The Fist of Khorne is a new formation available to Khorne Daemonkin, picture can be found at https://www.facebook.com/BlogForTheBloodGod/photos/pcb.1615905591989614/1615905518656288/?type=1&theater

This thread concerns the second special rule, Hungry for Blood, which says; "... the unit onboard can charge in the turn it disembarks..."

The question arises from the fact that the transport in the formation is essentially a drop pod - it deep strikes and then dudes get out of it. It is also an assault transport already, meaning they can already charge in the turn they disembark. There is confusion as to whether or not this allows for deep striking assaults such as those the blood angels can pull off, because after saying that they can disembark and charge, it doesn't have text to the effect of "ignore the usual rules for deep strike and assault"

To me, the rules either allow for deep strike assault, or literally do nothing at all. I'm wondering what ymdc thinks about this

I'd play it as: can assault turn 1. Anything else makes no sense. It's also reason enough for me to finally get one XD

Start with the actual quote you posted:

"The unit onboard can charge in the turn it disembarks"

To eliminate any pointless ambiguity, simply insert the object the sentence is about into the sentence.

"The unit onboard the fancy drop pod can charge in the turn it disembarks"

Crystal clear, right? It's an insertion platform with the assault vehicle rule that can only arrive by deep striking, and you just granted permission to charge when leaving it.

Lol thats how I read it too, just wanna get it clarified for others who aren't so convinced.

yeah, i dont really see any valid arguement against the zerkers charging the turn they arrive.

The restriction on charging after arriving from Ds would be specifically over ridden by the rule allowing them to charge after disembarking.

considering that this whole thing borders on 500pt to pull off, not even OP, just fun and somewhat usefull


I LOVE IT!

You specifically can't charge when arriving from reserve and this specifically doesn't over ride that.

It is an assault vehicle that is a drop pod that turns into a skimmer. You can drop down, move then assault out of that moving vehicle on turn 2.

Whats the Blood Hungry rule do then?

Nothing forces you to disembark from the Kharybdis the turn it deep strikes in.

So in other words, Turn 1, Kharybdis arrives. Turn 2, the unit disembarks and can charge, courtesy of Blood Hungry and Assault Vehicle.

As written, it's a rule that functionally does nothing.

theres nothing saying they can't get out, either.

Also, if it hits a vehicle or bulding, after the SD hits it lands and is immobilised, forcing the models to disembark.

 Happyjew wrote:
Nothing forces you to disembark from the Kharybdis the turn it deep strikes in.

So in other words, Turn 1, Kharybdis arrives. Turn 2, the unit disembarks and can charge, courtesy of Blood Hungry and Assault Vehicle.

As written, it's a rule that functionally does nothing.

RAW yes, but that's just as silly as saying Dark Angels don't get their buffs against Daemokin.

The rule in no way lets you charge on the turn you deep strike.
It's like the dreadnought drop pod. You can charge out of it, but have to wait a turn inside to do so

..but you could do that anyway. It's an Assault Vehicle.

I know. It's just another in a long list of stupid rules.

But if it really was intended to allow charging on the turn it arrives, you would think it would actually say that. It's not hard to write it that way.

 jokerkd wrote:
I know. It's just another in a long list of stupid rules.

But if it really was intended to allow charging on the turn it arrives, you would think it would actually say that. It's not hard to write it that way.

No they don't write named rules that do nothing. This clearly allows the unit to assault the turn it arrives as the rule does nothing if you assume otherwise.

 FlingitNow wrote:

 jokerkd wrote:
I know. It's just another in a long list of stupid rules.

But if it really was intended to allow charging on the turn it arrives, you would think it would actually say that. It's not hard to write it that way.

No they don't write named rules that do nothing. This clearly allows the unit to assault the turn it arrives as the rule does nothing if you assume otherwise.

But it doesn't say that though. So it clearly does not

The problem is this is written almost exactly the same as the Lucius pattern drop pod. Despite having the 'assault the turn you disembark' rule on the Lucius, you still can't assault on the turn you deep strike. If it is played the same, then you have to stay on the Kharybdis for a turn, then you can assault out of it on the same turn you disembark.

The difference is that the Lucius pod is not an assault vehicle is it?

**edit. Nvm, I just checked, it has the assault vehicle rule too and also specifically prevents assaulting after deepstriking.
Still, the only reason to have that formation rule is to override assault vehicle (and reserves for that matter). Otherwise it's completely useless and does nothing at all.

 jokerkd wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:

 jokerkd wrote:
I know. It's just another in a long list of stupid rules.

But if it really was intended to allow charging on the turn it arrives, you would think it would actually say that. It's not hard to write it that way.

No they don't write named rules that do nothing. This clearly allows the unit to assault the turn it arrives as the rule does nothing if you assume otherwise.

But it doesn't say that though. So it clearly does not

So what do you believe this named special allows you to do that you wouldn't be able to do if it didn't exist? Please tell me.

Roknar wrote:
The difference is that the Lucius pod is not an assault vehicle is it?

**edit. Nvm, I just checked, it has the assault vehicle rule too and also specifically prevents assaulting after deepstriking.
Still, the only reason to have that formation rule is to override assault vehicle (and reserves for that matter). Otherwise it's completely useless and does nothing at all.

Hey, I originally thought the Lucius could allow a dreadnought to assault the turn it landed (i.e. making a dreadnought useful). But evidently the assault rule doesn't override deepstriking. I guess the berzerkers could hover around in the Kharybdis for a for a turn then assault, which would make it like the Lucius.

Ragnulf wrote:

Roknar wrote:
The difference is that the Lucius pod is not an assault vehicle is it?

**edit. Nvm, I just checked, it has the assault vehicle rule too and also specifically prevents assaulting after deepstriking.
Still, the only reason to have that formation rule is to override assault vehicle (and reserves for that matter). Otherwise it's completely useless and does nothing at all.

Hey, I originally thought the Lucius could allow a dreadnought to assault the turn it landed (i.e. making a dreadnought useful). But evidently the assault rule doesn't override deepstriking. I guess the berzerkers could hover around in the Kharybdis for a for a turn then assault, which would make it like the Lucius.

Which they can do without this rule as the Kharibdyss is an assault vehicle. So what do you think this rule actually does?

Doesn't matter what I think. The Kharybdis says you can't assault the turn you deepstrike. It also says you can assault the turn you disembark, which mirrors the rule of the formation. Unless they FAQ the Kharybdis entry or change the formation to allow expressly for assaulting after deep strike, I think it does exactly what the Lucius does. Your berzerkers are not forced to disembark upon on landing but can assault out of it on a subsequent turn.

Ragnulf wrote:
Doesn't matter what I think. The Kharybdis says you can't assault the turn you deepstrike. It also says you can assault the turn you disembark, which mirrors the rule of the formation. Unless they FAQ the Kharybdis entry or change the formation to allow expressly for assaulting after deep strike, I think it does exactly what the Lucius does. Your berzerkers are not forced to disembark upon on landing but can assault out of it on a subsequent turn.

So what does the rule do? You're saying our interpretation is wrong so what do you think the rule does because a unit can already stay in a Kharibdyss and then assault out of it the following turn. So what does this formation rule do?

 FlingitNow wrote:

Ragnulf wrote:
Doesn't matter what I think. The Kharybdis says you can't assault the turn you deepstrike. It also says you can assault the turn you disembark, which mirrors the rule of the formation. Unless they FAQ the Kharybdis entry or change the formation to allow expressly for assaulting after deep strike, I think it does exactly what the Lucius does. Your berzerkers are not forced to disembark upon on landing but can assault out of it on a subsequent turn.

So what does the rule do? You're saying our interpretation is wrong so what do you think the rule does because a unit can already stay in a Kharibdyss and then assault out of it the following turn. So what does this formation rule do?

As written? Absolutely nothing. You can already charge out of it if you did not deep strike, and nothing in the rule grants permission to charge after arriving from reserves, or after arriving by deep strike in a transport.

 Happyjew wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:

Ragnulf wrote:
Doesn't matter what I think. The Kharybdis says you can't assault the turn you deepstrike. It also says you can assault the turn you disembark, which mirrors the rule of the formation. Unless they FAQ the Kharybdis entry or change the formation to allow expressly for assaulting after deep strike, I think it does exactly what the Lucius does. Your berzerkers are not forced to disembark upon on landing but can assault out of it on a subsequent turn.

So what does the rule do? You're saying our interpretation is wrong so what do you think the rule does because a unit can already stay in a Kharibdyss and then assault out of it the following turn. So what does this formation rule do?

As written? Absolutely nothing. You can already charge out of it if you did not deep strike, and nothing in the rule grants permission to charge after arriving from reserves, or after arriving by deep strike in a transport.

Then your interpretation is wrong. If a rule is broken we have to decide how best to fix it. Just like how RaW Shrike's rule does nothing so we fix it to enable him to join Jump Infantry before deployment.

 FlingitNow wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:

Ragnulf wrote:
Doesn't matter what I think. The Kharybdis says you can't assault the turn you deepstrike. It also says you can assault the turn you disembark, which mirrors the rule of the formation. Unless they FAQ the Kharybdis entry or change the formation to allow expressly for assaulting after deep strike, I think it does exactly what the Lucius does. Your berzerkers are not forced to disembark upon on landing but can assault out of it on a subsequent turn.

So what does the rule do? You're saying our interpretation is wrong so what do you think the rule does because a unit can already stay in a Kharibdyss and then assault out of it the following turn. So what does this formation rule do?

As written? Absolutely nothing. You can already charge out of it if you did not deep strike, and nothing in the rule grants permission to charge after arriving from reserves, or after arriving by deep strike in a transport.

Then your interpretation is wrong. If a rule is broken we have to decide how best to fix it. Just like how RaW Shrike's rule does nothing so we fix it to enable him to join Jump Infantry before deployment.

That is not my interpretation. RAW the rule does nothing. It's not the first time GW/FW have made a useless rule. The intent is most likely that models can assault out of DS.

I'm reading "I (inexplicably despite past evidence) can't believe Games Workshop wrote a useless rule so in my pain I should be allowed to rewrite the rules of 40k"

Its not the way it works.

