact does not, a Saga of the Hunter IC couldn't bring a unit with them (unless it separately had permission to outflank).

That's a stretch, and frankly I think you're only saying this because you hate space wolves and are trying to nerf them. The only units in the SW codex which have the "outflank" special rule are the Wolf Scouts and characters with Saga of the Hunter. What exactly do you think it means when the (5th edition) codex says

"The character has the ability to outflank"

if it DOESN'T mean he has the outflank USR?

Grugnuckle - dont ascribe negative motives to posters. It can make you look VERY foolish - for all you know Drunkspleen plays SW - and reduces the validity of any argument you wish to make.

You're right. It wasn't intended to be negative, but sometimes text sends un-intended emotion across.

I was laughing about the "nerf space wolves" comment - but you can't here it through the internets.

EDIT : you can't *hear it. (duh) Now I really sound foolish.

Internet-tone-of-voice aside though, you're right. How could it mean it any different?

If an IC has an ability, he passes that on to the unit he joins.

But more to the point, if a character with SotH has "the ability to outflank" what does that mean in the context of 6th edition? The rules governing "the ability to outflank" are in the USR section under "outflank". Under that paragraph it says IIRC something to the effect of, "if at least one model in the unit has the outflank rule" - but clearly the exact wording is going to be important. But I don't have my rulebook in front of me though, and in any case the edition is new and like everyone else I'm still digesting them.

The Outflank USR consists of two paragraphs, one explaining how a unit with at least one model that has the Outflank Special Rule may choose to outflank the enemy, and a second entirely separate one describing how a unit outflanks.

I would put forward that having "the ability to outflank" only entitles the model to use the special rules in that second paragraph, but does not grant him the skill, and as he does not have the skill, any unit he joins does not inherently gain the ability to outflank with him.

It may seem pedantic to you, but as I see it, nothing says he gains a special rule, so there's no reason for him to gain said special rule.

I don't understand how you can the rule, but not the ability, that doesn't even make sense to me?

Afaik, the IC rule hasn't changed either, so he'd still pass that on to any unit that he joins.

Drunkspleen wrote:The Outflank USR consists of two paragraphs, one explaining how a unit with at least one model that has the Outflank Special Rule may choose to outflank the enemy, and a second entirely separate one describing how a unit outflanks.

I would put forward that having "the ability to outflank" only entitles the model to use the special rules in that second paragraph, but does not grant him the skill, and as he does not have the skill, any unit he joins does not inherently gain the ability to outflank with him.

It may seem pedantic to you, but as I see it, nothing says he gains a special rule, so there's no reason for him to gain said special rule.

I have to disagree. Remember that the codex was written for the 5th edition rule set. There is no way they could have known the exact wording that would be used in the 6th ed BRB. Given GW's penchant for writing rules in the unfortunate colloquial English style instead of legalese English, I am sure that that "has the ability to outflank" was intended to mean "has the ability to use the rules governing outflank". Please don't go off on me about RAI vs. RAW. I have to interpret "has the ability to outflank" as having the outflank special rule. That is the simplest and most straight forward way of resolving this. Any other way of interpreting this just introduces more and more complications.

Now, I would agree with you that outflanking a land raider seems a little sketchy. Especially with the SW "acute senses" USR. Perhaps it would be better to address the larger issue of outflanking heavy vehicles.

Definitely for an army like SW this will work via SotH. It's really nice.

Grug, you may be sure but since that isn't what the rules actually say, it is open to debate. Having the ability to do something does not necessarily equate to having the rule that allows units to do that same thing.IMO, yes, that's probably what GW meant to say, but since they dd not say it, it can be read that an IC with Saga/Hunter can indeed Outflank on his own (or with Scouts) but as he does not actually have the USR Outflank, he cannot pass it on to another unit.

And yeah, I AM trying to nerf the puppies!!

My point was that it Specifically denotes that this rule can only be used for infantry models. Land Raiders are not infantry.
Also! The SW codex was written as a 6th edition Codex. Not 5th

don_mondo wrote:Grug, you may be sure but since that isn't what the rules actually say, it is open to debate. Having the ability to do something does not necessarily equate to having the rule that allows units to do that same thing. IMO, yes, that's probably what GW meant to say, but since they dd not say it, it can be read that an IC with Saga/Hunter can indeed Outflank on his own (or with Scouts) but as he does not actually have the USR Outflank, he cannot pass it on to another unit.

We agree that this is what was intended. Now you suggest that because of a poor choice of wording that we create an *exception* to the outflank USR. Quite frankly, I think that using Saga of the Hunter to magically allow tanks to outflank is NOT in the spirit of the game. But I don't think it's a good idea to have rules that say, "This is how you use outflank. Except if you're a space wolf, then you do it this way. And if you're a vanilla space marine then it's like this. Necrons have a different way etc." That's just confusing.

Having "the ability to outflank" means that - at least for that model - he can use the rules for outflanking as written in the BRB. The rules for outflanking are only under the USR section where it says "outflank". Now you suggest that a model with SotH can use the rules for outflank, but not the sentence that says he confers it to a unit.

And yeah, I AM trying to nerf the puppies!!

Heresy!

And demonstrates a conflict of interest!

dorantana wrote:
My point was that it Specifically denotes that this rule can only be used for infantry models. Land Raiders are not infantry.

When you say "it" specifically said that "this rule" can only be used for infantry models, what is "it" exactly? The outflank USR? Because that's probably the way it should be. I agree that outflanking with a land raider is abuse. What about people outflanking with a dedicated transport? Should they get to outflank or not? Not just SW rhino's but any dedicated transport attached to a unit with at least one model with the outflank USR? General consensus on Dakka seems to be that the answer is yes.

Also! The SW codex was written as a 6th edition Codex. Not 5th

Umm...no. The SW codex was out at least a year before there were even rumors of 6th edition. Anyone who argues that they had 6th ed in mind when they wrote this codex is smoking crack. Just by reading the 6th ed rules, I can tell that they barely had 6th edition rules in mind when they wrote the 6th edition rules.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
So just to get this on the record - I think that a model with SotH should confer the outflank USR the unit it is attached to. I don't see any other way of reading that without generating an exception to the rule.

As for the infantry only thing in the codex, that was meant to prohibit you from giving a character SotH AND a bike, or a jump pack or a thunderwolf mount. The character model has to be an infantry model.

Ok. Saga of the Hunte's entry STARTS with the first 2 word being INFANTRY ONLY! That is the question. Does the Infantry Only mean that Transports can be included as Infantry?

Second: There are many examples of how the SW codex is 6th edition written. I will only name one because I am on my phone.
Ex: the Axe of Morkai is an "Axe" on the model: However! They denote specifically that it is to be counted as a Frost Weapon!
If that's no enough proof the the fact that every box of SW models is cramed with enough Plasma Weapons to kill a horse should be.

Infantry only means that only an infantry model can take SotH. Since the only models in the entire codex that can take SotH are a Wolf Priest or a Wolf Guard Battle Leader, it means that you cannot give the character both the Saga of the Hunter and a piece of wargear that changes his unit type to something other than infantry. So it means, for example, that I can't give my wolf priest a jump pack and Saga of the hunter. But I CAN give my wolf priest a jump pack (without SotH) and then attach him to a unit of wolf scouts and they would still be able to outflank (the wolf scouts all have the outflank USR), but they wouldn't be able to use "Behind Enemy Lines" anymore.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Second: There are many examples of how the SW codex is 6th edition written. I will only name one because I am on my phone.
Ex: the Axe of Morkai is an "Axe" on the model: However! They denote specifically that it is to be counted as a Frost Weapon!
If that's no enough proof the the fact that every box of SW models is cramed with enough Plasma Weapons to kill a horse should be.

This is TOTALLY false. I happen to have the Space Wolf Codex that was written for 3rd edition and the rules of the Axe of Morkai are word for word the same as in this codex. Did they write that codex for 6th edition too?

The restriction means that only an infantry model may take the upgrade.

Secondly, the axe is actually a frost blade or a power fist, his choice each assault phase, per swings accordingly. It's not an axe, since it's also a unusual power weapon.

Grugknuckle wrote:
I agree that outflanking with a land raider is abuse. What about people outflanking with a dedicated transport? Should they get to outflank or not? Not just SW rhino's but any dedicated transport attached to a unit with at least one model with the outflank USR? General consensus on Dakka seems to be that the answer is yes.

Outflanking is conferred upon the dedicated transport of a unit that outflanks, RAW. How is it abusive for a LR to outflank, if it's a dedicated transport? Especially taking into account that outflanking units can no longer assault the turn they come in.

Beamo wrote:
Outflanking is conferred upon the dedicated transport of a unit that outflanks, RAW. How is it abusive for a LR to outflank, if it's a dedicated transport? Especially taking into account that outflanking units can no longer assault the turn they come in.

How is it abusive? I don't know man, it just doesn't feel right to me. Is it allowed by the RAW? Yes, I think it is, if the land raider is a dedicated transport. So it would have to be a Wolf Guard unit - the only other LR's are heavy support choices. Would I complain if someone played that against me? No. Not at all. It's just that, I *HATE* it when people complain about my beloved space puppies being overpowered cheese and I don't want to give them any more ammunition.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Off the topic, but @Beamo : Did you paint this?

http://www.coolminiornot.com/246910?browseid=2200466

Because...wow man that's really beautiful work.

I'd rather you Outflank your Land Raider - it gives me one more turn (minimum) to prepare for it.

And I would LOVE a tutorial on how you did this guy's hand and hair.

http://www.coolminiornot.com/246911?browseid=2200466

dorantana wrote:Ok. Saga of the Hunte's entry STARTS with the first 2 word being INFANTRY ONLY! That is the question. Does the Infantry Only mean that Transports can be included as Infantry?

Second: There are many examples of how the SW codex is 6th edition written. I will only name one because I am on my phone.
Ex: the Axe of Morkai is an "Axe" on the model: However! They denote specifically that it is to be counted as a Frost Weapon!
If that's no enough proof the the fact that every box of SW models is cramed with enough Plasma Weapons to kill a horse should be.

That is an extremely weak example and you got it wrong, the entry states that it a frost blade, which if you then look to the entry on frost blades and axes in the SW codex, it tells you they are the same. However with the new SW FAQ change we see that frost axes and frost blades have specific seperate entries/rules.

The reason why the box is packed with plasma is because it is meant to build Grey Hunters, Blood Claws, and Wolf Scouts.

AND .... when I look at this it makes my wonder why I even bother to pick up a brush.

http://www.coolminiornot.com/282562?browseid=2200466

Just got an official ruling from GW customer service. Saga Hunter does not confer outflank to dedicated transports.

Too bad GW customer service is less reliable than uhh, something really unreliable...sorry couldn't think of a good analogy...

dorantana wrote:Just got an official ruling from GW customer service. Saga Hunter does not confer outflank to dedicated transports.

