Simple thing.
I deep strike an Assault vehicle (lets say a storm eagle) as it has the deep strike rule
the unit inside DID NOT take it as a dedicated transport
Can the unit inside disembark/charge?
(the reason i am asking this is that the unit themselves didnt deep strike as they were in a vehicle at the time
Rulebook, p157 wrote:Assault Vehicle Passengers disembarking from Access Points on a vehicle with this special rule 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.
barnowl wrote: This is why formations like Skyhammer are so nasty now. You get to assault out of Reserve/Deep strike.
Only the Assault Squads do. The Devastator Squads cannot Charge the turn they arrive. They do get Relentless, though, which is better for a unit with a plethora of Heavy Weapons intended to shoot things.
Same with the Fist of Khorne Formation, rules specifically within the formation allow the unit inside to Assault out of Reserves from the Kharybdis Assault Claw. Which is hilarious because "Oh noes, Khorne Berzerkers!" At least the champion can take an Axe of Khorne at Initiative for AP2.
I know ICs dont benefit from unit rules now due to the faq, but what happens when lets say Dante in his own private pod drops in next to skyhammer buddies and joins them in the movement phase turn 1. Can they stil assault?
peirceg wrote: I know ICs dont benefit from unit rules now due to the faq, but what happens when lets say Dante in his own private pod drops in next to skyhammer buddies and joins them in the movement phase turn 1. Can they stil assault?
No, the FAQ specifically said that Formation benefits do not confer to any IC's that join them.
peirceg wrote: I know ICs dont benefit from unit rules now due to the faq, but what happens when lets say Dante in his own private pod drops in next to skyhammer buddies and joins them in the movement phase turn 1. Can they stil assault?
No, the FAQ specifically said that Formation benefits do not confer to any IC's that join them.
Exactly. The FAQ closed any and all ways for an IC to benefit in any way from a Detachment or Formation other than his own. That even includes stubborn when granted by a Formation. Not the best ruling as it leads to inconsistent rules behaviour, but at least it is a clear ruling with no room for loopholes that I know of.
mjl7atlas wrote: Except the hungry for blood rule specifically allows them to charge upon disembarking.
But does not specifically allow them to do so on the turn they arrive from reserve
Except it does.
No, it says nothing (iirc) about being allowed to assault after deepstriking RAW, simply that they CAN assault after disembarking (i.e. if they deepstruck turn 1, then disembarked on turn 2). RAI? Sure, I think it's obvious that it was intended.
Like jokerkd said, nothing is allowing them to assault despite arriving from reserve AND out of a vehicle, just allowing them to assault out of a vehicle.
mjl7atlas wrote: Except the hungry for blood rule specifically allows them to charge upon disembarking.
But does not specifically allow them to do so on the turn they arrive from reserve
Except it does.
No, it says nothing (iirc) about being allowed to assault after deepstriking RAW, simply that they CAN assault after disembarking (i.e. if they deepstruck turn 1, then disembarked on turn 2). RAI? Sure, I think it's obvious that it was intended.
Like jokerkd said, nothing is allowing them to assault despite arriving from reserve AND out of a vehicle, just allowing them to assault out of a vehicle.
the rules state that they "prohibit you from assaulting the turn you arrive via deep strike. It does not, however, prohibit you from disembarking the turn you arrive. The 'fist of khorne' formations 'hungry for blood' special rule supercedes the 'can not assault the turn you arrive' restriction. Convoluted explanation but there ya go. 'Hungry for blood' is worded just about the only way it can be worded to make sense."
Automatically Appended Next Post: Because what would be the purpose of giving them a rule that allows them to assault after disembarking from an assault vehicle when the assault vehicle already gives them that ability?
mjl7atlas wrote: the rules state that they "prohibit you from assaulting the turn you arrive via deep strike. It does not, however, prohibit you from disembarking the turn you arrive. The 'fist of khorne' formations 'hungry for blood' special rule supercedes the 'can not assault the turn you arrive' restriction. Convoluted explanation but there ya go. 'Hungry for blood' is worded just about the only way it can be worded to make sense."