 Happyjew wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:

Ragnulf wrote:
Doesn't matter what I think. The Kharybdis says you can't assault the turn you deepstrike. It also says you can assault the turn you disembark, which mirrors the rule of the formation. Unless they FAQ the Kharybdis entry or change the formation to allow expressly for assaulting after deep strike, I think it does exactly what the Lucius does. Your berzerkers are not forced to disembark upon on landing but can assault out of it on a subsequent turn.

So what does the rule do? You're saying our interpretation is wrong so what do you think the rule does because a unit can already stay in a Kharibdyss and then assault out of it the following turn. So what does this formation rule do?

As written? Absolutely nothing. You can already charge out of it if you did not deep strike, and nothing in the rule grants permission to charge after arriving from reserves, or after arriving by deep strike in a transport.

Then your interpretation is wrong. If a rule is broken we have to decide how best to fix it. Just like how RaW Shrike's rule does nothing so we fix it to enable him to join Jump Infantry before deployment.

That is not my interpretation. RAW the rule does nothing. It's not the first time GW/FW have made a useless rule. The intent is most likely that models can assault out of DS.

So the RaW is broken, hence we must find another interpretation. RaW in this case is clearly wrong as it doesn't work, just like the Psychic phase or Shrike etc.

After reading all the relevant rules, I think flingit may be right. Though "it cant mean the same" Is not an argument

Assault vehicle rule specifically forbids assaulting from reserves
Hungry for blood does not.

If codex special rules > BRB special rules > general rules, then Hungry for blood overrules the assault vehicle rule and the reserves rule

The daemonette apoc formation is an example of overwriting speacial rules (rending) but is also an example of how easy it is to make it perfectly clear that you can assault from reserve

Specific Codex rules overule general BRB rules do they not ?

Codex says they can assault the turn they disembark. Nothing prevents them from disembarking the turn they arrive.

Consider that not specifically referencing overiding a specific BRB rule may be intentional. It would serve to future proof the codex against possible BRB changes in the next edition.

 adamsouza wrote:
Specific Codex rules overule general BRB rules do they not ?

Codex says they can assault the turn they disembark. Nothing prevents them from disembarking the turn they arrive.

Consider that not specifically referencing overiding a specific BRB rule may be intentional. It would serve to future proof the codex against possible BRB changes in the next edition.

The problem is the rule isn't specific. It's not specifically overriding the BRB rules. And the Codex trumps BRB doesn't matter because there isn't actually a conflict.

The worse part is that the SM formation in the SAME BOOK does the exact same thing but actually was specific about allowing them to deep striking on the turn they arrive from their drop pods.

 CrownAxe wrote:

 adamsouza wrote:
Specific Codex rules overule general BRB rules do they not ?

Codex says they can assault the turn they disembark. Nothing prevents them from disembarking the turn they arrive.

Consider that not specifically referencing overriding a specific BRB rule may be intentional. It would serve to future proof the codex against possible BRB changes in the next edition.

The problem is the rule isn't specific. It's not specifically overriding the BRB rules. And the Codex trumps BRB doesn't matter because there isn't actually a conflict.

The worse part is that the SM formation in the SAME BOOK does the exact same thing but actually was specific about allowing them to deep striking on the turn they arrive from their drop pods.

I could certainly see a conflict. they may assault the turn they disembark, could legitimately be read as "they may assault this turn,provided they disembark"

So with that giving you permission to assault, because you disembarked, and the reserves BRB part forbidding it, there is the conflict. And as such Codex would win.
I think It is ambiguously written, and I see this thread reaching 5 pages.

Except it is not in conflict. A conflict would be "You may assault after disembarking, even if you arrived by deep strike that turn." In this case you have "cannot assault after deep strike" vs "can assault after deep strike".

CONTEXT
before this goes any further.

Assault vehicle.

Passengers disembarking from Access Points on a vehicle with this special rule can charge on the turn they do so (even on a turn that the vehicle was destroyed) unless the vehicle arrived from Reserve that turn.

Hungry for blood.
This unit can charge on the same turn that it disembarks from the khabrydis assault claw.

The rules are almost the same except for the assault vehicle having the reserve restriction included. So with these quotes and Codex vs BRB make of it what you will.

Personally the way I see it working is,
Is it the same turn you disembarked? If Yes - you may assault.
BRB says no (due to reserves). There is conlfict, Codex wins.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Happyjew wrote:
Except it is not in conflict. A conflict would be "You may assault after disembarking, even if you arrived by deep strike that turn." In this case you have "cannot assault after deep strike" vs "can assault after deep strike".

There is a conflict. One rule telling you you can assault, the other telling you you can't. They are two seperate rules but still in conflict.

Codex says you can assault, and why (because you disembarked). BRB says you can't and why (reserves)

It's annoying because this same thing happened with the lucius.
Until it was faq'd, you could assault in the turn you arrive.
After going to the trouble of fixing that, they basically just started the same argument.

Do we even know if these formations are usable in all 40k games?

harkequin wrote:
There is a conflict. One rule telling you you can assault, the other telling you you can't. They are two seperate rules but still in conflict.

Can you charge after running? No. Can you charge after disembarking from an Assault Vehicle? Yes. Therefore I can charge after running as long as I disembarked from an Assault Vehicle, right?

the BRB states,

no assault turn you arrive from deepstrike,

the codex says

you may assault the turn you disembark,

ergo, if you disembark the turn you arrive from deepstrike, you have a BRB restriction, and a codex permission for the charge that turn.

When BRB and codex are in conflict over permission/restriction to charge that turn, codex > BRB

GW make it really really hard for me to believe their rules team isn't a sweatshop for monkeys.

harkequin wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:

 adamsouza wrote:
Specific Codex rules overule general BRB rules do they not ?

Codex says they can assault the turn they disembark. Nothing prevents them from disembarking the turn they arrive.

Consider that not specifically referencing overriding a specific BRB rule may be intentional. It would serve to future proof the codex against possible BRB changes in the next edition.

The problem is the rule isn't specific. It's not specifically overriding the BRB rules. And the Codex trumps BRB doesn't matter because there isn't actually a conflict.

The worse part is that the SM formation in the SAME BOOK does the exact same thing but actually was specific about allowing them to deep striking on the turn they arrive from their drop pods.

I could certainly see a conflict. they may assault the turn they disembark, could legitimately be read as "they may assault this turn,provided they disembark"

So with that giving you permission to assault, because you disembarked, and the reserves BRB part forbidding it, there is the conflict. And as such Codex would win.
I think It is ambiguously written, and I see this thread reaching 5 pages.

That's not a conflict. You only have a conflict when two rules can't function simultaneously (such as invis making you hit on 6+ and Kharn hitting on 2+, you can't do both at the same time)

This is simply a case of a a restriction, not a conflict.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 easysauce wrote:
the BRB states,

no assault turn you arrive from deepstrike,

the codex says

you may assault the turn you disembark,

ergo, if you disembark the turn you arrive from deepstrike, you have a BRB restriction, and a codex permission for the charge that turn.

When BRB and codex are in conflict over permission/restriction to charge that turn, codex > BRB

Restrictions require specific permission to be played with. That's why regular assault vehicle rules don't already let you assault on the turn they arrive from reserves.

The Fist of Khorne's rule is worded in pretty much the same way as the assault vehicle rule is worded.

the above is incorrect for two reasons

no regular assault vehicles dont work as a BRB vs codex conflict because

A thats a BRB vs BRB rule

and

B the BRB rule on assault vehicles specifically mentions it wont work from reserve.

that assault rules and the formation rules are worded almost identically, but the formation rules leave out the reserves restrictions that the assault vehicle rules have... which is the exact difference we are talking about.. so when the most pertinent part of the two rules is different, that doesnt help your case, it hinders it in fact.




the formations rules are in a codex, and they are very much in conflict with and over ride the BRB rules, as thats what we are told to do when the two rules come into conflict.

Assault vehicle rule

"Passengers disembarking from Access points on a vehicle with this special rules can charge on the turn they do so (even in a turn that the vehicle was destroyed or in the following turn) unless the vehicle arrived from reserve that turn"

Blood hungry
" this unit can assault on the same turn it disembarks from the Kharybdis assault claw"

Its still not a conflict because its a restiction.

Spot the difference? It's a terribly written rule, but it is a specific rule allowing you to assault the turn you disembark.

You can disembark turn 1. Then you can assault turn 1.

 CrownAxe wrote:
Its still not a conflict because its a restiction.

because its a restriction,

there is a conflict,

because the restriction is in the BRB

and the permission is in the codex.


both the requirements to enact the BRB rule and the CODEX rule are met, so both rules are enacted, and they very much conflict.

Codex > rulebook by RAW

1st turn charge is in this case both OBVIOUS RAI, and RAW as well.

Restrictions require specific permission to be ignored. That is how permissive rule sets work.

People keep saying it specifically over rides and that there is a conflict, there is no conflict because the wording doesn't allow there to be one.

The codex isn't over ruling the BRB its just not. Nothing in it says anything which would allow you to see a conflict (bar it isn't how you want the unit to work).

 easysauce wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:
Its still not a conflict because its a restiction.

because its a restriction,

there is a conflict,

because the restriction is in the BRB

and the permission is in the codex.


both the requirements to enact the BRB rule and the CODEX rule are met, so both rules are enacted, and they very much conflict.

Codex > rulebook by RAW

1st turn charge is in this case both OBVIOUS RAI, and RAW as well.

So could they disembark then run and then charge in the same turn? Could they disembark fire heavy/rapidfire/salvo weapons and charge in the same turn?

Glad someone is paying attention and spotted that.

With a blanket permission, yes, you can do all those things ,(although running is the only realistic one)

Which is why blanket permissions are terrible rules writing.

 easysauce wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:
Its still not a conflict because its a restiction.

because its a restriction,

there is a conflict,

because the restriction is in the BRB

and the permission is in the codex.


both the requirements to enact the BRB rule and the CODEX rule are met, so both rules are enacted, and they very much conflict.

Codex > rulebook by RAW

1st turn charge is in this case both OBVIOUS RAI, and RAW as well.

No, that isnt how permissive systems work. You need specific permission to override a specific restriction

Or else you are stating that the restriction on charging after running is overridden by this rule. That is somehow I got heavy weapons onto my berzerkers, they could still charge having firedthem

Yoru argument is, factually, a nonsense. It is *exactfly* as flawed as the 5th ed argument on running and assaulting as long as you did it from a landraider.