Dude you know better than that. First customer service isn't offical, second I could call them up right now and get a different answer to the same question.

You can outflank with a landraider by the rules, just not sure why you would want to unless it's longways deployment.

n0t_u wrote:If you get the right things, yeah you can. I think Khan allowed the normal marines to, as it mentioned applying to dedicated transports if I remember correctly. Which would allow just one to.

Actually, he would allow 2 to outflank, since 1 Squad of both Assault and Tactical Terminators are allowed to take a Land Raider as a Dedicated transport...

Part of the original issue with this is that in 5th Outflanking wasnt a USR, nor did it confer to the squad.

Technically the statement "the ability to outflank" referred to the ability to enter reserves via outflanking, which was most commonly granted by Infiltrate or Scouts.

Also, the Axe of Morkai is not an Unusual Power Weapon, as it is IN NO WAY a power weapon.

Neither Power Fists or Frost Weapons are Power Weapons, and therefore the rules for Unusual weapons do not apply.

dorantana wrote:Just got an official ruling from GW customer service. Saga Hunter does not confer outflank to dedicated transports.

My email from GW on this subject tells me that SW Land Raiders are unique in that not only can Saga of the Hunter confer outflank, but that SW Land Raiders have unlimited fire points for the occupants.

Aye, when I've called them in the past about rule questions they've always referred back to their stores (or put me through to the Warhammer World store directly)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kiredor wrote:Neither Power Fists or Frost Weapons are Power Weapons, and therefore the rules for Unusual weapons do not apply.

No comment on frost weapons, simply as I don't know anything about them, but does POWER fist not hint at it being a POWER weapon? That and it ignoring armour saves ala all other power weapons?

(let's not stay on this one too long as doing so will get the thread locked)

kitch102 wrote:

Kiredor wrote:Neither Power Fists or Frost Weapons are Power Weapons, and therefore the rules for Unusual weapons do not apply.

No comment on frost weapons, simply as I don't know anything about them, but does POWER fist not hint at it being a POWER weapon? That and it ignoring armour saves ala all other power weapons?

(let's not stay on this one too long as doing so will get the thread locked)

Stats for frost weapons can be found in the SpaceWolf FAQ.
Power fists have separate stats and rules for power weapons. Fluff-wise they use a similar power field to sword but rule wise totally different. It's all done on AP's now instead of ignoring armour.

Happyjew wrote:
Too bad GW customer service is less reliable than uhh, something really unreliable...sorry couldn't think of a good analogy...

What he said. GW doesn't give a crap how you play. Just pay them your $75 for the privilege and they'll let you have the rules however you want them.

The Saga of the hunter brings up the exact same scenario as someone who takes Khan in a space marine army.

Where your troops end up having outflank along with their dedicated transport.

RAW it works.

You can disagree and choose to ignore it if you want. But when someone pulls it on you in a tournament do not expect a ruling in your favor.

You don't HAVE to ouflank a Land Raider. You can outflank a Rhino if you want. As long as it's the dedicated transport.

As for the Saga of the Hunter rule being "INFANTRY ONLY" WAS (5th ed in mind here) to prevent WGBL from outflanking on a Thunderwolf, bike in terminator armor with a bunch of Wolf Scouts.

@Erik_Morkai: Saga of the Hunter specifically disallow units on TW, bike, jump pack or Terminator armour. I don't see where it says "Infantry only".

For Khan, it is very clear, the codex says specifically that their dedicated transport gains the Outflank rule.

@leohart

Saga of the hunter specifically disallows models that are not infantry from taking the saga. It doesn't say that the model who has the saga cannot then join a unit which is not infantry.

So I can take a wolf guard battle leader in power armor with saga of the hunter and then attach him to a unit of grey hunters that has a rhino. The WGBL, an infantry model with saga of the hunter, now has the outflank USR. He therefore confers the USR to the unit of grey hunters (as per the BRB outflank USR) including the dedicated transport - a rhino in this case.

EDIT : Since the thread was about outflanking a land raider though, here is how that could happen. I take a wolf priest in power armor with saga of the hunter. I attach him to a unit of Wolf Guard (say 5 terminators or whatever) that have taken a Land Raider as a dedicated transport. Saga of the Hunter gives the wolf priest "the ability to outflank" - which can only be read as the outflank USR. Since the wolf priest is now a member of the unit, we see that at least one model in the unit has the outflank USR and so the entire unit can outflank - including the dedicated transport, a land raider.

Saga of the hunter does not convay Outflank to the LR it convays it to an infrantry Charater who in turns convays it to the transport of the unit he joins .......JMO



But Good News EVERYONE!!!<read in a farnsworth voice> wolves get only 1 LR dedicated trans

That is all you need.

leohart wrote:@Erik_Morkai: Saga of the Hunter specifically disallow units on TW, bike, jump pack or Terminator armour. I don't see where it says "Infantry only".

For Khan, it is very clear, the codex says specifically that their dedicated transport gains the Outflank rule.

No, like the Space Wolves it says they gain "the ability to outflank" it's of less consequence here, but similarly you couldn't attach a unit that doesn't have some right to outflanking (like an allied IC) to a Khan enabled outflanking unit.

I don't see why the fact that Outflank is now offered as a USR should change the effect of these rules, they didn't grant you a special rule before, and they don't now, they simply aren't written that way. All they do is allow you to make use of a special method of arriving from reserves.

Drunkspleen wrote:
I don't see why the fact that Outflank is now offered as a USR should change the effect of these rules, they didn't grant you a special rule before, and they don't now, they simply aren't written that way. All they do is allow you to make use of a special method of arriving from reserves.

The problem with this argument is that the word outflank does not actually mean anything in 6th edition if it is not actually referring to the USR. Can you point to me a section of the rules that explains what "the ability to outflank" means without pointing to the USR entry in the BRB?

By this logic, there can only be one of two outcomes:

Outcome 1: You are correct. In this case you are far too limiting in the consequence. By saying that "the ablity to outflank" is not referring to the USR, you are essentially saying that the words are nothing more than fluff and are therefore meaningless. In this case, Saga of the Hunter only really grants the Character that takes it the Stealth USR, and nothing more.

Outcome 2: You are incorrect. In this case the line of text MUST be referring to the USR for all cases, not only does it grant the Outflank USE to the character that has Safa of the Hunter, but that Character can in turn convey the rule to a unit he is attached to as well as their dedicated transport.

Can you point me to a section of the rules that says the only way to follow the rules of a USR is if a unit in fact posesses that USR?

Because I can point you to a section of the rules that say you can in fact benefit from a USR without possessing the Special Rule itself, that section would be in the Space Wolves and Space Marines Codexes where it says units have "the ability to outflank" without granting them the special rule.

Also note the following from page 32 of the core rulebook:

"It may seem obvious, but unless stated otherwise, a model does not have a special rule"

which only adds further weight to my point, which is that, in the absence of a statement specifically granting them the rule, they don't have it.

If you want to argue to extend that further and say they can't make use of any of the rules in a USR they don't have, that's your prerogative.

Drunkspleen wrote::"It may seem obvious, but unless stated otherwise, a model does not have a special rule"

Well that shakes things up. Goes to show if you want to gain advantage by applying new RAW to old codexes, you need to be careful, because of the implication. Dig deep enough and you might wind up with less than you started with.

Drunkspleen wrote:Can you point me to a section of the rules that says the only way to follow the rules of a USR is if a unit in fact posesses that USR?

Because I can point you to a section of the rules that say you can in fact benefit from a USR without possessing the Special Rule itself, that section would be in the Space Wolves and Space Marines Codexes where it says units have "the ability to outflank" without granting them the special rule.

Also note the following from page 32 of the core rulebook:

"It may seem obvious, but unless stated otherwise, a model does not have a special rule"

which only adds further weight to my point, which is that, in the absence of a statement specifically granting them the rule, they don't have it.

If you want to argue to extend that further and say they can't make use of any of the rules in a USR they don't have, that's your prerogative.

You make absolutely no sense.

The character has the ability to outflank. Where do you find out what it means to have the ability to outflank? The USR in the BRB.

Brother Ramses wrote:

Drunkspleen wrote:Can you point me to a section of the rules that says the only way to follow the rules of a USR is if a unit in fact posesses that USR?

Because I can point you to a section of the rules that say you can in fact benefit from a USR without possessing the Special Rule itself, that section would be in the Space Wolves and Space Marines Codexes where it says units have "the ability to outflank" without granting them the special rule.

Also note the following from page 32 of the core rulebook:

"It may seem obvious, but unless stated otherwise, a model does not have a special rule"

which only adds further weight to my point, which is that, in the absence of a statement specifically granting them the rule, they don't have it.

If you want to argue to extend that further and say they can't make use of any of the rules in a USR they don't have, that's your prerogative.

You make absolutely no sense.

The character has the ability to outflank. Where do you find out what it means to have the ability to outflank? The USR in the BRB.

You should check out Fuegan in codex Eldar. It says he can attack like a monstrous creature, does that mean he gets the smash USR now?

yes, he has the ability to outflank, but does not himself have the Outflank Special Rule.

you refer to the Outflank Special Rule to find out how to use his ability to outflank, and he himself as an individual model can use those rules, but as he is not a model with the Outflank Special Rule, he doesn't meet the requirements for allowing a unit he is in to Outflank.

I feel like I covered this in my very first post in this thread...?

(if not the first, definitely the second)

Drunkspleen wrote:yes, he has the ability to outflank, but does not himself have the Outflank Special Rule.

you refer to the Outflank Special Rule to find out how to use his ability to outflank, and he himself as an individual model can use those rules, but as he is not a model with the Outflank Special Rule, he doesn't meet the requirements for allowing a unit he is in to Outflank.

I feel like I covered this in my very first post in this thread...?

(if not the first, definitely the second)

You covered it. We just disagree with you.

A model with SotH has "the ability to outflank". That model therefore may use the rules governing outflank. Those rules are now a USR in 6th. Under the outflank USR, it says "if at least one model in the unit..." So if you attach the model with SotH to a unit, it confers the "ability to outflank" to that unit.

That's how I read it. You disagree.

I felt the need to clarify since I'm being told I make no sense after putting forth what I consider a coherent and well supported argument.

It's interesting that you seem to have accepted he doesn't in fact possess the rule, but merely has permission to use it, but are still insisting he meets the criteria for creating a unit wherein at least one model has the Outflank Special Rule, which he doesn't have.

It's no different to a psychic power that lets you "move like jump infantry" or a unit that has preferred enemy "in assault". You would not say they have all the associated rules or the full USR, that is a unit with preferred enemy in assault would not be able to re-roll shooting and a unit that moved like jump infantry would not be bulky in a transport, without a rule like the one for Jump infantry that specifically states they acquire all special rules. Or once again, Fuegan, if anyone bothered to look attacking like a monstrous creature.

This distinction between having a rule or unit type or being able to conditionally act using some of those rules is not unique to Yiffs, an no one else gets the USR by RAW.

Drunkspleen wrote:
It's interesting that you seem to have accepted he doesn't in fact possess the rule, but merely has permission to use it, but are still insisting he meets the criteria for creating a unit wherein at least one model has the Outflank Special Rule, which he doesn't have.

I accept no such thing. I accept that the wording says "has the ability to" instead of "has the rule". But given the recent change in the core rules which makes outflank a USR, I believe that the two wordings are equivalent. SotH confers the outflank USR to the character which takes the saga.

EDIT : Fortunately, you and I live on the opposite sides of the Earth from each other and hence, you can play your way and I can play mine.

Eldarguy88 wrote:It's no different to a psychic power that lets you "move like jump infantry" or a unit that has preferred enemy "in assault". You would not say they have all the associated rules or the full USR, that is a unit with preferred enemy in assault would not be able to re-roll shooting and a unit that moved like jump infantry would not be bulky in a transport, without a rule like the one for Jump infantry that specifically states they acquire all special rules. Or once again, Fuegan, if anyone bothered to look attacking like a monstrous creature.

This distinction between having a rule or unit type or being able to conditionally act using some of those rules is not unique to Yiffs, an no one else gets the USR by RAW.

I would take your example of "move like jump infantry" and use it with caution as it was quite the debate in last edition if a hive tyrant with wings could deepstrike because he could "move like jump infantry" which then was FAQ'd to clarify that he was indeed able to deepstrike.

As it was in that case and is in this case, there is no "line in the sand" as to where having the ability to outflank ends in the USR. We know in the case of the hive tyrant debate that it was inclusive of the entire rule. By your standard, Saga of the Hunter would then not also confer stealth. But where did you get the right to draw the line at that point?

As there is no line drawn within the new USR and the only way to use Saga of the Hunter now is to reference the new USR, I think that you follow the USR in its entirety.

As an aside, does this modify the way Nid's Hive Commander works in relation to if you have an IC attached?

Yonush wrote:As an aside, does this modify the way Nid's Hive Commander works in relation to if you have an IC attached?

Not really no.
Still a no-go on that.

As per pg. 32 in th BRB, "Whenever a creature or weapon has an ability that breaks or bends one of the main game rules, it is represented as a special rule" So saying he has an ability to outflank but not the special rule outflank is false. The what special rules do i have section is for situations such as I am using some space marine scouts so they should have the stealth and the scout usr, but unless its stated thats not true. IIRC I think this is currently the case with DA scouts and also Neophytes from Black Templars.

Rigeld, could you expand on that please. From what I can see now, HC gives the troops outflank which then confers the usr to the ic per 1st paragraph of the usr.

Where is the denial? Or should I start a new topic?

Tyr Grimtooth wrote:I would take your example of "move like jump infantry" and use it with caution as it was quite the debate in last edition if a hive tyrant with wings could deepstrike because he could "move like jump infantry" which then was FAQ'd to clarify that he was indeed able to deepstrike.

As it was in that case and is in this case, there is no "line in the sand" as to where having the ability to outflank ends in the USR. We know in the case of the hive tyrant debate that it was inclusive of the entire rule. By your standard, Saga of the Hunter would then not also confer stealth. But where did you get the right to draw the line at that point?

As there is no line drawn within the new USR and the only way to use Saga of the Hunter now is to reference the new USR, I think that you follow the USR in its entirety.

His point with regards to Jump Infantry was that it is a special case that specifically says "moves like uses all the rules and gets all the special rules" because otherwise, the phrase wouldn't inherently have that meaning, and would only allow you to move like jump infantry, you could debate what constitutes moving, but it certainly wouldn't grant associated USRs (if not for that specific exception in the rulebook).

It's foolish to try and use the "by your standard" schtick, especially when you do it incorrectly, anyone can look right in a discussion when they get to put words in the other person's mouth.

By any standard Saga of the Hunter still grants stealth, because it explicitly says the model has the Stealth rule, whereas, it does not say they have the outflank rule, but rather, only the ability to use said deployment method.

Yonush wrote:Rigeld, could you expand on that please. From what I can see now, HC gives the troops outflank which then confers the usr to the ic per 1st paragraph of the usr.

Where is the denial? Or should I start a new topic?

New topic.

As soon as the IC joins it's no longer a Troop unit, it's a Troop + IC unit. That's the prevailing argument in YMDC anyway.
I disagree because once he's joined he's a normal member of the unit in every way. But every time I bring that up I get shot down.
It's one thing that annoys me about YMDC - how ICs are 100% indisputably members of the unit they join and not ever their own unit - except when they are.

Feel free to copy/paste this into the new thread if you make one.

Drunkspleen wrote:

Tyr Grimtooth wrote:I would take your example of "move like jump infantry" and use it with caution as it was quite the debate in last edition if a hive tyrant with wings could deepstrike because he could "move like jump infantry" which then was FAQ'd to clarify that he was indeed able to deepstrike.

As it was in that case and is in this case, there is no "line in the sand" as to where having the ability to outflank ends in the USR. We know in the case of the hive tyrant debate that it was inclusive of the entire rule. By your standard, Saga of the Hunter would then not also confer stealth. But where did you get the right to draw the line at that point?

As there is no line drawn within the new USR and the only way to use Saga of the Hunter now is to reference the new USR, I think that you follow the USR in its entirety.

His point with regards to Jump Infantry was that it is a special case that specifically says "moves like uses all the rules and gets all the special rules" because otherwise, the phrase wouldn't inherently have that meaning, and would only allow you to move like jump infantry, you could debate what constitutes moving, but it certainly wouldn't grant associated USRs (if not for that specific exception in the rulebook).

It's foolish to try and use the "by your standard" schtick, especially when you do it incorrectly, anyone can look right in a discussion when they get to put words in the other person's mouth.

By any standard Saga of the Hunter still grants stealth, because it explicitly says the model has the Stealth rule, whereas, it does not say they have the outflank rule, but rather, only the ability to use said deployment method.

My bad. I was confusing it with Infiltrate and Scouts where an additional ability is conferred in the entry.

You are still just randomly drawing a line within the rule with no permission or guidance. You have to either let the ability to outflank mesh with the new USR completely or cannot use it at all. The very first sentence tells you,

"During deployment, players can declare that any unit that contains at least one model with this special rule is attempting to Outflank the enemy."

As the IC with Saga of the Hunter does not have the USR, per your interpretation, the player can never declare that the IC is attempting to Outflank.

However, if you check the new SW FAQ, there are no longer any references to an IC with Saga of the Hunter as there was in 5th edition. If Saga of the Hunter was as you interpret it, those FAQ would have to still be in the FAQ to allow it to work. The only way that those FAQ are no longer needed is if Saga of the Hunter is actually referencing and uses the newer Outflank USR.

So you have to either accept that the ability to outflank in Saga of the Hunter equates to using the Outflank USR completely or accept that it does absolutely nothing.

Both sides are wrong on this one. RAW it does absolutely nothing. RAW it only allows Stealth as the ability to outflank is not enough to just outflank, whether or not with a unit. Conferring outflank to a unit, much less a dedicated transport is moot as the IC in question cannot even outflank himself.

Once again, please don't think to put words in people's mouths to formulate your argument, you are basically strawmanning.

Per my interpretation, he can use outflank even without having the USR, because he has a special rule that says he can, having the Outflank USR is just one way of getting permission to outflank, other rules not called Outflank can also give that permission, but unless they specifically say the model gains the Outflank Special Rule, then the model does not.

Out flank wasn't an ability you had in 5th was it it was conferred by abilitys like scout wasn't it???????

By any standard Saga of the Hunter still grants stealth, because it explicitly says the model has the Stealth rule, whereas, it does not say they have the outflank rule, but rather, only the ability to use said deployment method.

Remember that in 5th Edition, Outflank was not a universal special rule. It is therefore unreasonable to expect a 5th edition codex to refer to "the outflank special rule" or to give any model or unit "the outflank special rule". In sixth edition, it IS a USR. Moreover, the rules for using "the ability to outflank" in 6th edition are only covered in the Outflank USR paragraph. Under that paragraph, it says "if at least one model in the unit has the USR the unit my outflank".

You can argue all day that the phrase, "has the ability to outflank" does not confer the outflank USR, but I think that the exact meaning of the phrase is open to interpretation. However, when put into context, you must factor in the recent change to the new edition rules. In a friendly game, I would expect that at best both players would agree that SotH confers the USR, at worst to dice it off. Furthermore, no reasonable TO would intentionally interpret this to mean SotH does NOT confer the outflank USR simply because it complicates the rules. If ruled the way you want it, now we would have to go back and revisit the wording of every 5th Ed codex with units that have "the ability to outflank". Do they get the USR or not? And what would be the purpose of that exercise?

Drunkspleen wrote:Once again, please don't think to put words in people's mouths to formulate your argument, you are basically strawmanning.

Per my interpretation, he can use outflank even without having the USR, because he has a special rule that says he can, having the Outflank USR is just one way of getting permission to outflank, other rules not called Outflank can also give that permission, but unless they specifically say the model gains the Outflank Special Rule, then the model does not.

I am only putting forth that which you already have stated.

You can't have it both ways. If you say that the IC can Outflank based on having the ability to outflank, the only way per the RAW that is possible is for him to have the Outflank special rule. That is the pure RAW of the rule itself that I have already quoted in the first sentence pf the rule. There is absolutely no other way to resolve the ability to outflank given by Saga of the Hunter without following the rules for Outflank USR, which the IC cannot because he does not have the USR.

It is an all or nothing premise because there is no direction to only partially follow the Outflank USR nor is there even any mention of what the ability to outflank is allowed to do without actually having the Outflank USR.

Like people have posted, it was considered a special type of move in 5th so the wording used in the SW codex reflects being able to use that special move. They removed all reference from the SW FAQ regarding Saga of the Hunter and outflank which means that the only way it can be used now is if you use it as it is written in 6th edition USR. That makes it clear to me that,

The ability to outflank = Outflank USR

Or else it does absolutely nothing.

So im guessing that my previous post is bieng ignored because the opposition can't argue against it. I won't quote myself so just go back a page.

BloodKnight82 wrote:As per pg. 32 in th BRB, "Whenever a creature or weapon has an ability that breaks or bends one of the main game rules, it is represented as a special rule" So saying he has an ability to outflank but not the special rule outflank is false. The what special rules do i have section is for situations such as I am using some space marine scouts so they should have the stealth and the scout usr, but unless its stated thats not true. IIRC I think this is currently the case with DA scouts and also Neophytes from Black Templars.

Yes. It's hard to argue against this interpretation.

"The ability to outflank" = "has the outflank USR".