Captyn_Bob wrote:
Glad someone is paying attention and spotted that.

With a blanket permission, yes, you can do all those things ,(although running is the only realistic one)

Which is why blanket permissions are terrible rules writing.

Nope see Nos' post:

"No, that isnt how permissive systems work. You need specific permission to override a specific restriction 

Or else you are stating that the restriction on charging after running is overridden by this rule. That is somehow I got heavy weapons onto my berzerkers, they could still charge having firedthem 

Yoru argument is, factually, a nonsense. It is *exactfly* as flawed as the 5th ed argument on running and assaulting as long as you did it from a landraider."

Note how your argument allows all these things from any assault vehicle...

Yes exactly, the rules can't do everything. So it does nothing. It's written by someone who didn't know the rules. They probably assumed that you have to disembark the turn you land , so there would be no ambiguity. The space marine drop pod formation has the same issue, but no one cares because the intent is obvious.

This one needs a house ruling to work properly.

 Happyjew wrote:

harkequin wrote:
There is a conflict. One rule telling you you can assault, the other telling you you can't. They are two seperate rules but still in conflict.

Can you charge after running? No. Can you charge after disembarking from an Assault Vehicle? Yes. Therefore I can charge after running as long as I disembarked from an Assault Vehicle, right?

This is not the same. This is BRB vs BRB, and as such entirely different. We are talking about BRB vs Codex which works differently for overriding things.

Would be great for Warriors Of Chaos WFB, I run Khorne, and if i could use Daemons aswell, it would be great!

Happy Hunting,
Ember

Captyn_Bob wrote:
Yes exactly, the rules can't do everything. So it does nothing. It's written by someone who didn't know the rules. They probably assumed that you have to disembark the turn you land , so there would be no ambiguity. The space marine drop pod formation has the same issue, but no one cares because the intent is obvious.

This one needs a house ruling to work properly.

It doesn't need house ruling at all. We know what the intent is so play by that no need for a house rule.

Well you and I know that, but persuading YMDC ?

harkequin wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

harkequin wrote:
There is a conflict. One rule telling you you can assault, the other telling you you can't. They are two seperate rules but still in conflict.

Can you charge after running? No. Can you charge after disembarking from an Assault Vehicle? Yes. Therefore I can charge after running as long as I disembarked from an Assault Vehicle, right?

This is not the same. This is BRB vs BRB, and as such entirely different. We are talking about BRB vs Codex which works differently for overriding things.

No, this is exactly the same situation as regards conflicts. This allows you to assault having disembarked. This does not mean "regardless of any other circumstance whastsoever, you may assault have disembarked"

There are 2 restrictions in place: Assault after disembarking froma vehicle, assault after arriving from reserves. Which restriction does this permission *explicitly* raise? the former.

There isn't a rules conflict comparing BRB to the formation. The problem is the Kharybdis expressly states you cannot assault on the turn you deepstrike. Unless the formation rewrites that rule, then you have to include the prohibition on assaulting after deep strike.

As a side note - using heat blast or melta ram on the kharybdis prevents disembarking.

this would be codex vs BRB if it actually specifically over ruled the BRB.

But it doesn't since it says nothing about if you come out of reserve. And there are other possibilities like a second turn charge after using it as a skimmer.

Crystal clear to me. They can disembark on the turn it arrives, therefore they can charge that turn.

But the back and forth has already been going on for two pages, so whatever.

Pretty much everyone will play it that way.

Jaq Draco lives wrote:
this would be codex vs BRB if it actually specifically over ruled the BRB.

But it doesn't since it says nothing about if you come out of reserve. And there are other possibilities like a second turn charge after using it as a skimmer.

It is an assault vehicle so it can already do that. So what do you think the formation rule does that it can't already do?

 FlingitNow wrote:

Jaq Draco lives wrote:
this would be codex vs BRB if it actually specifically over ruled the BRB.

But it doesn't since it says nothing about if you come out of reserve. And there are other possibilities like a second turn charge after using it as a skimmer.

It is an assault vehicle so it can already do that. So what do you think the formation rule does that it can't already do?

GW wrote a bad rule?

Never in the world!

Jaq Draco lives wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:

Jaq Draco lives wrote:
this would be codex vs BRB if it actually specifically over ruled the BRB.

But it doesn't since it says nothing about if you come out of reserve. And there are other possibilities like a second turn charge after using it as a skimmer.

It is an assault vehicle so it can already do that. So what do you think the formation rule does that it can't already do?

GW wrote a bad rule?

Never in the world!

So again what does the rule do? If your interpretation is the rule does nothing then your interpretation is wrong.

The rule waits for a FAQ (if it is even released in the posted form, since we're debating unreleased rules). A better hope is that they revise the kharybdis rules and include it in this supplement since the kharybdis is a forgeworld unit, not a GW unit, and its rules aren't in a codex.

On face, the formation does not allow assault after a deepstrike because the Kharybdis itself (not the BRB) prohibits assault after deepstriking and the formation rule does not counteract that. It is possible to read the rule as applying to disembarking from the Kharybdis in later turns since it doesn't require disembarkation.

Does this seem superfluous to assault vehicle? Yes. But that doesn't open the door to guessing about the intention.

Do we think they're intending to allow a first turn assault? Probably, but that's a guess, not a rule.

Anyone, and I mean anyone, who read the unit entry for the kharybdis would have seen this issue and would have known that it needed to include the phase 'after deepstriking' in the formation rule. GW didn't do that, and we don't get to make up what we think they meant when they wrote it. (In a friendly, sure, why not. In any competitive tournament, no).

Ragnulf wrote:
The rule waits for a FAQ (if it is even released in the posted form, since we're debating unreleased rules). A better hope is that they revise the kharybdis rules and include it in this supplement since the kharybdis is a forgeworld unit, not a GW unit, and its rules aren't in a codex.

On face, the formation does not allow assault after a deepstrike because the Kharybdis itself (not the BRB) prohibits assault after deepstriking and the formation rule does not counteract that. It is possible to read the rule as applying to disembarking from the Kharybdis in later turns since it doesn't require disembarkation.

Does this seem superfluous to assault vehicle? Yes. But that doesn't open the door to guessing about the intention.

Do we think they're intending to allow a first turn assault? Probably, but that's a guess, not a rule.

Anyone, and I mean anyone, who read the unit entry for the kharybdis would have seen this issue and would have known that it needed to include the phase 'after deepstriking' in the formation rule. GW didn't do that, and we don't get to make up what we think they meant when they wrote it. (In a friendly, sure, why not. In any competitive tournament, no).

Ah the old in a tournament cheating is OK adage... If your interpretation is that the rules does literally nothing then your interpretation is wrong. The rule seems clear to me and if you're being honest they are clear to you to. If you want to cheat in a game of toy soldiers then go ahead, but let's not pretend you don't know what this rule does.

When I first read the formation rules it was great that you could assault with a zerk unit from deepstrike.

After a re-read I realized that it was still bound to the no assault after deep strike which makes it kinda pointless, but GW loves giving chaos pointless and worthless rules.

The only thing you get from this formation is the str D rule when you misshap and even that is a terrible rule, getting immobilized takes one of the things that makes de Khad Pod cost as much as a Land Raider.

Finally I realized that you need 20 zerks in there, so no room for a character or anything else, 20 zerks are probably overkill for anything and will be left to be shot in the open.

What would be awesome is letting FW models get into KDK lists, hopefully with the addition to Blood for the Blood God! rule


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 FlingitNow wrote:

Ragnulf wrote:
The rule waits for a FAQ (if it is even released in the posted form, since we're debating unreleased rules). A better hope is that they revise the kharybdis rules and include it in this supplement since the kharybdis is a forgeworld unit, not a GW unit, and its rules aren't in a codex.

On face, the formation does not allow assault after a deepstrike because the Kharybdis itself (not the BRB) prohibits assault after deepstriking and the formation rule does not counteract that. It is possible to read the rule as applying to disembarking from the Kharybdis in later turns since it doesn't require disembarkation.

Does this seem superfluous to assault vehicle? Yes. But that doesn't open the door to guessing about the intention.

Do we think they're intending to allow a first turn assault? Probably, but that's a guess, not a rule.

Anyone, and I mean anyone, who read the unit entry for the kharybdis would have seen this issue and would have known that it needed to include the phase 'after deepstriking' in the formation rule. GW didn't do that, and we don't get to make up what we think they meant when they wrote it. (In a friendly, sure, why not. In any competitive tournament, no).

Ah the old in a tournament cheating is OK adage... If your interpretation is that the rules does literally nothing then your interpretation is wrong. The rule seems clear to me and if you're being honest they are clear to you to. If you want to cheat in a game of toy soldiers then go ahead, but let's not pretend you don't know what this rule does.

You need to take a look at VotLW on the Dark Apostle and realize there are rules that are printed there and do literally nothing.

Wrong Veterans of the Long War does stuff for lots of units that can take it. This rule exists in 1 formation and is a named rule for a current edition, the accusation that the rule NEVER does anything is clearly different to one where a functional rule does nothing in a particular incidence (or a rule for a previous edition that has become non-functional like the 6th supplement allying to main faction rules). Try again with a named rule that does literally nothing ever from the point it was written.

RAI the rule was meant to do something- people do not write rules text to create a rule that does nothing.

If the rule was meant to do something, and the current default kharbydis allows you to DS down, sit in it then assault next turn. With this in mind it is reasonable to state that RAI the RAW should override the assaulting from deepstrike restriction.

It is ambiguous what the authors meant, however stating they intended for the rule to not allow you to assault when deep striking but it deals only with an unit that arrives solely by deepstriking holds little merit as a point of discussion.

The rule specifically states they may charge on the same turn they disembark.

They have specific permission to do something that normally would not be able to do, a specific permission which is more specific than the rules for deep striking, so by the RAW they may assault the turn they disembark. There are no caveats put on the situation they may disembark.

If they drop in with the pod on say turn X and they are allowed to disembark the same turn, they by the specific special rule they have they may assault as per the RAW for their rule the same turn, as it overrides the more general rules for deep striking.

Not allowing them to assault is actually not following the rules as written in their entry. Further it is the same as saying special rules do not modify general rules.

I'm not trying to have an adversarial thing here. No, I'm not advocating cheating at tournaments. I'm pointing out that rules used in tournaments need to be RAW or FAQ'd. Opening up RAI is fine in a casual game where players can talk it out, but tournaments aren't a good setting for this as games are on a timer. If a TO wants to put forward a ruling one way or another ahead of time, that's also o.k. from my perspective. Other people may disagree, and I certainly don't speak for any TO's.

Again, this isn't the general rule being overridden by the formation. The unit entry for the assault claw prohibits deepstrike assaults. That is the most specific rule, and they need to FAQ it or exempt that specific rule in formation (or in a GW release of the Kharybdis rules since it's currently a FW rule). Since there is a way for berzerkers to disembark on a subsequent turn, the rule doesn't override the deepstrike portion. Unless you fill in the gap on what GW wrote with what you believe was intended, even though they very clearly could have written the rule to allow deepstrike assault (that is in the unit entry for the unit they're including in the formation) and chose not to do so.

There is a way for berzerkerz to disembark on a second turn, but by the rules there is a way for them to disembark on the first turn and they have a special rule when taken in a formation that requires them to be taken and embarked on the drop pod in question which states they may assault when they disembark.

if they disembark turn 1 they may assault.

if they disembark turn 1 and you say they cannot assault you are ignoring the special rule for an unit that modifies the rules of the transport they are required to be on and take in the same formation the rules regard.

Unless a faq comes out saying they have to wait to disembark until turn 2, then they may disembark turn 1. As per their special rule, they may assault when they disembark.

Except the Kharybdis also has a rule in the unit entry that says the unit may assault the turn they disembark. And then, in the unit entry, it excludes the turn that the unit deepstrikes.

Long and short - they blew it when they wrote the rule.

blaktoof wrote:
There is a way for berzerkerz to disembark on a second turn, but by the rules there is a way for them to disembark on the first turn and they have a special rule when taken in a formation that requires them to be taken and embarked on the drop pod in question which states they may assault when they disembark.

if they disembark turn 1 they may assault.

if they disembark turn 1 and you say they cannot assault you are ignoring the special rule for an unit that modifies the rules of the transport they are required to be on and take in the same formation the rules regard.

Unless a faq comes out saying they have to wait to disembark until turn 2, then they may disembark turn 1. As per their special rule, they may assault when they disembark.

Do you realise that this interpretation would allow the unit to disembark, run/shoot heavys, and then charge?

Its the same logic as allowing a unit to disembark from a LR with a dev squad, fire four heavy bolters, and then charge.

Can we have a roll call of people who would/would not allow a first turn charge? Its pointless arguing if we all agree to let it happen anyway.

I for one will allow it, if for no other reason than its not even the best formation that can do it.

True. At 650 points minimum, that's a pretty hefty price tag for a unit that can assault a single unit or give up Rage/Furious Charge in a multi-assault.

Even if it can DSA its still rubbish, especially compared to the Marine one, and quite possibly not even available outside of apocalypse where balance barely even matters.

I think people are holding GW's rules authors to a standard they themselves don't attempt, or maybe even cannot manage due to having the combined intelligence of a baked bean. Its entirely possible and I would say probably that the writer went "yup, "charge after disembarking" covers it, now off to go spank to eldar some more" and called it a day, expecting people to use 'common sense' to understand his intention and not read all that far into it - such as the "yep this must totally allow run then assault then" interpretation. And no thats not a good thing, nor a criticism of people who do not think that way, as everyone would benefit from proper rules writing

With that in mind, if "the rule does nothing" was considered to be an unacceptable answer, what would the best interpretation of this rule be? If the choice is between Deep Strike Assault and "it does nothing because the writers didn't write the rule to my standard" then I know I will rule it as Deep Strike Assault every time.

I'm not trying to have an adversarial thing here. No, I'm not advocating cheating at tournaments. I'm pointing out that rules used in tournaments need to be RAW or FAQ'd. 

Which of course is false and illustrates either you don't go to tournaments or don't understand RaW. RaI is rife in tournaments because RaW breaks near constantly. I have never once been to or heard a tournament FAQ that in 5th & 6th Ed that helmeted marines can draw LoS from the helmet lenses, yet without such an FAQ RaW Helmeted marines (and about every other model except Orks, Nids and Guard) could never shoot or charge anything. We assume with no RaW support that "roll again" is different to "reroll" yet nothing tells us this but without this game turn roll offs don't work if both players roll the same number twice. There are many many other examples where we just accept RaI because it is obvious and this is another one of those examples.

This is clearly specific rule in the formation vs general from rulebook.
And this thread is testament to why i have given up on using YMDC as a guidelight in how people play the game. Anyone stating that this formation cannot assault after disembark would be laughed out of the room at every tournament or flgs.

I'm ok with RAW discussions to find the true meaning of rules, but this is just trolling. YMDC is just losing all respect from this.

Can the berzerkers get out and charge on the turn that the claw deep strikes?

RAW: Probably not. Allowing them to charge after DS using that wording would mean the Berzerkers could also Run before charging, although maybe they can. They are Berzerkers after all.
RAI: Almost certainly yes, but it's just another example of poor rule writing. They should have said "this unit can charge on the turn in which the claw arrives via deep strike" or something to that effect.

Yonasu wrote:
This is clearly specific rule in the formation vs general from rulebook.
And this thread is testament to why i have given up on using YMDC as a guidelight in how people play the game. Anyone stating that this formation cannot assault after disembark would be laughed out of the room at every tournament or flgs.

I'm ok with RAW discussions to find the true meaning of rules, but this is just trolling. YMDC is just losing all respect from this.

No, it's a rule, but it is not specific. It does not SPECIFICALLY state they may assault after deep striking, and this is a fact. There is no smbiguity here. The actual written rule is clear but non functional

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Yonasu wrote:
This is clearly specific rule in the formation vs general from rulebook.
And this thread is testament to why i have given up on using YMDC as a guidelight in how people play the game. Anyone stating that this formation cannot assault after disembark would be laughed out of the room at every tournament or flgs.

I'm ok with RAW discussions to find the true meaning of rules, but this is just trolling. YMDC is just losing all respect from this.

No, it's a rule, but it is not specific. It does not SPECIFICALLY state they may assault after deep striking, and this is a fact. There is no smbiguity here. The actual written rule is clear but non functional

Yes RaW makes it non-functional thus it can not be the correct interpretation. Therefore why bother to continue discussing a clearly incorrect stance? Move on and discuss what the rule actually does and we have one option. Thus that must be the correct one.

The rule seems pretty clear. The Zerker unit can charge on the same turn that it disembarks from the Claw.

Is there any rule that prevents a unit from disembarking from a vehicle the turn it arrives from Deep Strike? If not, this is legal.

Sometimes special rules are really just that simple. They don't need to contradict EVERY other rule out there, they simply explain global condition that is true for that unit.

Incorrect, that isn't how permissive systems work. There is a restriction on charging when coming in from deepstrike. Does the rule override this? No? In which case you still may not charge.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 FlingitNow wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Yonasu wrote:
This is clearly specific rule in the formation vs general from rulebook.
And this thread is testament to why i have given up on using YMDC as a guidelight in how people play the game. Anyone stating that this formation cannot assault after disembark would be laughed out of the room at every tournament or flgs.

I'm ok with RAW discussions to find the true meaning of rules, but this is just trolling. YMDC is just losing all respect from this.

No, it's a rule, but it is not specific. It does not SPECIFICALLY state they may assault after deep striking, and this is a fact. There is no smbiguity here. The actual written rule is clear but non functional

Yes RaW makes it non-functional thus it can not be the correct interpretation. Therefore why bother to continue discussing a clearly incorrect stance? Move on and discuss what the rule actually does and we have one option. Thus that must be the correct one.

No, that's not how the rule book works. Or are you claiming that the mastery level rule has function?

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Incorrect, that isn't how permissive systems work. There is a restriction on charging when coming in from deepstrike. Does the rule override this? No? In which case you still may not charge.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 FlingitNow wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Yonasu wrote:
This is clearly specific rule in the formation vs general from rulebook.
And this thread is testament to why i have given up on using YMDC as a guidelight in how people play the game. Anyone stating that this formation cannot assault after disembark would be laughed out of the room at every tournament or flgs.

I'm ok with RAW discussions to find the true meaning of rules, but this is just trolling. YMDC is just losing all respect from this.

No, it's a rule, but it is not specific. It does not SPECIFICALLY state they may assault after deep striking, and this is a fact. There is no smbiguity here. The actual written rule is clear but non functional

Yes RaW makes it non-functional thus it can not be the correct interpretation. Therefore why bother to continue discussing a clearly incorrect stance? Move on and discuss what the rule actually does and we have one option. Thus that must be the correct one.

No, that's not how the rule book works. Or are you claiming that the mastery level rule has function?

Yes Mastery level helps determine how many powers you generate. It also has an effect on how you deny the witch.

And it relates to the number of powers you can cast, how? You know exactly the non functional rule I am talking about, don't stall.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
And it relates to the number of powers you can cast, how? You know exactly the non functional rule I am talking about, don't stall.

Well you can keep casting until you run out of powers or dice. Yes that rule is non-functional it is not really a rule but a contextual sentence explaining what different mastery levels means. It is not a named rule with no function. As it is not a named special rule that does nothing. Come up with an actual equivalent example.

It is a bolded rule, and thus is the most important part of that rules paragraph. You know this.

It is equivalent. You're just equivocating because you know your absolutist statement is false, but won't admit as such.

This rule is, as written, non functional. This is fact.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
It is a bolded rule, and thus is the most important part of that rules paragraph. You know this.

It is equivalent. You're just equivocating because you know your absolutist statement is false, but won't admit as such.

This rule is, as written, non functional. This is fact.

It is copy pasted from the previous edition you know this. There is no functionality even hinted in the rule. It is the most important part of a contextual paragraph that is all. It is a contextual line not a rule. Try again. This time with an actual equivalent example.

Fun side question to those who believe this rule does allow you to assault after deep striking:

Does this rule (and Assault Vehicle) allow you to assault after running or firing a rapid fire weapon, provided that you disembarked from the vehicle that turn?

Might be a bit of a straw man argument, but I really don't see the difference.

 FlingitNow wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
It is a bolded rule, and thus is the most important part of that rules paragraph. You know this.

It is equivalent. You're just equivocating because you know your absolutist statement is false, but won't admit as such.