Grugknuckle wrote: "The ability to outflank" = "has the outflank USR".

Agree

A 5th ed dex wouldn't have "this charater has the Outflank USR" because the outflank USR didn't exist..... just sayin.

I'm sure GW would have FAQd it in the SW codex if they didn't want it work that way.

Dozer Blades wrote:I'm sure GW would have FAQd it in the SW codex if they didn't want it work that way.

Eventhough GW should know better, I am sure they weren't expecting some players to argue that having the ability doesn't mean you have the Outflank USR. Who would have thunk?

Grugknuckle wrote:

Also! The SW codex was written as a 6th edition Codex. Not 5th

Umm...no. The SW codex was out at least a year before there were even rumors of 6th edition. Anyone who argues that they had 6th ed in mind when they wrote this codex is smoking crack. Just by reading the 6th ed rules, I can tell that they barely had 6th edition rules in mind when they wrote the 6th edition rules.

Well actually our store manager worked on the 6th Ed' rulebook (we live near Nottingham), he says it was started 3 years ago. The basic rules were written in the 1st year and the book was made and tested in the last 2. So it's perfectly possible it could have been made for 6th.

Back on topic I think that RAW yes you can Outflank the Land Raider. RAI probably not.

phantommaster wrote:
Well actually our store manager worked on the 6th Ed' rulebook (we live near Nottingham), he says it was started 3 years ago. The basic rules were written in the 1st year and the book was made and tested in the last 2. So it's perfectly possible it could have been made for 6th.

Any codex that came out more than a year before the new rules cannot be assumed to have been written for the new rules. Any claim that it was is pure speculation - especially when that claim is used to justify some RAI argument. Is it possible that it was written with 6th ed in mind? Sure. But we all know about the GW Gestapo's policy for keeping their new rules secret. I find it highly questionable to think that the team that wrote the SW codex would be privy to any information about 6th ed rules. But, even if they did have knowledge, I am certain that the actually wording of the rules had changed dramatically back and forth between the time that the SW codex was written and the 6th BRB came out. To claim otherwise is imbecility.

phantommaster wrote: So it's perfectly possible it could have been made for 6th.

I wasn't saying it was definite. In fact I rather doubt it, but it IS POSSIBLE.

Grugknuckle wrote:

phantommaster wrote:
Well actually our store manager worked on the 6th Ed' rulebook (we live near Nottingham), he says it was started 3 years ago. The basic rules were written in the 1st year and the book was made and tested in the last 2. So it's perfectly possible it could have been made for 6th.

Any codex that came out more than a year before the new rules cannot be assumed to have been written for the new rules. Any claim that it was is pure speculation - especially when that claim is used to justify some RAI argument. Is it possible that it was written with 6th ed in mind? Sure. But we all know about the GW Gestapo's policy for keeping their new rules secret. I find it highly questionable to think that the team that wrote the SW codex would be privy to any information about 6th ed rules. But, even if they did have knowledge, I am certain that the actually wording of the rules had changed dramatically back and forth between the time that the SW codex was written and the 6th BRB came out. To claim otherwise is imbecility.

The only real thing that comes to mind that shines in 6th edition from the SW codex as having been tailor made for 6th edition is Lukas' doppleganger cloak. That is it.

The only real thing that comes to mind that shines in 6th edition from the SW codex as having been tailor made for 6th edition is Lukas' doppleganger cloak. That is it.

OR ... they tailor made the 6th ed rules to that particular piece of wargear in the SW codex and other wargear like it in other codecies.
I mean, isn't that what we really want? We want them to write the rules so that the older codecies fit smoothly into the new rule set.

EDIT : I was going to say, "isn't that what we expect from GW", but then I realized that I actually expect them to write vague contradictory rules so that we can all argue about them.

Grugknuckle wrote:Remember that in 5th Edition, Outflank was not a universal special rule. It is therefore unreasonable to expect a 5th edition codex to refer to "the outflank special rule" or to give any model or unit "the outflank special rule". In sixth edition, it IS a USR. Moreover, the rules for using "the ability to outflank" in 6th edition are only covered in the Outflank USR paragraph. Under that paragraph, it says "if at least one model in the unit has the USR the unit my outflank".

You can argue all day that the phrase, "has the ability to outflank" does not confer the outflank USR, but I think that the exact meaning of the phrase is open to interpretation. However, when put into context, you must factor in the recent change to the new edition rules. In a friendly game, I would expect that at best both players would agree that SotH confers the USR, at worst to dice it off. Furthermore, no reasonable TO would intentionally interpret this to mean SotH does NOT confer the outflank USR simply because it complicates the rules. If ruled the way you want it, now we would have to go back and revisit the wording of every 5th Ed codex with units that have "the ability to outflank". Do they get the USR or not? And what would be the purpose of that exercise?

The change to 6th edition is irrelevant, if we were to interpret the phrase some way other than how it is written in the codex Games Workshop had the Errata to tell us to do so, they did not. The rules for using outflank also aren't in the paragraph you claim, the rules for using outflank are entirely separated into a different paragraph, the paragraph you are discussing is only used to grant permission to follow those rules. Your personal theories about what belongs in a friendly game and what a TO would rule are irrelevant to the discussion at hand too, the fact is, I would expect people to play by the rules in a friendly game, not look for undue advantages for their characters.

Grugknuckle wrote:

BloodKnight82 wrote:As per pg. 32 in th BRB, "Whenever a creature or weapon has an ability that breaks or bends one of the main game rules, it is represented as a special rule" So saying he has an ability to outflank but not the special rule outflank is false. The what special rules do i have section is for situations such as I am using some space marine scouts so they should have the stealth and the scout usr, but unless its stated thats not true. IIRC I think this is currently the case with DA scouts and also Neophytes from Black Templars.

Yes. It's hard to argue against this interpretation.

"The ability to outflank" = "has the outflank USR".

It's not an argument, the rules quote just says he has a special rule, sure he does, it's called "Saga of the Hunter" it's not called "Outflank", just because we are told rule bending/breaking is a Special rule, doesn't mean they are inherently a USR. "Saga of the Hunter" lets that one model have the ability to outflank, it does not grant him the Outflank USR, because it doesn't say he has the Outflank USR, and we are told models do not have Special Rules unless we are explicitly told they do have them.

It was ignored because there's no merit to it, not because it's hard to argue against.

Just to be clear when you say looking for undue advanatges for our characters you mean actually getting to use Saga of the Hunter in its entirety, not just the Stealth USR?

Man, who would have thought that trying to use a rule as intended I would be considered a WAAC or TFG?

Tyr Grimtooth wrote:Just to be clear when you say looking for undue advanatges for our characters you mean actually getting to use Saga of the Hunter in its entirety, not just the Stealth USR?

Man, who would have thought that trying to use a rule as intended I would be considered a WAAC or TFG?

No I mean being able to bring all sorts of attached units and transports with the character.

You are welcome to outflank the character, just you can't use him to outflank other things that themselves are unable to.

Clearly, Drunkspleen and I disagree. But I've made my points.

The rules for using outflank also aren't in the paragraph you claim, the rules for using outflank are entirely separated into a different paragraph

There are several paragraphs under the same heading of Outflank USR. I unfortunately referred to everything under that heading as a single paragraph (because I read lots of engineering documents and that's how we do it. So shoot me.) It doesn't change anything.

Your personal theories about what belongs in a friendly game and what a TO would rule are irrelevant to the discussion at hand too, the fact is, I would expect people to play by the rules in a friendly game, not look for undue advantages for their characters.

I expect people to play by the rules too. The problem is that we have a disagreement about what the rules actually are.
But now I think there is nearly a consensus on this forum. I think you're the only dissenter.

Isn't it true that Land Raiders can only be taken as a Dedicated Transport for Terminators? And isn't it true that Terminators are not Troops?

On another note, the Warlord Trait Master of Manuver grants the Warlord and the Unit he joins (including dedicated transports according to the outflank rules) the ability to Outflank. So if your Warlord joins a unit of Terminators in a Land Raider, it may outflank.

reticent_bassist wrote:Isn't it true that Land Raiders can only be taken as a Dedicated Transport for Terminators? And isn't it true that Terminators are not Troops?

Read your Codex and find out. It varies. For Space Wolves, Wolf Guard are the only ones that can take it as a Dedicated Transport. There is no requirement that they be in Terminator armor.

Also Warlord Traits are random at the start of every game so its not really useful for planning an army around...

Does seem to be everyone saying yes and one person holding out with a no for some reason doesn't it? Funny.

Drunkspleen wrote:

Tyr Grimtooth wrote:Just to be clear when you say looking for undue advanatges for our characters you mean actually getting to use Saga of the Hunter in its entirety, not just the Stealth USR?

Man, who would have thought that trying to use a rule as intended I would be considered a WAAC or TFG?

No I mean being able to bring all sorts of attached units and transports with the character.

You are welcome to outflank the character, just you can't use him to outflank other things that themselves are unable to.

And that is where you fail.

You cannot even outflank the character because by your own argument he does not have the special rule to even attempt to outflank per the RAW of the rule. Having the ability does absolutely nothing because you need to have the special rule to even attempt to outflank, that is the absolute RAW.

So as I said, me wanting to use the rule as intended makes me TFG? Because as pointed out, the fact that an IC with Outflank joining units and allowing said units with their dedicated transports to outflank with the IC is supported by the rules. It is spelled out exactly how the USR transfers over.

Frankly you are just coming across as one of the, "SW are too overpowered already" individuals that post your opposition in any thread regarding SW on biased principle, and biased principle only.

Per your intepretation if the rules, Saga of the Hunter is broken. Having the ability to outflank is not enough for the IC to even outflank on his own, much less with a unit. The only part of the rule left unbroken by your interpretation is that he has the Stealth USR.

Fortunately logic and evidence are against you. And while it will take a FAQ to shut you up, the majority of players and organizers I know accept that the ability to outflank in Saga of the Hunter confers the Outflank USR in 6th edition.

Tyr Grimtooth wrote:
Frankly you are just coming across as one of the, "SW are too overpowered already" individuals that post your opposition in any thread regarding SW on biased principle, and biased principle only.

I actually said this on page 1, but was forced to edit out my comment.

Grugknuckle wrote:

Tyr Grimtooth wrote:
Frankly you are just coming across as one of the, "SW are too overpowered already" individuals that post your opposition in any thread regarding SW on biased principle, and biased principle only.

I actually said this on page 1, but was forced to edit out my comment.

Well just a quick search through his posting history regarding Space Wolves shows him on the opoosite opinion against anything Space Wolves. So if it needs to be edited out so be it, but I am just calling it as how it appears when it comes to Space Wolves.

Is outflanking a land raider really that big of a deal?

I mean, beyond the novelty of moving on from the short board edge and all... what's the point?

jcress410 wrote:Is outflanking a land raider really that big of a deal?

I mean, beyond the novelty of moving on from the short board edge and all... what's the point?

I guess it depends on the deployment type. Personally, I think that outflanking with a rhino would be better. Maybe? I don't really think it's such a big deal.

And I'd personally rather Outflank 15 Blood Claws and a few Wolf Scout units while a few Long Fangs lay down suppressing fire and Rhino/Pod mounted Grey Hunters help keep the enemy busy.

Outflank is powerful because of the capability to maneuver it unlocks. My favorite example is when you are playing length wise. Instead of having to trek across 6' of table, you are likely to come right up close on Turn 2 (especially with Acute Senses). Being able to cut out a couple of turns of movement is nice.

Tyr Grimtooth wrote:And that is where you fail.

You cannot even outflank the character because by your own argument he does not have the special rule to even attempt to outflank per the RAW of the rule. Having the ability does absolutely nothing because you need to have the special rule to even attempt to outflank, that is the absolute RAW.

No it's not, the Outflank USR tells you units with it can perform an outflank, it doesn't tell you units without it cannot perform an outflank, your insistence that that is the case is not founded on RAW. You do not necessarily need to have the Outflank USR to perform an Outflank.

So as I said, me wanting to use the rule as intended makes me TFG? Because as pointed out, the fact that an IC with Outflank joining units and allowing said units with their dedicated transports to outflank with the IC is supported by the rules. It is spelled out exactly how the USR transfers over.

Frankly you are just coming across as one of the, "SW are too overpowered already" individuals that post your opposition in any thread regarding SW on biased principle, and biased principle only.

I never called you TFG, I don't think to comment on people or their motives when I don't know anything about them, frankly I think you are being insulting here and I really don't appreciate it.

It is spelled out how the USR transfers over only in the case that at least one model in the unit has the USR, which a lord with Saga of the Hunter does not, he has nothing that explicitly states he has the Outflank Special Rule, so per the core rulebook, we are forced to accept that he does not have that special rule.

Per your intepretation if the rules, Saga of the Hunter is broken. Having the ability to outflank is not enough for the IC to even outflank on his own, much less with a unit. The only part of the rule left unbroken by your interpretation is that he has the Stealth USR.

Ah the strawman once again, such a quality argument.

I have told you REPEATEDLY what the ramifications of my interpretation of the rules are, it's not that Saga of the Hunter is broken, it's that Saga of the Hunter works exactly the same way as it did before 6th edition came out.

If you are going to continue to insist that a model cannot use the Outflank deployment method without possessing the Outflank Special Rule, please show me some RAW to back it up, don't just keep saying it and think that it has any meaning.

Fortunately logic and evidence are against you. And while it will take a FAQ to shut you up, the majority of players and organizers I know accept that the ability to outflank in Saga of the Hunter confers the Outflank USR in 6th edition.

Great, I'm not saying everyone has to play by RAW, I'm just telling you what it is, if you want to play by some different means then that's well within your rights.

Drunkspleen wrote:

Tyr Grimtooth wrote:And that is where you fail.

You cannot even outflank the character because by your own argument he does not have the special rule to even attempt to outflank per the RAW of the rule. Having the ability does absolutely nothing because you need to have the special rule to even attempt to outflank, that is the absolute RAW.

No it's not, the Outflank USR tells you units with it can perform an outflank, it doesn't tell you units without it cannot perform an outflank, your insistence that that is the case is not founded on RAW. You do not necessarily need to have the Outflank USR to perform an Outflank.

So as I said, me wanting to use the rule as intended makes me TFG? Because as pointed out, the fact that an IC with Outflank joining units and allowing said units with their dedicated transports to outflank with the IC is supported by the rules. It is spelled out exactly how the USR transfers over.

Frankly you are just coming across as one of the, "SW are too overpowered already" individuals that post your opposition in any thread regarding SW on biased principle, and biased principle only.

I never called you TFG, I don't think to comment on people or their motives when I don't know anything about them, frankly I think you are being insulting here and I really don't appreciate it.

It is spelled out how the USR transfers over only in the case that at least one model in the unit has the USR, which a lord with Saga of the Hunter does not, he has nothing that explicitly states he has the Outflank Special Rule, so per the core rulebook, we are forced to accept that he does not have that special rule.

Per your intepretation if the rules, Saga of the Hunter is broken. Having the ability to outflank is not enough for the IC to even outflank on his own, much less with a unit. The only part of the rule left unbroken by your interpretation is that he has the Stealth USR.

Ah the strawman once again, such a quality argument.

I have told you REPEATEDLY what the ramifications of my interpretation of the rules are, it's not that Saga of the Hunter is broken, it's that Saga of the Hunter works exactly the same way as it did before 6th edition came out.

If you are going to continue to insist that a model cannot use the Outflank deployment method without possessing the Outflank Special Rule, please show me some RAW to back it up, don't just keep saying it and think that it has any meaning.

Fortunately logic and evidence are against you. And while it will take a FAQ to shut you up, the majority of players and organizers I know accept that the ability to outflank in Saga of the Hunter confers the Outflank USR in 6th edition.

Great, I'm not saying everyone has to play by RAW, I'm just telling you what it is, if you want to play by some different means then that's well within your rights.

You cannot have it both ways.

The USR is requiered to not only confer upon a unit but to even outflank in the first place. You keep coming up with this arbitrary line in the sand that you draw with zero rules basis saying that the IC can outflank but cannot confer. That is NOT the RAW of the rule.

There is no in-between. If you are admitting that the IC can outflank, then you are admitting that he has the USR because that is the only way he can outflank which in turn allows him to confer it to any unit he joins. That is the RAW of Outflank as a USR. There is no getting around it.

Tyr Grimtooth wrote:You cannot have it both ways.

The USR is requiered to not only confer upon a unit but to even outflank in the first place. You keep coming up with this arbitrary line in the sand that you draw with zero rules basis saying that the IC can outflank but cannot confer. That is NOT the RAW of the rule.

There is no in-between. If you are admitting that the IC can outflank, then you are admitting that he has the USR because that is the only way he can outflank which in turn allows him to confer it to any unit he joins. That is the RAW of Outflank as a USR. There is no getting around it.

Where is the rule that says the USR is required to outflank in the first place, the line in the sand is neither arbitrary or without rules basis, it is based on the fact that Saga of the Hunter says that the character can outflank, so he can outflank and that is where the rule ends, it does not grant special rules that it doesn't say it grants.

Please for once, provide support for the claim that he can't outflank if he doesn't have the USR. Show me the rule that says this.

Drunkspleen wrote:

Tyr Grimtooth wrote:You cannot have it both ways.

The USR is requiered to not only confer upon a unit but to even outflank in the first place. You keep coming up with this arbitrary line in the sand that you draw with zero rules basis saying that the IC can outflank but cannot confer. That is NOT the RAW of the rule.

There is no in-between. If you are admitting that the IC can outflank, then you are admitting that he has the USR because that is the only way he can outflank which in turn allows him to confer it to any unit he joins. That is the RAW of Outflank as a USR. There is no getting around it.

Where is the rule that says the USR is required to outflank in the first place, the line in the sand is neither arbitrary or without rules basis, it is based on the fact that Saga of the Hunter says that the character can outflank, so he can outflank and that is where the rule ends, it does not grant special rules that it doesn't say it grants.

Please for once, provide support for the claim that he can't outflank if he doesn't have the USR. Show me the rule that says this.

BRB page 40, OUTFLANK:

During deployment, players can declare that any unit that contains at least one model with this special rule is attempting to Outflank the enemy.

An IC with Saga of the Hunter by himself is considered a unit, albeit a unit of one. Does said unit of one contain at least one model with the special rule? No!

So as I have said upteen times,, your intepretation breaks Saga of the Hunter because all it allows is the Stealth USR. The ability to outflank as stated in Saga of the Hunter is not the USR needed to have "at least one model with this special rule".

Tyr Grimtooth wrote:BRB page 40, OUTFLANK:

During deployment, players can declare that any unit that contains at least one model with this special rule is attempting to Outflank the enemy.

An IC with Saga of the Hunter by himself is considered a unit, albeit a unit of one. Does said unit of one contain at least one model with the special rule? No!

So as I have said upteen times,, your intepretation breaks Saga of the Hunter because all it allows is the Stealth USR. The ability to outflank as stated in Saga of the Hunter is not the USR needed to have "at least one model with this special rule".

But that's incorrect, that sentence tells you that units containing a model with Outflank can declare they are outflanking, it doesn't restrict other models from being able to do so, a model can have it's own allowance to declare they are outflanking from another source (such as Saga of the Hunter).

Saga of the hunter gives specific permission to outflank. Without some restriction overriding that, then the model gets to outflank, even if it doesn't have the Outflank USR.

Tyr Grimtooth wrote:
There is no in-between. If you are admitting that the IC can outflank, then you are admitting that he has the USR because that is the only way he can outflank which in turn allows him to confer it to any unit he joins.

Why? I'm scratching my head here as to why you think you can't follow a special rule without having a universal special rule on top of it? In the rulebook, and I am sure it has been quoted often enough, the USR "Outflank" grants the ability to outflank, and some other things about conferring the ability to others. Then the ability to outflank is described. If another special rule in the codex also grants the ability to outflank, it is doing some but not all the things the USR does. How did you come to the conclusion you can not do something the codex tells you you can do?

Tyr Grimtooth wrote:

Grugknuckle wrote:

Tyr Grimtooth wrote:
Frankly you are just coming across as one of the, "SW are too overpowered already" individuals that post your opposition in any thread regarding SW on biased principle, and biased principle only.

I actually said this on page 1, but was forced to edit out my comment.

Well just a quick search through his posting history regarding Space Wolves shows him on the opoosite opinion against anything Space Wolves. So if it needs to be edited out so be it, but I am just calling it as how it appears when it comes to Space Wolves.

Pots and kettles, Tyrwolf Grimwolf.

Drunkspleen wrote:

Tyr Grimtooth wrote:BRB page 40, OUTFLANK:

During deployment, players can declare that any unit that contains at least one model with this special rule is attempting to Outflank the enemy.

An IC with Saga of the Hunter by himself is considered a unit, albeit a unit of one. Does said unit of one contain at least one model with the special rule? No!

So as I have said upteen times,, your intepretation breaks Saga of the Hunter because all it allows is the Stealth USR. The ability to outflank as stated in Saga of the Hunter is not the USR needed to have "at least one model with this special rule".

But that's incorrect, that sentence tells you that units containing a model with Outflank can declare they are outflanking, it doesn't restrict other models from being able to do so, a model can have it's own allowance to declare they are outflanking from another source (such as Saga of the Hunter).

Saga of the hunter gives specific permission to outflank. Without some restriction overriding that, then the model gets to outflank, even if it doesn't have the Outflank USR.