This rule is, as written, non functional. This is fact.

It is copy pasted from the previous edition you know this. There is no functionality even hinted in the rule. It is the most important part of a contextual paragraph that is all. It is a contextual line not a rule. Try again. This time with an actual equivalent example.

Yes, it is copy pasted.

It is a rule. In a rule section. It provides a rule, that has no function. Case proven, try again.

We all know your absolutist position is gak. Feel free to bow out gracefully and accept your error, or continue to argue. I won't engage while you "debate" dishonestly.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Incorrect, that isn't how permissive systems work.

I'm sorry, but what page is that on ?

It isn't within the rule book. It is how the game and all similar games are designed. Do you have something constructive?

 Cheexsta wrote:
Fun side question to those who believe this rule does allow you to assault after deep striking:

Does this rule (and Assault Vehicle) allow you to assault after running or firing a rapid fire weapon, provided that you disembarked from the vehicle that turn?

Might be a bit of a straw man argument, but I really don't see the difference.

Well firing rapid fire weapons is going to be difficult in a khorne berzerker squad lol, but no and no.
The reason being timing basically. BRB says you can't charge after arriving from reserves (the drop pod assault rule repeats this), but then the formation overrides that by saying you can. And then later in the game you decide to run (or fire rapid fire), which then imposes an ADDITIONAL restriction that you can't charge anymore from that point onwards.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
It isn't within the rule book. It is how the game and all similar games are designed. Do you have something constructive?

People argue RAW and use that "permissive systems" line of thinking as a justification frequently. I want to know where they are getting it from.

If it's not RAW I don't see how it's being used to justify a RAW interpretation.

I've played a gak ton of games and not one of them has ever mentioned "permissive systems" as a mechanic, or even in the design notes.

Do the rules tell you what you can do, or what you cannot? Simple question. No discussion required

Roknar - timing ? No, no timing here. Simple layers of permission and restriction. The rule does NOT state you may assault the turn you come in from reserves. It is silent about this. What it does state is that you may assault the turn you disembark.

 Cheexsta wrote:
Fun side question to those who believe this rule does allow you to assault after deep striking:

Does this rule (and Assault Vehicle) allow you to assault after running or firing a rapid fire weapon, provided that you disembarked from the vehicle that turn?

Might be a bit of a straw man argument, but I really don't see the difference.

The problem with the rule (in terms of the likely intention) is that the RAW doesn't give you specific permission to disregard the restriction on charging after deep striking. If you consider the RAW as blanket permission to charge after disembarking and automatically disregard the restriction on charging after deep striking in the process, then this logic would also mean you could disregard the restriction on charging after running.

HIWPI/RAI, I think the rule lets you DS, disembark and charge all in the same turn, but not to Run before you charge though. It seems tthey've botched the writing of this rule though.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Do the rules tell you what you can do, or what you cannot? Simple question. No discussion required

Roknar - timing ? No, no timing here. Simple layers of permission and restriction. The rule does NOT state you may assault the turn you come in from reserves. It is silent about this. What it does state is that you may assault the turn you disembark.

The question was directed at those who would allow the turn 1 charge, regardless of how they got to that conclusion. And how they would treat running/rapid firing with their interpretation.

Call it a stack then if you prefer.

Top of the stack: Cannot charge
Codex/formation: Can Charge
BRB: Cannot charge

and then whichever is at the top of the stack applies. I say that the formation overrides the BRB and allows you to charge. But that doesn't suddenly allow you to illegally declare charges. It simply allows you to declare a charge in the first place.
Deepstriking means you aren't allowed to declare a charge period. Then the formation overrides that by saying you may (this is the assumption of his question)....so your back to the normal situation. Running then again prevents you from declaring a charge. This is unrelated to the formation in my opinion, as it is the newest event/restriction/whatever you want to call it and overrides anything that happens before that.

rulebook gives you the permission to assault -> deepstrike/reserves denies you that privilege -> formation reinstates it -> run revokes it yet again.

Roknar wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Do the rules tell you what you can do, or what you cannot? Simple question. No discussion required

Roknar - timing ? No, no timing here. Simple layers of permission and restriction. The rule does NOT state you may assault the turn you come in from reserves. It is silent about this. What it does state is that you may assault the turn you disembark.

The question was directed at those who would allow the turn 1 charge, regardless of how they got to that conclusion. And how they would treat running/rapid firing with their interpretation.

Call it a stack then if you prefer.

Top of the stack: Cannot charge
Codex/formation: Can Charge
BRB: Cannot charge

and then whichever is at the top of the stack applies. I say that the formation overrides the BRB and allows you to charge. But that doesn't suddenly allow you to illegally declare charges. It simply allows you to declare a charge in the first place.
Deepstriking means you aren't allowed to declare a charge period. Then the formation overrides that by saying you may (this is the assumption of his question)....so your back to the normal situation. Running then again prevents you from declaring a charge. This is unrelated to the formation in my opinion, as it is the newest event/restriction/whatever you want to call it and overrides anything that happens before that.

rulebook gives you the permission to assault -> deepstrike/reserves denies you that privilege -> formation reinstates it -> run revokes it yet again.

No, i don't see it as a stack either, it is more a combination of all.

So it is not:
Give permission --> remove --> give --> remove --> give --> remove

But rather:
- Give
- Give
- Deny
- Deny

And you remove the conflicts.

As such, in the examples you are using, we have the following restrictions:
- Cannot Charge from Deep Striking
- Cannot Charge from having Run
- Cannot Charge from Reserves
- Cannot Charge from Disembarking

Permissions:
- Can charge from Disembarking (<-- that is the rule right?)

So you cross out the restrictions concerned:
- Cannot Charge from Deep Striking
- Cannot Charge from having Run
- Cannot Charge from Reserves
- Cannot Charge from Disembarking

As such, the Unit may not declare a Charge, as it still has [3] restrictions. The permissions need to address either implicitly or explicitly (preferred) the restrictions applied.

The issue is, cannot charge from disembarking is not a restriction for that unit.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The actual rule talks about the turn you disembark. If disembarking isn't a restriction, then the turn must be. The only restrictions related to the turn, are the turn you arrive from reserve

 BlackTalos wrote:

Roknar wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Do the rules tell you what you can do, or what you cannot? Simple question. No discussion required

Roknar - timing ? No, no timing here. Simple layers of permission and restriction. The rule does NOT state you may assault the turn you come in from reserves. It is silent about this. What it does state is that you may assault the turn you disembark.

The question was directed at those who would allow the turn 1 charge, regardless of how they got to that conclusion. And how they would treat running/rapid firing with their interpretation.

Call it a stack then if you prefer.

Top of the stack: Cannot charge
Codex/formation: Can Charge
BRB: Cannot charge

and then whichever is at the top of the stack applies. I say that the formation overrides the BRB and allows you to charge. But that doesn't suddenly allow you to illegally declare charges. It simply allows you to declare a charge in the first place.
Deepstriking means you aren't allowed to declare a charge period. Then the formation overrides that by saying you may (this is the assumption of his question)....so your back to the normal situation. Running then again prevents you from declaring a charge. This is unrelated to the formation in my opinion, as it is the newest event/restriction/whatever you want to call it and overrides anything that happens before that.

rulebook gives you the permission to assault -> deepstrike/reserves denies you that privilege -> formation reinstates it -> run revokes it yet again.

No, i don't see it as a stack either, it is more a combination of all.

So it is not:
Give permission --> remove --> give --> remove --> give --> remove

But rather:
- Give
- Give
- Deny
- Deny

And you remove the conflicts.

As such, in the examples you are using, we have the following restrictions:
- Cannot Charge from Deep Striking
- Cannot Charge from having Run
- Cannot Charge from Reserves
- Cannot Charge from Disembarking

Permissions:
- Can charge from Disembarking (<-- that is the rule right?)

So you cross out the restrictions concerned:
- Cannot Charge from Deep Striking
- Cannot Charge from having Run
- Cannot Charge from Reserves
- Cannot Charge from Disembarking

As such, the Unit may not declare a Charge, as it still has [3] restrictions. The permissions need to address either implicitly or explicitly (preferred) the restrictions applied.

Your talking about whether or not tehy can charge at all though. I was making my point under the assumption that they CAN charge, to answer whether or not that would allow you to run and charge.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
But to argue on your version if they can assault at all:

I agree with the list of restrictions (minus running, see later), but the permission is different to me. It's not can charge from Disembarking. It's simply: Can charge, provided they disembarked, which then crosses out all the other restrictions.
Can charge from disembark is already provided by assault vehicle and this formation rule must mean something else, aka : Can charge period. (Pure RAW, though they're the same. Meaning they can't assault, but that's just silly)

So now your left with only 1 permission. Can charge. And then later you decide to run and add another restriction, which then crosses out your existing permission. Meaning you can no longer charge.

Except that isn't how permissive systems work. You have a specific restriction. This must be overridden by a specific permission. You lack this specific permission

That's assuming this is a permissive system and not a: Let's do whatever the feth we fancy today system.

I'm not convinced there is any kind of system proper behind making the rules.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
And it relates to the number of powers you can cast, how? You know exactly the non functional rule I am talking about, don't stall.

a ML 3 psyker can have up to 5 powers, 3 for ML 1 for focus and 1 as force.

it relates to how many powers you can cast in that you cannot cast the same power twice, so at most said psyker could attempt 5 powers

a ML one psyker may know 2 powers, their one generated power and focus. So they could attempt 2 powers.

Given the rule in question only has a rule that states they may assault the turn they disembark, and RAW obviously does not say even if deep striking. Consider they can only ever arrive by deepstrike in that formation, if the rule then states they may assault when they disembark and they are able to disembark the turn they arrive then wouldn't the rule be taking into account that they are arriving from deep strike and disembarking from a transport the same turn, and we are told in the RAW that they may assault when they disembark. Otherwise the rule has no function.