I am using your exact wording against you.

The IC with Saga of the Hunter does not have the USR to outflank. Yes he has the ability to outflank, but as you have stated he does not explicitly have the required USR.

I posted up the exact RAW of the rule. You are now trying to get around it. The USR is needed both to outflank alone and to confer unto a unit. Without the USR, you can do neither. It is the very first sentence of the rule that sets this conditions for allowing a unit to Outflank, which an IC with just the Saga of the Hunter does not fulfill.

As I said, you cannot have it both ways. You cannot say that the IC with Saga of the Hunter has the ability to Outflank, despite not having the special rule as detailed in the first sentence. The only way he can is if you concede that the "ability to outflank" as described in the rules for Saga of the Hunter confers the Outflank USR, which in turn allows for outflanking Land Raiders.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Eldarguy88 wrote:

Tyr Grimtooth wrote:
There is no in-between. If you are admitting that the IC can outflank, then you are admitting that he has the USR because that is the only way he can outflank which in turn allows him to confer it to any unit he joins.

Why? I'm scratching my head here as to why you think you can't follow a special rule without having a universal special rule on top of it? In the rulebook, and I am sure it has been quoted often enough, the USR "Outflank" grants the ability to outflank, and some other things about conferring the ability to others. Then the ability to outflank is described. If another special rule in the codex also grants the ability to outflank, it is doing some but not all the things the USR does. How did you come to the conclusion you can not do something the codex tells you you can do?

Tyr Grimtooth wrote:

Grugknuckle wrote:

Tyr Grimtooth wrote:
Frankly you are just coming across as one of the, "SW are too overpowered already" individuals that post your opposition in any thread regarding SW on biased principle, and biased principle only.

I actually said this on page 1, but was forced to edit out my comment.

Well just a quick search through his posting history regarding Space Wolves shows him on the opoosite opinion against anything Space Wolves. So if it needs to be edited out so be it, but I am just calling it as how it appears when it comes to Space Wolves.

Pots and kettles, Tyrwolf Grimwolf.

I will be the first one to shut down a person trying to skew a SW rule. I just did it in another thread here where someone was trying to say that Canis had rending attacks.

There is a poster at the Bolter and Chainsword that thinks SW players that join IC not mounted on thunderwolf mounts to units of thunderwolf cavalry or join them to an IC on a thunderwolf mount are cheating, and I support him in that view 100% as well.

So if a SW argument is blatantly wrong, I will call it out. However, I am not going to actively seek out discussions and post up an opposing opinion based on if I think that army is already too overpowered so needs to be nerfed through clever rules lawyering or word games with the rules.

As it stands, per the interpretation presented by the opposing faction in this thread, Saga of the Hunter is completely broken because it does not matter in 6th edition if you have the ability to outflank, it only matters if you have the USR to outflank.

My personal opinion is that the ability to outflank in Saga of the Hunter confers the 6th edition Outflank USR thus allowing not only the IC with the saga to outflank, but alos any unit he joins as well as their dedicated transport.

Tyr Grimtooth wrote:I am using your exact wording against you.

No you aren't, you think you are, but you are just using your own misunderstanding against me

The IC with Saga of the Hunter does not have the USR to outflank. Yes he has the ability to outflank, but as you have stated he does not explicitly have the required USR.

This is correct, so far you have followed the argument accurately

I posted up the exact RAW of the rule. You are now trying to get around it.

You posted one part of the rule, and I'm not trying to get around anything, but lets continue.

The USR is needed both to outflank alone and to confer unto a unit. Without the USR, you can do neither.

This is where your argument falls apart, the USR isn't needed to outflank, nothing says the only way to outflank is by having the USR, the USR grants you permission to perform an outflank, and goes on to explain what outflanking is, likewise, Saga of the Hunter gives you permission to perform an outflank.

It is the very first sentence of the rule that sets this conditions for allowing a unit to Outflank, which an IC with just the Saga of the Hunter does not fulfill.

And here, you fail to understand how the rules are structured, there is a permission for Outflanking in the Outflank USR, that doesn't mean it's the only way to get that permission, it doesn't mean other things can't have that permission without having the rule, it's not a restriction on other models that don't have the Outflank USR, it's just a permission for those models who do have it.

Drunkspleen wrote:Does Saga of the Hunter saying "The character has the ability to outflank" necessarily equate to having the Outflank USR by RAW?

It seems to me like it doesn't, and if it in fact does not, a Saga of the Hunter IC couldn't bring a unit with them (unless it separately had permission to outflank).

Drunkspleen wrote:The Outflank USR consists of two paragraphs, one explaining how a unit with at least one model that has the Outflank Special Rule may choose to outflank the enemy, and a second entirely separate one describing how a unit outflanks.

I would put forward that having "the ability to outflank" only entitles the model to use the special rules in that second paragraph, but does not grant him the skill, and as he does not have the skill, any unit he joins does not inherently gain the ability to outflank with him.

It may seem pedantic to you, but as I see it, nothing says he gains a special rule, so there's no reason for him to gain said special rule.

These are your first two posts in this thread. You openly question and then point out that an IC with Saga of the Hunter does not have the rule needed to outflank and hpthen come up with some RAI experiment that while he has the ability to do paragraph two of the Outflank USR, he doesn't have the skill to pass it along to a unit he joins. The problem is that the first paragraph sets the conditions for using the second paragraph.

There is no skill that you RAI from out of the blue. There is the RAW of the USR section saying,

"It may seem obvious but unless stated otherwise, a model does not have a special rule"

You then have the RAW of the Outflank USR that says that the unit must contain one model with the special rule to even attempt to Outflank. The very first sentence of the second paragraph then completely shuts you down,

"When an Outflanking unit arrives from Reserves...."

It can only be an Outflanking unit if it attempted to Outflank. It can only attempt to Outflank if one model in the unit has the special rule. An IC with Saga of the Hunter does not have the special rule, per your OwN posts quoted above!!

This whole exercise has shifted away from me showing you that the ability to outflank confers the Outflank USR, to me showing you that your interpretation does not even follow the RAW, and that if it does, it completely breaks the Saga of the Hunter rule by only allowing the Stealth USR. Even my opinion that the ability to outflank confers the Outflank USR is RAI, however mine does not break the Saga of the Hunter rule by making the abilty to outflank part of it superfluous.

Tyr Grimtooth wrote:You then have the RAW of the Outflank USR that says that the unit must contain one model with the special rule to even attempt to Outflank. The very first sentence of the second paragraph then completely shuts you down,

"When an Outflanking unit arrives from Reserves...."

It can only be an Outflanking unit if it attempted to Outflank. It can only attempt to Outflank if one model in the unit has the special rule. An IC with Saga of the Hunter does not have the special rule, per your OwN posts quoted above!!

You are falling down at the same stumbling block, you just don't understand the RAW of this situation, the RAW doesn't say a unit MUST contain at least one model with the Outflank special rule to perform an Outflank, it simply says that units that do contain at least one model with Outflank CAN Outflank, once again, it's not a restriction, it's an allowance.

a Saga of the Hunter model can be "an Outflanking unit" by virtue of the fact that Saga of the Hunter says "the character has the ability to outflank"

This whole exercise has shifted away from me showing you that the ability to outflank confers the Outflank USR, to me showing you that your interpretation does not even follow the RAW, and that if it does, it completely breaks the Saga of the Hunter rule by only allowing the Stealth USR. Even my opinion that the ability to outflank confers the Outflank USR is RAI, however mine does not break the Saga of the Hunter rule by making the abilty to outflank part of it superfluous.

Yes, because you insisted on building a ridiculous straw man argument and telling me how I interpreted things based on your misunderstanding of the rules. The fact of the matter is, you can Outflank without necessarily having the Outflank USR, and Saga of the Hunter is a prime example of a unit that is able to do so.

Drunkenspleen, I get your point you are trying to make. But I think you are overlooking Column 2, Paragraph 6 on page 124:

Models that are arriving by Deep Strike or Outflank deploy using their special rules (see pages 36 and 40).

I could be mistaken, but to me this implies that if a unit is deploying via either Deep Strike or Outflank it is treated as having the special rule. Couple that with the What Special Rules Do I Have? section of the Special Rule chapter (what is it, page 23?) and I've got to think that its accurate. I don't see the three words that you hinge your argument on, "the ability to", as only giving the IC part of a special rule.

But I'll freely admit a bias in this. Without it being equivalent to the Outflank special rule, Saga of the Hunter is next to useless for deployment. I believe its only deployment benefit is if you wanted an IC to fly solo (suicide) or join Wolf Scouts Behind Enemy Lines.

Drunkspleen wrote:

Tyr Grimtooth wrote:You then have the RAW of the Outflank USR that says that the unit must contain one model with the special rule to even attempt to Outflank. The very first sentence of the second paragraph then completely shuts you down,

"When an Outflanking unit arrives from Reserves...."

It can only be an Outflanking unit if it attempted to Outflank. It can only attempt to Outflank if one model in the unit has the special rule. An IC with Saga of the Hunter does not have the special rule, per your OwN posts quoted above!!

You are falling down at the same stumbling block, you just don't understand the RAW of this situation, the RAW doesn't say a unit MUST contain at least one model with the Outflank special rule to perform an Outflank, it simply says that units that do contain at least one model with Outflank CAN Outflank, once again, it's not a restriction, it's an allowance.

a Saga of the Hunter model can be "an Outflanking unit" by virtue of the fact that Saga of the Hunter says "the character has the ability to outflank"

This whole exercise has shifted away from me showing you that the ability to outflank confers the Outflank USR, to me showing you that your interpretation does not even follow the RAW, and that if it does, it completely breaks the Saga of the Hunter rule by only allowing the Stealth USR. Even my opinion that the ability to outflank confers the Outflank USR is RAI, however mine does not break the Saga of the Hunter rule by making the abilty to outflank part of it superfluous.

Yes, because you insisted on building a ridiculous straw man argument and telling me how I interpreted things based on your misunderstanding of the rules. The fact of the matter is, you can Outflank without necessarily having the Outflank USR, and Saga of the Hunter is a prime example of a unit that is able to do so.

The RAW tells you that to even attempt an Outflank, one model in the unit has to have the special rule. Do you not understand that? The very beginning of the USR section details that unless it is stated a model does not have a special rule. Do you not understand that?

You have failed at every point in this argument. You asked for the RAW and I shoved it in your face with your own quoted posts and now you are backpedaling better then a clown on a unicycle at the circus. Your RAI of the IC with Saga of the Hunter being able to outflank but not having the skill to pass it along to a unit he joins is not only laughable, but completely unsupported by any rules support. There are only two choices,

1. The IC with Saga of the Hunter does not specifically have the USR allowing him to outflank and therefore Saga of the Hunter is currently broken until an updated FAQ addresses it.

2. The IC with Saga of the Hunter is conferred the outflank USR by having the "ability to outflank" and thus is allowed to outflank in its entirety per the USR.

There is no halfway, "he can outflank but does not have the skill to share" supported by any rules at all.

Anyone said yet that "the ability to outflank" in the codex entry can specifically overwrite the requirement for you to have the USR to use the ability?

You said yourself under "What Special Rules Do I Have?" that unless you are stated as having the rule, you don't.

so Saga of the Hunter gives you the ability to bypass needing the outflank USR to gain the some of the benefits of it, but it still doesn't state you have it.

And you promptly ignored what I pointed out on Page 124. It sounded like to me that if you Outflank you are treated as having the Outflank Special rule. Likewise for Deep Strike.

cowmonaut wrote:And you promptly ignored what I pointed out on Page 124. It sounded like to me that if you Outflank you are treated as having the Outflank Special rule. Likewise for Deep Strike.

Hate to burst your bubble, but Saga of the Hunter is a special rule too. It doesn't say they come in only upon their universal special rules.

Oop, three pages back, nevermind.

SCvodimier wrote:Anyone said yet that "the ability to outflank" in the codex entry can specifically overwrite the requirement for you to have the USR to use the ability?

You said yourself under "What Special Rules Do I Have?" that unless you are stated as having the rule, you don't.

so Saga of the Hunter gives you the ability to bypass needing the outflank USR to gain the some of the benefits of it, but it still doesn't state you have it.

Yes it has been mentioned, however there is no rules support for only partially using the Outflank USR.

The RAI interpretation being proposed arbitrarily draws a line in the sand of being able to outflank, but not have the skill to pass it along to joined units does so without any direction to draw that line at that point.

The wording of "ability to outflank" is no longer a defined action like it was in 5th edition when outflank was just a special move and not a USR as it is now. To infer that a defined action in 5th edition suddenly has a defined action in 6th, with zero rules support to back up that assumption is wrong.

To maintain any resemblance of following the RAW, you adhere to the new rules set by 6th edition which dictates that unless specifically stated a model does not have a USR and that the unit contain at least one model with the special rule to attempt to Outflank. As such, per RAW, Saga of the Hunter is currently broken until a FAQ either clears up exactly what, "ability to outflank" entails.

Personally, I think that ability to outflank confers the Outflank USR and all that having the special rule entails. While that interpretation does favor my army, I choose that interpretation because it does not attempt to break up the 6th edition Outflank rule into some "ability" and some "skill" RAI of being able to do one part of the USR, while not following the RAW of the USR, but not having the "skill" to do the other part.

I would play it one of the two ways above, either Saga of the Hunter is broken or it grants the Outflank USR.

cowmonaut wrote:
But I'll freely admit a bias in this. Without it being equivalent to the Outflank special rule, Saga of the Hunter is next to useless for deployment. I believe its only deployment benefit is if you wanted an IC to fly solo (suicide) or join Wolf Scouts Behind Enemy Lines.

Just to clarify, "Behind Enemy Lines" is a special rule all to itself and has nothing to do with Outflank. Just because I have the "ability to outflank" doesn't mean I have the "ability to go behind enemy lines". They're different. However, I believe and independent infantry character with SotH, or a wolf guard pack leader can attach to wolf scouts and go behind enemy lines. There is some text to that effect in the codex, but I don't have mine with me right now.

Ouflank was a abilty

Tyr Grimtooth wrote:The RAW tells you that to even attempt an Outflank, one model in the unit has to have the special rule. Do you not understand that?

Geez, I just don't know how to make this any clearer, I think we are stuck at an impasse due to your inability to understand the difference between an allowance and an imperative. There is no RAW that tells you a unit MUST contain a model with Outflank to perform an Outflank. No matter how many times you say there is, it will not magically come into existence.

You need to read the rules again paying careful attention to the specific words used. There Is no Restriction that limits Outflanking only to the models who are said to be able to declare it within the Outflank Special Rule's structure.

The very beginning of the USR section details that unless it is stated a model does not have a special rule. Do you not understand that?

Evidently I do, given I am the person who brought that rules quote into the argument.

You have failed at every point in this argument. You asked for the RAW and I shoved it in your face with your own quoted posts and now you are backpedaling better then a clown on a unicycle at the circus.

No you didn't, see my first point in this post, you just don't understand the RAW, the only thing you are "shoving in my face" is your inability to read and lack of comprehension

Tyr Grimtooth wrote:Yes it has been mentioned, however there is no rules support for only partially using the Outflank USR.

Space Wolf Codex, under Saga of the Hunter.

Drunkspleen wrote:

Tyr Grimtooth wrote:The RAW tells you that to even attempt an Outflank, one model in the unit has to have the special rule. Do you not understand that?

Geez, I just don't know how to make this any clearer, I think we are stuck at an impasse due to your inability to understand the difference between an allowance and an imperative. There is no RAW that tells you a unit MUST contain a model with Outflank to perform an Outflank. No matter how many times you say there is, it will not magically come into existence.

You need to read the rules again paying careful attention to the specific words used. There Is no Restriction that limits Outflanking only to the models who are said to be able to declare it within the Outflank Special Rule's structure.

The very beginning of the USR section details that unless it is stated a model does not have a special rule. Do you not understand that?

Evidently I do, given I am the person who brought that rules quote into the argument.

You have failed at every point in this argument. You asked for the RAW and I shoved it in your face with your own quoted posts and now you are backpedaling better then a clown on a unicycle at the circus.

No you didn't, see my first point in this post, you just don't understand the RAW, the only thing you are "shoving in my face" is your inability to read and lack of comprehension

We are going to do a little exercise to help us understand each other then. Go ahead and edit out my answers and place your own for each question.

1. Who can attempt to Outflank?

A unit that contains at least one model with the Outflank USR. (BRB page 40, OUTFLANK)

2. Does an IC with Saga of the Hunter have the Outflank USR?

No.

The character has the ability to outflank and the Stealth rule. (Codex SW page 64, Saga of the Hunter)

3. Why does an IC with Saga of the Hunter not have the Outflank USR?

It may seem obvious, but unless stated otherwise, a model does not have a special rule. (BRB, page 32, WHAT SPECIAL RULES DO I HAVE?)

1. Who can attempt to Outflank?

Anyone who is given permission to Outflank by any means, be it through the Outflank Special Rule, or some other Special Rule such as Saga of the Hunter.

2. Does an IC with Saga of the Hunter have the Outflank USR?

No.

The character has the ability to outflank and the Stealth rule. (Codex SW page 64, Saga of the Hunter)

3. Why does an IC with Saga of the Hunter not have the Outflank USR?

It may seem obvious, but unless stated otherwise, a model does not have a special rule. (BRB, page 32, WHAT SPECIAL RULES DO I HAVE?)

Drunkspleen wrote:1. Who can attempt to Outflank?

Anyone who is given permission to Outflank by any means, be it through the Outflank Special Rule, or some other Special Rule such as Saga of the Hunter.

2. Does an IC with Saga of the Hunter have the Outflank USR?

No.

The character has the ability to outflank and the Stealth rule. (Codex SW page 64, Saga of the Hunter)

3. Why does an IC with Saga of the Hunter not have the Outflank USR?

It may seem obvious, but unless stated otherwise, a model does not have a special rule. (BRB, page 32, WHAT SPECIAL RULES DO I HAVE?)

okay.

"The character has the ability to outflank" - Saga of the Hunter (Codex: Space Wolves, Page 64)

Drunkspleen wrote:okay.

"The character has the ability to outflank" - Saga of the Hunter (Codex: Space Wolves, Page 64)

It may seem obvious, but unless stated otherwise, a model does not have a special rule. (BRB, page 32, WHAT SPECIAL RULES DO I HAVE?)

All you have done above is quote a rule referencing a special move in 5th edition, not a USR in 6th. Remember you agreed in both answers to question 2 and 3 above that an IC with Saga of the Hunter does not have the Outflank USR.

So again, I ask you to give me a rules citation for the following premise;

Anyone who is given permission to Outflank by any means, be it through the Outflank Special Rule, or some other Special Rule such as Saga of the Hunter.

He doesn't have the Outflank Special Rule, it doesn't matter, he can outflank without having the Outflank special rule, because he has a different special rule which allows him to outflank.

Saga of the Hunter says that the character may outflank, that is all the RAW that is needed, he has a rule saying he can outflank, and there is absolutely no rule which overrides that and says that he may not outflank.

so Saga of the Hunter is the necessary rules citation, it's the basis on which the whole rule system operates. If a model is given permission to outflank it is allowed to outflank, I don't need to provide a rules quote to back this up, it's just a function of a permissive rule set.

Permission leads to action.

Khan rules refers to the the "outflank ability" rather than the USR

So it appears that is be how GW viewed it in 5th as an ability rather than a USR

rather than some specially worded preparation for 6th ed

remember Outflank was not a USR in 5th but stealth was
Outflank was ability granted by the infiltrate and scout USR's
[quote =5th ed brb]Infiltrate also confers a special outflank move

Drunkspleen wrote:He doesn't have the Outflank Special Rule, it doesn't matter, he can outflank without having the Outflank special rule, because he has a different special rule which allows him to outflank.

Saga of the Hunter says that the character may outflank, that is all the RAW that is needed, he has a rule saying he can outflank, and there is absolutely no rule which overrides that and says that he may not outflank.

so Saga of the Hunter is the necessary rules citation, it's the basis on which the whole rule system operates. If a model is given permission to outflank it is allowed to outflank, I don't need to provide a rules quote to back this up, it's just a function of a permissive rule set.

Permission leads to action.

If conditions are met, permission is given, and action can be taken.

I just realized that all you are going to do is just make up rules on the whim such as,

Anyone who is given permission to Outflank by any means, be it through the Outflank Special Rule, or some other Special Rule such as Saga of the Hunter.

And then this just made up idea/rule/RAI/whatever;

I would put forward that having "the ability to outflank" only entitles the model to use the special rules in that second paragraph, but does not grant him the skill, and as he does not have the skill, any unit he joins does not inherently gain the ability to outflank with him.

You can't quote a single rule that backs up either statement and then you just ignore the RAW in favor of your made up gak. I can't even take you serious if all you are going to do is just make up stuff as the debate goes on.

Tyr Grimtooth wrote:I just realized that all you are going to do is just make up rules on the whim such as,

Anyone who is given permission to Outflank by any means, be it through the Outflank Special Rule, or some other Special Rule such as Saga of the Hunter.

And then this just made up idea/rule/RAI/whatever;

I would put forward that having "the ability to outflank" only entitles the model to use the special rules in that second paragraph, but does not grant him the skill, and as he does not have the skill, any unit he joins does not inherently gain the ability to outflank with him.

You can't quote a single rule that backs up either statement and then you just ignore the RAW in favor of your made up gak. I can't even take you serious if all you are going to do is just make up stuff as the debate goes on.