Captyn_Bob wrote:
The issue is, cannot charge from disembarking is not a restriction for that unit.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The actual rule talks about the turn you disembark. If disembarking isn't a restriction, then the turn must be. The only restrictions related to the turn, are the turn you arrive from reserve

And you are left with the issue Roknar described:
If the permission covers simply "the Turn" and not disembarking, then the Unit could Disembark, Run, fire Ordnance, and then Charge (as the allowance is for "the Turn")

As Nos says, it is quite simple by RaW:

Permissions must refer to the restrictions they cancel. "can charge in the turn it disembarks" refers to disembarking in the same Turn. Not a permission to Charge that removes ALL restrictions...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Roknar wrote:
I agree with the list of restrictions (minus running, see later), but the permission is different to me. It's not can charge from Disembarking. It's simply: Can charge, provided they disembarked, which then crosses out all the other restrictions.
Can charge from disembark is already provided by assault vehicle and this formation rule must mean something else, aka : Can charge period. (Pure RAW, though they're the same. Meaning they can't assault, but that's just silly)

So now your left with only 1 permission. Can charge. And then later you decide to run and add another restriction, which then crosses out your existing permission. Meaning you can no longer charge.

Which does not work at all by RaW, as all rules are "constant".

You do not loose the permission to charge. All the rules apply until they are resolved, in this case, the permission to charge.

Upon checking whether you may Charge or not, you total up the Rules concerned. "Can charge, provided they disembarked, which then crosses out all the other restrictions" remains as it is. You don't suddenly ignore that rule because you Ran or fired Ordnance.

A model with Eternal Warrior does not suddenly gain the Rule when he has to remove Wounds. He has the Rule, period. They apply as a constant when you are told to apply them.

Upon checking whether you may Charge or not, what rules apply?
If you think "Can charge period" is the permission in this case, why does "having Run" apply, but "having arrived by Deep Strike" or "Having fired Ordnance" or any other restrictions would not?

It's obvious you can assault straight from the pod when it arrives. That's how it is.

I was under the impression that running was a temporary rule, but I read it again and it seems that is indeed a constant rule that you cannot charge in the following assault if you ran in the previous shooting.

In that case I have to revise my statement. It seems you can indeed run and charge.

Assuming your in the camp of allowing the first turn assault anyway. Hungry for blood gives you a blanket permission to charge on the the turn you disembark from the kharybdis.

Why?, because it says so. You can charge on the turn you disembark. It makes no exceptions.

Since its a badly written rule people want to make it what its not.

Thats fair and reasonable. Just not right. I'm not saying that couldn't have been their intention (I think might have been) but it isn't.

So thats it. If you say it over writes the rule you are just putting your own spin and hoping that is what was meant when we don't know until its FAQ'd.

That it would make sense is not an argument, its not what the rule is.

HWYPI?

I just find it amusing that the "Spear of Sicarius" formation from the same book actually has the rule right in order to allow the charge after deepstrike.

I dont see that as a sign they didnt intend it to work that way for the khorne formation. I just see that as a sign of how terrible their projects are managed and how little they care about QC.

Mywik. For a company that is so top notch this kind of tedious mistake is tiresome and I must say I think I agree even if I argue it can't be played that way.

What really annoys me is this kind of stupid teenager style pride they have that means they refuse to engage with the community and fix mistakes.

....not really the time or the place to say this but there is only one way to fix a company that acts like that (I've worked for one that begins with an M and ends with vista was gak) is for some competition to hit it right in the teeth.

Roknar wrote:
I was under the impression that running was a temporary rule, but I read it again and it seems that is indeed a constant rule that you cannot charge in the following assault if you ran in the previous shooting.

In that case I have to revise my statement. It seems you can indeed run and charge.

Assuming your in the camp of allowing the first turn assault anyway. Hungry for blood gives you a blanket permission to charge on the the turn you disembark from the kharybdis.

Why?, because it says so. You can charge on the turn you disembark. It makes no exceptions.

Your "stack" concept doesnt apply to 40k. A specific restriction requires a specific permission to override it

There is no "blanket" permission here. It would need to state "You may assault first turn, regardles of other restrictions" in order to do so. HEll, it would even let you shoot another unit thanthe one you declare your charge against, taking the naive reading of the rule.

Jaq Draco lives wrote:
Mywik. For a company that is so top notch this kind of tedious mistake is tiresome and I must say I think I agree even if I argue it can't be played that way.

What really annoys me is this kind of stupid teenager style pride they have that means they refuse to engage with the community and fix mistakes.

....not really the time or the place to say this but there is only one way to fix a company that acts like that (I've worked for one that begins with an M and ends with vista was gak) is for some competition to hit it right in the teeth.

So what do you think the rule does? What does the rule allow (or disallow) that is different to what the unit could normally do?

What effect would you play the rule as having?

 FlingitNow wrote:

Jaq Draco lives wrote:
Mywik. For a company that is so top notch this kind of tedious mistake is tiresome and I must say I think I agree even if I argue it can't be played that way.

What really annoys me is this kind of stupid teenager style pride they have that means they refuse to engage with the community and fix mistakes.

....not really the time or the place to say this but there is only one way to fix a company that acts like that (I've worked for one that begins with an M and ends with vista was gak) is for some competition to hit it right in the teeth.

So what do you think the rule does? What does the rule allow (or disallow) that is different to what the unit could normally do?

What effect would you play the rule as having?

Still presuming all rules have function, and ignoring where this was proven false?

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:

Jaq Draco lives wrote:
Mywik. For a company that is so top notch this kind of tedious mistake is tiresome and I must say I think I agree even if I argue it can't be played that way.

What really annoys me is this kind of stupid teenager style pride they have that means they refuse to engage with the community and fix mistakes.

....not really the time or the place to say this but there is only one way to fix a company that acts like that (I've worked for one that begins with an M and ends with vista was gak) is for some competition to hit it right in the teeth.

So what do you think the rule does? What does the rule allow (or disallow) that is different to what the unit could normally do?

What effect would you play the rule as having?

Still presuming all rules have function, and ignoring where this was proven false?

Nope. All named Special Rules have a function RaW. The rules tell us special rules change the core rules. The rulebook however is scattered with redundant reminders and contextual lines that have no functionality. Now can you please find a named special rule that NEVER serves a function? Page and paragraph or concede.

I think we can all agree what the likely RAI is here. Unfortunately the RAW just doesn't allow this due to not specifically permitting the restriction on charging after deep striking to be disregarded. And you don't need another example of a non-functional rule to demonstrate that they have botched the writing of this one.

 Tonberry7 wrote:
you don't need another example of a non-functional rule to demonstrate that they have botched the writing of this one.

This

 FlingitNow wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:

Jaq Draco lives wrote:
Mywik. For a company that is so top notch this kind of tedious mistake is tiresome and I must say I think I agree even if I argue it can't be played that way.

What really annoys me is this kind of stupid teenager style pride they have that means they refuse to engage with the community and fix mistakes.

....not really the time or the place to say this but there is only one way to fix a company that acts like that (I've worked for one that begins with an M and ends with vista was gak) is for some competition to hit it right in the teeth.

So what do you think the rule does? What does the rule allow (or disallow) that is different to what the unit could normally do?

What effect would you play the rule as having?

Still presuming all rules have function, and ignoring where this was proven false?

Nope. All named Special Rules have a function RaW. The rules tell us special rules change the core rules. The rulebook however is scattered with redundant reminders and contextual lines that have no functionality. Now can you please find a named special rule that NEVER serves a function? Page and paragraph or concede.

Goal shifting again? Shocked. Oh, and it DOES serve a function, by altering the basic rule that you cannot charge having disembarked from a transport vehicle. Without the assault vehicle rule, this rule is the only item that allows you to alter this basic rule.

GIven this rule *effectively* serves no function, as the vehicle HAS the Assault Vehicle USR, I have complied. Your concession is accepted.

I see youre still refusing to debate honestly. Back on ignore.

Goal shifting again? Shocked. Oh, and it DOES serve a function, by altering the basic rule that you cannot charge having disembarked from a transport vehicle. Without the assault vehicle rule, this rule is the only item that allows you to alter this basic rule. 

GIven this rule *effectively* serves no function, as the vehicle HAS the Assault Vehicle USR, I have complied. Your concession is accepted.

I see youre still refusing to debate honestly. Back on ignore.

Accuse me of not debating honestly when you also accuse me of goal shifting when I ask you for the same thing I have been asking all debate? Seriously?

Your refusal to answer along with your laughable jest tells me everything I need to know about your argument. Thank you for proving my side correct.

No, you asked for a "named rule" once I gave you the Rule around mastery levels. Once your initial argument was thwarted, you pretended you had meant something else.

What refusal to answer? The answers are plain as day. You just dont accept them. Crucial difference.

Bye.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
No, you asked for a "named rule" once I gave you the Rule around mastery levels. Once your initial argument was thwarted, you pretended you had meant something else.

What refusal to answer? The answers are plain as day. You just dont accept them. Crucial difference.

Bye.

You didn't give a named rule. You gave me a contextual line. Still waiting for a named rule.

 FlingitNow wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
No, you asked for a "named rule" once I gave you the Rule around mastery levels. Once your initial argument was thwarted, you pretended you had meant something else.

What refusal to answer? The answers are plain as day. You just dont accept them. Crucial difference.

Bye.

You didn't give a named rule. You gave me a contextual line. Still waiting for a named rule.

You asked for that *after* I posted the MAstery levels rule. Goal shifting as ever.

You're done, as is your argument


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 FlingitNow wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
And it relates to the number of powers you can cast, how? You know exactly the non functional rule I am talking about, don't stall.

Well you can keep casting until you run out of powers or dice. Yes that rule is non-functional it is not really a rule but a contextual sentence explaining what different mastery levels means. It is not a named rule with no function. As it is not a named special rule that does nothing. Come up with an actual equivalent example.

Just to "remind" you of where your goal shift occurred.

Are you still claiming that the bolded RULE in the RULEBOOK, where "bold" means this is the most important RULE in the paragraph, isnt a RULE that does nothing? Just for interest, of course. Seeing if youre being consistent.

How did my argument shift? Do you think shift means stay the same as that is what you seem to be claiming. Still no named rule I see.

 FlingitNow wrote:
How did my argument shift? Do you think shift means stay the same as that is what you seem to be claiming. Still no named rule I see.

You were claiming all rules had function, then decided on "all named rules" when the former was proven invalid.

Adamantium skull, for about 1 month in 4th. Named rule, had no function until 5th appeared. THats jsut off the top of my head.

Your claim remains debunked. Carry on pretending otherwise.

I dont see how citing another non functional rule has anything to do with the rule discussed in this thread.

Even if there are no other "named rules" that dont function - how exactly does that make the rule were discussing functional?