I'm not making up anything, it's a goddamn fact, if you have permission to outflank you get to outflank, I dare you to make a thread with the title "if I have permission to outflank can I outflank" and look at the responses you get, everyone will support my theory that permission to outflank leads to outflanking.

I worded that earlier quote poorly, I'm not saying these characters don't actually get access to the first part of the rule, they do, they simply don't satisfy the requirements for it, while they do satisfy the requirements for the second half because they are "outflanking units".

Dswanick wrote:
Simple question - if outflank does not mean Outflank USR then what R.A.W. is outflank?
"Models that are arriving by Deep Strike or Outflank deploy using their special rules (see pages 36 adn 40).", BRB, Pg.124
"The character has the ability to outflank and the Stealth rule.", C:SW, Pg.64
Note the lack of the letters U,S, and R in either the BRB rule or the C:SW rule. Codex: Space Wolves tells you the model may outflank. You then refer to the BRB to know how to outflank. The BRB Mission Special Rules tells you to refer to the Special Rule enumerated on Pg.40. The Special Rule on Pg.40 tells you that it only takes one model per unit.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Drunkspleen wrote:
I worded that earlier quote poorly, I'm not saying these characters don't actually get access to the first part of the rule, they do, they simply don't satisfy the requirements for it, while they do satisfy the requirements for the second half because they are "outflanking units".

No your just using the fact that the Outflank changed into a rule rather than ability to lawyer it


Khan's rules refer to outflank as a ability too. Gw call it that because in 5th it was only part of USR and not a full rule.

If you are going to call me a rules lawyer so quickly I'm not going to engage in discussion with you.

ok that was a little harse

The fact remains that Outflank was not a USR in 5th ed

So codexes written before 6th ed rules would not refer to it as such

My feeling is that the change doesn't matter, or rather, it shouldn't inherently change the way we interpret the rules.

Certainly in some situations you have to be a bit flexible, but in this instance I feel the old RAW still works to give the old effect, and I don't honestly see why that is such a bad thing.

I feel We should flexible enough to realise that the outflank rule has changed status and use as stated in the BRB


combined with the new reserve rule(no charge) it is certainly massive or OP

also think this states the RAW quite simply

Simple question - if outflank does not mean Outflank USR then what R.A.W. is outflank?
"Models that are arriving by Deep Strike or Outflank deploy using their special rules (see pages 36 adn 40).", BRB, Pg.124
"The character has the ability to outflank and the Stealth rule.", C:SW, Pg.64
Note the lack of the letters U,S, and R in either the BRB rule or the C:SW rule. Codex: Space Wolves tells you the model may outflank. You then refer to the BRB to know how to outflank. The BRB Mission Special Rules tells you to refer to the Special Rule enumerated on Pg.40. The Special Rule on Pg.40 tells you that it only takes one model per unit.

Drunkspleen wrote:

Tyr Grimtooth wrote:I just realized that all you are going to do is just make up rules on the whim such as,

Anyone who is given permission to Outflank by any means, be it through the Outflank Special Rule, or some other Special Rule such as Saga of the Hunter.

And then this just made up idea/rule/RAI/whatever;

I would put forward that having "the ability to outflank" only entitles the model to use the special rules in that second paragraph, but does not grant him the skill, and as he does not have the skill, any unit he joins does not inherently gain the ability to outflank with him.

You can't quote a single rule that backs up either statement and then you just ignore the RAW in favor of your made up gak. I can't even take you serious if all you are going to do is just make up stuff as the debate goes on.

I'm not making up anything, it's a goddamn fact, if you have permission to outflank you get to outflank, I dare you to make a thread with the title "if I have permission to outflank can I outflank" and look at the responses you get, everyone will support my theory that permission to outflank leads to outflanking.

I worded that earlier quote poorly, I'm not saying these characters don't actually get access to the first part of the rule, they do, they simply don't satisfy the requirements for it, while they do satisfy the requirements for the second half because they are "outflanking units".

This is what you wrote when asked a question question that is found in the Outflank rule;

1. Who can attempt to Outflank?

Anyone who is given permission to Outflank by any means, be it through the Outflank Special Rule, or some other Special Rule such as Saga of the Hunter.

You made that up and tried to pass it off as RAW. And now with you clarification of your "poorly" worded quote,

I'm not saying these characters don't actually get access to the first part of the rule, they do, they simply don't satisfy the requirements for it, while they do satisfy the requirements for the second half because they are "outflanking units".

You have made that up and are trying to pass it off as RAW.

Neither one of the above are supported at all by anything in the rulebook. The first one is actually specifically countered by the RAW of the Outflank USR and by What Special Rules Do I Have. This isn't 5th Edition. Outflank is no longer a special move that only requires the ability to perform it. USR are specifically regulated on who has them and how they work and an IC with Saga of the Hunter does not fulfill those specific requirements.

I have repeated this to you several times already; you can't have it both ways. Either Saga of the Hunter is currently broken until a FAQ is issued that tells you that the ability to outflank confers the Outflank USR or as written right now, the ability to outflank confers the Outflank USR in its entirety. Your half/half made up rule is not a rule and is not supported by the rulebook in any shape or form. In fact you then go on to say to Eyeslikethunder;

My feeling is that the change doesn't matter, or rather, it shouldn't inherently change the way we interpret the rules.

Certainly in some situations you have to be a bit flexible, but in this instance I feel the old RAW still works to give the old effect, and I don't honestly see why that is such a bad thing.

The old RAW still works to give the old effect? Are you freaking serious? Here are a couple of bits of advice,

1. This is 6th edition.
2. The old RAW is gone.
3. The old effect is gone.

As I said, I cannot take you serious at all with the stuff you are making up. There is absolutely nothing more to discuss with you. Enjoy playing Drunkspleenhammer 40k, the game where rules are made up on the fly!!!

Drunkspleen wrote:If you are going to call me a rules lawyer so quickly I'm not going to engage in discussion with you.

It's pretty clear to me that indeed you are being a rules lawyer. I don't think it's necessarily a derogatory term. You're intentionally exploiting the inevitable gap between the 5th edition wording and the 6th edition wording in order to find more restrictions on the Saga of the Hunter. We all know that no codex written for 5th edition will ever grant a unit the "outflank USR". Why? Because outflank was not a universal special rule in 5th edition. It seems like you knew this and went looking for trouble. Obviously GW intended to roll the outflank mode of deployment into a USR for 6th edition. I don't know why you insist on taking the most restrictive interpretation, but in this case you are using the phrase "the ability to" as opposed to "has the rule" in order to justify your position. For better or for worse, this is what makes you a rules lawyer.

Back to the rules...You know my position on the matter. No matter how hard we tap the keyboard, we aren't going to change our position. So...In the absence of a FAQ that deals with this specific issue, we should look to other GW rulings regarding the wording of "the ability to outflank" for guidance as to how it pertains to 6th edition. People have brought up the SM character Jigitai Khan (spelling?), who also has the "ability to outflank" given to him from a 5th edition codex. There was a mention of some Tyranid monster too. How has GW ruled on those?

Grugknuckle wrote:

Drunkspleen wrote:If you are going to call me a rules lawyer so quickly I'm not going to engage in discussion with you.

It's pretty clear to me that indeed you are being a rules lawyer. I don't think it's necessarily a derogatory term. You're intentionally exploiting the inevitable gap between the 5th edition wording and the 6th edition wording in order to find more restrictions on the Saga of the Hunter. We all know that no codex written for 5th edition will ever grant a unit the "outflank USR". Why? Because outflank was not a universal special rule in 5th edition. It seems like you knew this and went looking for trouble. Obviously GW intended to roll the outflank mode of deployment into a USR for 6th edition. I don't know why you insist on taking the most restrictive interpretation, but in this case you are using the phrase "the ability to" as opposed to "has the rule" in order to justify your position. For better or for worse, this is what makes you a rules lawyer.

Back to the rules...You know my position on the matter. No matter how hard we tap the keyboard, we aren't going to change our position. So...In the absence of a FAQ that deals with this specific issue, we should look to other GW rulings regarding the wording of "the ability to outflank" for guidance as to how it pertains to 6th edition. People have brought up the SM character Jigitai Khan (spelling?), who also has the "ability to outflank" given to him from a 5th edition codex. There was a mention of some Tyranid monster too. How has GW ruled on those?

I just checked the FAQ for Khan and there is no change to his, "ability to outflank". I am not sure which Tyranid you are talking about, but I would guess there would be no change there as well. By Drunkenspleen's standard, Khan can Outflank but does not have the skill to confer it to any unit he joins.

More and more I am getting less willing to accept that Saga of the Hunter is broken currently and more and more am I just willing to make the argument that the ability to outflank confers the Outflank USR in its entirety. Not the half/half crud that was attempted to be argued, but the full Outflank USR despite it not being stated otherwise per the What Special Rules Do I Have clause.

Tyr Grimtooth wrote:
More and more I am getting less willing to accept that Saga of the Hunter is broken currently and more and more am I just willing to make the argument that the ability to outflank confers the Outflank USR in its entirety. Not the half/half crud that was attempted to be argued, but the full Outflank USR despite it not being stated otherwise per the What Special Rules Do I Have clause.

That has pretty much been my position from the beginning. It's the cleanest way to deal with the change over to 6th. To do otherwise is to invite contradictory interpretations. Drunkspleen's position is that he doesn't think that the effect of SotH should change. And that's a legitimate point of view. My position is that so many other things have changed - why not this too? Now people will have to be creative and come up with new tactics.

Man, this debate is painful. Especially since Drunkspleen has spent the last 5 pages on a soapbox with no intention of ever bending regardless of evidence.

That said, to those (1 person?) who think that Saga of the Hunter grants the character the ability to Outflank, without acrually conferring the Outflank USR to the Character, I ask this:

How do I know what the word "Outflank" means without referring to the Outflank USR?

If you are going to argue that the character has an ability without the USR, then there must be some overriding description of the ability within the SW Codex itself, since there is no non-USR explanation of how a model might Outflank in the BRB.

You're argument seems to be that the second paragraph of the Outflank USR is a description that can be completely separated from the USR itself, and it isn't. If the only explanation for an ability is the USR, then that character must have that USR. This is why some people who disagree with you are saying that your interpretation breaks Saga of the Hunter, because it does. While you are not explicitly saying that, it is what you are implying due to what I have stated above.

Bottom line is that I do not see any wording in the new rule book that would allow me to use all or part of a USR without actually HAVING that USR. This means there are only two possible outcomes:

1) The wording in the codex should be interpreted as granting the character the Outflank USR
or
2) The "ability to outflank" no longer has any meaning, and Saga of the Hunter does not grant the Outflank USR to the character. Meaning that Saga of the Hunter only grants the Stealth USR.