I think its another case of hywpi against raw. Most people accept the RAW says they cant charge the turn they deepstrike. I also think most people would let their opponent do it because they acknowledge the poor quality of gws releases. i also dont expect tournaments in my area to rule otherwise.

Thats not to say flingits interpretation is wrong or anything but i really dont think asking for other non functional rules proves anything here.

Well I asked forge world and they said to discuss it with my group...so looks like they don't even know themselves XD

Fling has this idea that, because a rule exists (sorry, "named special rule", after realising the former requirement has zero credibility with GWs writing) it must have function.

This rule does have function. Just a function that is replicated by the Assault Vehicle rule.

FW stopped giving meaningful rules answers some time ago. A bit like YMDC it seems...

"The rule does nothing" just isn't an adequate response to a lot of people.

Going off your post distribution nosferatu, I do believe you approach this from a somewhat more legalistic point of view from many of us, resulting in an answer that some may find inadequate and unhelpful. If nothing else, I as the user who put the question forward, can certainly say that "it does nothing" is not a helpful answer to me.

Far more interested to hear how people interpret the rule and would play the rule under the assumption that "the rule must have a meaningful effect on the game"

HIWPI the unit can assault the turn it disembarks , even if it is the turn it arrives from reserves. Other restrictions, unrelated to disembarking or the turn, such as running and assaulting , would still apply

It's obvious the rule hasn't been written properly, but it's equally obvious the intent.

Captyn_Bob wrote:
HIWPI the unit can assault the turn it disembarks , even if it is the turn it arrives from reserves. Other restrictions, unrelated to disembarking or the turn, such as running and assaulting , would still apply

It's obvious the rule hasn't been written properly, but it's equally obvious the intent.

^^ this.

 Dakkamite wrote:
"The rule does nothing" just isn't an adequate response to a lot of people.

Going off your post distribution nosferatu, I do believe you approach this from a somewhat more legalistic point of view from many of us, resulting in an answer that some may find inadequate and unhelpful. If nothing else, I as the user who put the question forward, can certainly say that "it does nothing" is not a helpful answer to me.

Far more interested to hear how people interpret the rule and would play the rule under the assumption that "the rule must have a meaningful effect on the game"

Its more that, unless specifically asked, I'm generally going from the basics of "what the rule actually states", as opposed to "what do people think the rule states"

This is important, as a lot of people unconsciously houserule elements of the rules - 4th edition and area terrain classification being one such area where different gaming groups adopted wildly differing conventions - and are thus surprised when they move groups, or play tournaments.

IT is helpful to know what the rules do so, so you are aware and are consciously choosing to change them. So in this case were I wanting to play this formation, I might ask my opponent what they believe the rle shoudl do, and abide by that interpretation.

The rule does actually have a use - it is just sadly redundant given the Assault Vehicle rule.

It's also why the tenets are useful - they are slanted towards posters making it clear how they are arguing, with a default of "what the rules say". This means if you want to know how people would play it, a thread title of "HWYPI? Fist of Khorne Formation" conveys that neatly, and gives the right context.

Also it is worth pointing out that most of the posters who debate rules dont necessarily play that way. For example I never played that helmeted marines could never draw LOS to anything (as they had no "eyes" to get behind), as that seems incredibly silly

 Dakkamite wrote:
"The rule does nothing" just isn't an adequate response to a lot of people.

Going off your post distribution nosferatu, I do believe you approach this from a somewhat more legalistic point of view from many of us, resulting in an answer that some may find inadequate and unhelpful. If nothing else, I as the user who put the question forward, can certainly say that "it does nothing" is not a helpful answer to me.

Far more interested to hear how people interpret the rule and would play the rule under the assumption that "the rule must have a meaningful effect on the game"

YMDC is primarily aimed at debating the RAW for any given query. Whilst not terribly helpful for playing the game, in this case the RAW interpretation of "the rule does nothing" is actually the most relevant. As well as being correct.

Under the RAI assumption however, I don't think anyone is objecting to the berzerkers being allowed to charge after DS. Unfortunately FlingitNow seems to be making some bizarre argument that because a rule must do something, following the RAW is cheating and therefore his RAI interpretation therefore counts as RAW. Or something like that. In actuality, GW just used a poor choice of words in their writing of the rule, which isn't exactly unheard of.

RAW its fine, people are just being buthurt over the last few years of GW getting rid of Assault on Delivery units from DS. Get real man-children, the rule is there and its clear as day.

Did you just arrive from Reserve? - Yes
Did you disembark? - Yes
Therefore you are allowed to charge, because its the same turn you disembarked. The rule preventing you from charging the turn you arrive from DS Reserve is overridden due to allowing you to charge on any turn you disembark from the Pod. Otherwise you completely nullify the entire rule as it has no reason for existing due to the K-Pod being an assault vehicle. Stop breaking the game just because you dont want your Eldar, Tau or Crons getting shot to crap. Deal with it and start looking for solutions that dont include making the game worse for people around you.

 GoliothOnline wrote:
RAW its fine, people are just being buthurt over the last few years of GW getting rid of Assault on Delivery units from DS. Get real man-children, the rule is there and its clear as day.

Did you just arrive from Reserve? - Yes
Did you disembark? - Yes
Therefore you are allowed to charge, because its the same turn you disembarked. The rule preventing you from charging the turn you arrive from DS Reserve is overridden due to allowing you to charge on any turn you disembark from the Pod. Otherwise you completely nullify the entire rule as it has no reason for existing due to the K-Pod being an assault vehicle. Stop breaking the game just because you dont want your Eldar, Tau or Crons getting shot to crap. Deal with it and start looking for solutions that dont include making the game worse for people around you.

But as pointed out already, the problem with this logic is that it would also override the rule preventing you from running then charging, unless of course that was also intended. Also your assumptions regarding peoples motives are unfounded and don't really help your argument.

So the Harlequin formation can't run and charge ? Going by the same logic ?

GoliothOnline wrote:RAW its fine, people are just being buthurt over the last few years of GW getting rid of Assault on Delivery units from DS. Get real man-children, the rule is there and its clear as day.

Did you just arrive from Reserve? - Yes
Did you disembark? - Yes
Therefore you are allowed to charge, because its the same turn you disembarked. The rule preventing you from charging the turn you arrive from DS Reserve is overridden due to allowing you to charge on any turn you disembark from the Pod. Otherwise you completely nullify the entire rule as it has no reason for existing due to the K-Pod being an assault vehicle. Stop breaking the game just because you dont want your Eldar, Tau or Crons getting shot to crap. Deal with it and start looking for solutions that dont include making the game worse for people around you.

Awesome, so I'll shoot an entirely different unit, including with an IC that I joined vp who has a combo plasma, then charge somewhere else. After all, if we're ignoring the fundamental construction of the game we may as well go whole hog with it!

Dozer Blades wrote:So the Harlequin formation can't run and charge ? Going by the same logic ?

The logic that the harlequin formation explicitly overrides the restriction in running and charging, yet the khorne formation rule doesn't?

Are you aware of what "specific" means?

Oh so you like to pick and choose then ?

Look at the rule guys, yes normally you cannot charge after DS but this vehicle has to land and immobilize itself. the berzerkers have to disembark and they can charge after even if its the turn the arrive in. that's why the formation exists. otherwise theres no difference in a K assault klaw and 20 berzerkers.

this formation allows you to disregard the rule book. at 650 points, I'm not sure if its OP or not. I know one thing, the new ADMECH formation where they get all weapons, wargear and relics options for free is far worse and broken than this

The rule is fine. Some people just don't want to accept it for whatever reason .

 Dozer Blades wrote:
Oh so you like to pick and choose then ?

Ah, so you don't understand what "specific" means. Gotcha.

It's specific enough for me and it's not like your going to come over to my flgs and try to enforce it.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 Dakkamite wrote:
"The rule does nothing" just isn't an adequate response to a lot of people.

Going off your post distribution nosferatu, I do believe you approach this from a somewhat more legalistic point of view from many of us, resulting in an answer that some may find inadequate and unhelpful. If nothing else, I as the user who put the question forward, can certainly say that "it does nothing" is not a helpful answer to me.

Far more interested to hear how people interpret the rule and would play the rule under the assumption that "the rule must have a meaningful effect on the game"

Its more that, unless specifically asked, I'm generally going from the basics of "what the rule actually states", as opposed to "what do people think the rule states"

This is important, as a lot of people unconsciously houserule elements of the rules - 4th edition and area terrain classification being one such area where different gaming groups adopted wildly differing conventions - and are thus surprised when they move groups, or play tournaments.

IT is helpful to know what the rules do so, so you are aware and are consciously choosing to change them. So in this case were I wanting to play this formation, I might ask my opponent what they believe the rle shoudl do, and abide by that interpretation.

The rule does actually have a use - it is just sadly redundant given the Assault Vehicle rule.

It's also why the tenets are useful - they are slanted towards posters making it clear how they are arguing, with a default of "what the rules say". This means if you want to know how people would play it, a thread title of "HWYPI? Fist of Khorne Formation" conveys that neatly, and gives the right context.

Also it is worth pointing out that most of the posters who debate rules dont necessarily play that way. For example I never played that helmeted marines could never draw LOS to anything (as they had no "eyes" to get behind), as that seems incredibly silly

Thats a relief. Its probably worth pointing it out when you start arguing that a rule does nothing as it makes you look like a bit of a rules lawyer.

Theres a world of difference between "it does nothing, but should do something because thats stupid" and "haha it does nothing your formation is gak mon'keigh"

- edited -

I have no idea why this is even an argument.

It's not really.

OK so I don't know the specific rules about the Assault Claw drop pod, but if it had ANY unit in it and it came from DS, would the embarked unit be allowed to disembark? Let's just start with that. Could the unit disembark the turn it arrived?

Because if that is possible, then it would be a simple order of operation to technically allow the Berserkers to assault same turn that the Assault Claw arrives.

For example:

1) It's my movement phase and I choose to DS the Assault Claw. I make all necessary rolls to get the Assault Claw on the table. Still the movement phase. Let's assume that the unit inside the Assault Claw can disembark like any other drop pod. I then disembark my Berserkers. I am not yet at a stage to shoot or assault because those comes in subsequent phases. I just know that if the Assault Claw behaves like other drop pods, then I can at least get the unit out of the transport for now.

2) Shooting phase. I could have shot at something but chose not to.

3) Assault phase. Normally I would not be able to assault with the Berserkers due to the the Assault Vehicle special rules for vehicles coming from reserves. Ok. SOoo - I turn to my handy 'Fists of Khorne' formation dataslate and then, at this time, I choose to apply the 'Hungry for Blood' special rule, which allows my unit to assault due to having them disembark two phases earlier in my turn.


So it seems that if you go through the work flow of how a player's turn unfolds, then you would be able to assault the Berserkers. 'Hungry for Blood' special rule should not get applied in the movement phase because that is not when you assault and it is specifically a rule about assaulting. Assuming that the player can disembark units within an Assault Claw when it deep strikes, then the Berserkers should be treated no differently in the movement phase of that turn.

And I should mention that I think that the player who is using 'Hungry for Blood' should have the right as to when the special rule is applied if there is disagreement on the rule. This rule makes the most sense to be applied in the assault phase, and it looks to be written to override assault vehicle rules, when it is applied in this manner.

 Bach wrote:
OK so I don't know the specific rules about the Assault Claw drop pod, but if it had ANY unit in it and it came from DS, would the embarked unit be allowed to disembark? Let's just start with that. Could the unit disembark the turn it arrived?

Because if that is possible, then it would be a simple order of operation to technically allow the Berserkers to assault same turn that the Assault Claw arrives.

For example:

1) It's my movement phase and I choose to DS the Assault Claw. I make all necessary rolls to get the Assault Claw on the table. Still the movement phase. Let's assume that the unit inside the Assault Claw can disembark like any other drop pod. I then disembark my Berserkers. I am not yet at a stage to shoot or assault because those comes in subsequent phases. I just know that if the Assault Claw behaves like other drop pods, then I can at least get the unit out of the transport for now.

2) Shooting phase. I could have shot at something but chose not to.

3) Assault phase. Normally I would not be able to assault with the Berserkers due to the the Assault Vehicle special rules for vehicles coming from reserves. Ok. SOoo - I turn to my handy 'Fists of Khorne' formation dataslate and then, at this time, I choose to apply the 'Hungry for Blood' special rule, which allows my unit to assault due to having them disembarking two phases earlier in my turn.


So it seems that if you go through the work flow of how a player's turn unfolds, then you would be able to assault the Berserkers. 'Hungry for Blood' special rule should not get applied in the movement phase because that is not when you assault and it is specifically a rule about assaulting. Assuming that the player can disembark units within an Assault Claw when it deep strikes, then the Berserkers should be treated no differently in the movement phase of that turn.

And I should mention that I think that the player who is using 'Hungry for Blood' should have the right as to when the special rule is applied if there is disagreement on the rule. This rule makes the most sense to be applied in the assault phase, and it looks to be written to override assault vehicle rules, when the rule is applied as I mentioned.

Why would anyone want to apply it in the movement phase?

I think you are swinging at the chandelier instead of the pinâta my friend

Yeah, I only mentioned that because there are a few comments in earlier pages insinuating that 'Hungry for Blood' special rule disallows the berserkers to disembark after DS because of the Assault Vehicle rule.

Sorry. I must have skipped over those ones

 Dozer Blades wrote:
It's specific enough for me and it's not like your going to come over to my flgs and try to enforce it.

Enforce your houserules? Why would I? I dont give a gak what rules you choose to make up in private. But then that isnt the point of the forum, as you should well know.

The harlie formation specifically states you may run and charge, overriding the restriction on.... running and charging.

This formation lets you assautl having disembarked from a vehicle. Awesome. It does NOT lift the restriction on assaulting having DS or entered from reserves. Becuase, and here's the blindingly obvious clue, it does not mention either Reserves or Deepstrike in the rule, NOR does it have a complete catch all such as "regardless of any restrictions"

So, again, you are good with the zerkers shooting unit A then charging unit B as their primary target? How about running then assaulting? How about shooting unit A with a Plasmagun from an attached IC (say, jump IC who joined after they disembarked) then assaulting unit B? Just how many restrictions that are not mentioned does this rule override?

Dakkamite - neither of which I did. and the rule doesnt do "nothing", it just doesnt do anything in addition to the rule the vehicle already has. If the vehicle lost the rule (maybe some weird mechanicum malady causes the iris to seize, slowing their exit) "Assault Vehicle" this rule would kick in, still lettign them assault.

I never took that tone - just pointed out that, in essence, they wrote a rule that is of no benefit. It sucks. Oh, and I'#'m a Daemonkin player, and have a dreadclaw, and been just about resiting getting the kharybdis...

Seriously dude? Whilst I agree with your arguments in the context of YMDC absolutely do not let that effect how you play your army. The game isn't meant to be taken too seriously, it's meant to be fun.

I try to let any ambiguous rules go to the beneift of my opponents decision - if they want to play that I cannot charge, I am ok with that, as the rules as written do not allow it. It might make me wary of playing that person in the future, but I'm not going to argue, in real life, when I know the rules dont actually allow it. I'd ask before the game (ideally the week before, when arranging the game) and see if anyone has a problem with it.

It's the main reason I like this forum; I get to know where the issues are, so I can prepare for them.

Captyn_Bob wrote:
Seriously dude? Whilst I agree with your arguments in the context of YMDC absolutely do not let that effect how you play your army. The game isn't meant to be taken too seriously, it's meant to be fun.

I'm sure he is probably fine with house rules, that isn't the point of this forum. I find it odd that you come into YMDC and then have a go at someone for arguing the rules, its what this place is here for.

Well, its not all this place is for, but if youre not arguing written rules you should clearly state as such. I always try to, otherwise it does get confusing.

I think it was actually a more positive comment than it may appear - i.e. dont let rules arguments here ruin your fun in real life by not playing this formation as (likely) intended

Yeah not arguing rules, just saying don't let poorly written rules ruin your fun

I dont do I usually have a chuckle over them with my opponent, or, if i were to use this formation, I would make sure my opponent was happy with it. If they were not, I would not bother using it - as 15 bezerkers and a terminator IC i(Lord Zhufor, either as the SC or just because I love his model, and didnt do an awful job of painting him ) s a much better unit, being a sacred number and all

 Tonberry7 wrote:

YMDC is primarily aimed at debating the RAW for any given query. Whilst not terribly helpful for playing the game...

I think this is why I loathe this section. The idea that we should be arguing these rules in any way other than how to help us play the game fairly, especially when encountering strangers, is ludicrous to me.

Knowing wha tthe urles actually state DOES help in playing strangers. As explained many times.

Dont come into this section if you loathe it. It wont change to suit just you, as it works very well at the moment.

Still what you're saying is HYWPI.

FWIW, there are plenty of precedents for GW writing utterly redundant things into their books.

Take Orks for example - you COULD get stikkbomb chukkas on your vehicles... but any infantry unit that could embark in one, already has grenades. What?

Same thing with the painboy. He's got 5+ FNP base, but can still buy a Cybork body... for a non-stacking 6+ FNP. Huh?

The upgrades actually don't do a damn thing, but clearly the codex wasn't vetted properly.

Maybe this is just an instance of them forgetting that the Kharybdis is already an assault vehicle?

More likely forgetting that the kharybdis doesn't force a deployment like other pods.

The intent of the formation is clear, you drop the pod on an enemy vehicle, hit the enemy with the D and immobilising the pod, the guys inside disembark, and then have permission to assault.

I'm sure they wrote the rules for the Fist so we can all have some more redundancy.

Captyn_Bob wrote:
More likely forgetting that the kharybdis doesn't force a deployment like other pods.

The intent of the formation is clear, you drop the pod on an enemy vehicle, hit the enemy with the D and immobilising the pod, the guys inside disembark, and then have permission to assault.

that's exactly how I understand it.

Edited by Manchu

 Dozer Blades wrote:
Still what you're saying is HYWPI.

Yes, your inability to follow the rules of this forum, or indeed the rules of 40k really persuade me that my position on the written rules is, in fact, hiwpi.

Oh wait, no, not at all.

Any chance you could for the first time this thread, follow the tenets and post a credible argument, possibly based in real and not imagined rules?

Or are you simply trolling again?

Hopefully this settles the argument.

This formation from the same campaign allows 2nd ultramarine company to arrive completely from DS aboard their drop pods.
All drop pods must land turn one and ignore drop pod assault rules

Furthermore, the occupants can shoot twice in the shooting phase or shoot at two different targets, if the unit elects to not shoot heavy or rapid or salvo weapons, they can CHARGE in the assault phase

Thats because those are Speace Marheens, so their rules are well written and easy to understand.

Fist of Khorne is CSM, its mandatory to be written like monkeys flaying their poops and obscure like its writte in a secret dark tongue.

Also the argument of "run+assault" or "shoot heavies/ordenance and assault" is juts hilarious..., did you guy notice that those are Berzerkers?..., if you guys can find ONE heavy or ordenance weapon in the Zerkers options, i will personnaly become his slave...

They are armed with feakin bolt pistols for feth sakes, tyhey don't even fire them, they simply throw it in the face of their opponents...

 Johnnytorrance wrote:
Hopefully this settles the argument.

This formation from the same campaign allows 2nd ultramarine company to arrive completely from DS aboard their drop pods.
All drop pods must land turn one and ignore drop pod assault rules

Furthermore, the occupants can shoot twice in the shooting phase or shoot at two different targets, if the unit elects to not shoot heavy or rapid or salvo weapons, they can CHARGE in the assault phase

Some would claim that the formation gives you the ability to charge on the turn you disembark, but doesn't given you the ability to charge on the turn you arrive from reserves....

Trasvi wrote:

 Johnnytorrance wrote:
Hopefully this settles the argument.

This formation from the same campaign allows 2nd ultramarine company to arrive completely from DS aboard their drop pods.
All drop pods must land turn one and ignore drop pod assault rules

Furthermore, the occupants can shoot twice in the shooting phase or shoot at two different targets, if the unit elects to not shoot heavy or rapid or salvo weapons, they can CHARGE in the assault phase

Some would claim that the formation gives you the ability to charge on the turn you disembark, but doesn't given you the ability to charge on the turn you arrive from reserves....

You HAVE to disembark from a loyalist pod the second it hits the table, so the RAW is pretty clear on that.