Automatically Appended Next Post: Because what would be the purpose of giving them a rule that allows them to assault after disembarking from an assault vehicle when the assault vehicle already gives them that ability?
Good question, but it still does not state anything about Reserves. If it forced the Disembark upon arrival, you may have had a point, but without it...
mjl7atlas wrote: Except the hungry for blood rule specifically allows them to charge upon disembarking.
But does not specifically allow them to do so on the turn they arrive from reserve
Except it does.
No, it says nothing (iirc) about being allowed to assault after deepstriking RAW, simply that they CAN assault after disembarking (i.e. if they deepstruck turn 1, then disembarked on turn 2). RAI? Sure, I think it's obvious that it was intended.
Like jokerkd said, nothing is allowing them to assault despite arriving from reserve AND out of a vehicle, just allowing them to assault out of a vehicle.
the rules state that they "prohibit you from assaulting the turn you arrive via deep strike. It does not, however, prohibit you from disembarking the turn you arrive. The 'fist of khorne' formations 'hungry for blood' special rule supercedes the 'can not assault the turn you arrive' restriction. Convoluted explanation but there ya go. 'Hungry for blood' is worded just about the only way it can be worded to make sense."
Automatically Appended Next Post: Because what would be the purpose of giving them a rule that allows them to assault after disembarking from an assault vehicle when the assault vehicle already gives them that ability?
Right, but where specifically does it give permission to assault from reserves, in addition to the ability to disembark and assault? (keep in mind this IS GW and they've never been the best at writing rules) Obviously you can disembark from deepstrike, or drop pods would be useless. And it can obviously be worded far better, I.e. "units from this formation can assault the turn they arrive from reserves, including deepstrike and treat all transports as assault vehicles."
And yes, they really do have a rule that is useless because the transport has the assault vehicle USR.
Well This is a case of looking at the written rules and following them. Special rules override rules in the rule book. What do the specific rules say?
Thanks"
The hungry for blood special specifically states that they can assault in the turn they disembark. The spear of sicarius also allows for this type of charge. Or are loyalist marines only allowed to do cool things?
Well This is a case of looking at the written rules and following them. Special rules override rules in the rule book. What do the specific rules say?
Thanks"
The hungry for blood special specifically states that they can assault in the turn they disembark. The spear of sicarius also allows for this type of charge. Or are loyalist marines only allowed to do cool things?
See, that'd be the specific permission I'd be looking for, but that's not always true about codex > BRB (i.e. firing at invisible units with a bonus to BS that doesn't specifically say it grants the bonus to snap shots)
And RAW, you really still only have one permission granted when you need two (disembark AND arriving from reserve). HIWPI is yes, allowed to assault after coming in, but imoRAW says otherwise unless it gets FAQ'd.
Well This is a case of looking at the written rules and following them. Special rules override rules in the rule book. What do the specific rules say?
Thanks"
The hungry for blood special specifically states that they can assault in the turn they disembark. The spear of sicarius also allows for this type of charge. Or are loyalist marines only allowed to do cool things?
From totally-Forgeworld
"Hi Daniel,
Well This is a case of shut the feth up, don't you DARE to waste our time with this kind of question again. Go eat poison?
nosferatu1001 wrote: Technically you can argue it lets you run and assault, or fire a special weapon (if they could get one...) and assault.
not really. its says you can disembark and assault. so if it wouldnt be an assault vehicle you could still assault because the codex rule give you permission to do it (assault after disembarkation). but if you run or fire a heavy weapon then the rulebook forbids you to charge, because the codex rule doesnt mention any of it (so it doesnt override the rulebook).
and dont get me started on useless rules... i mean dok grotsnik from the ork kodex confers his unit (and himself) a 5+ fnp while having a wargear piece that give him a 6+ fnp...
nosferatu1001 wrote: Technically you can argue it lets you run and assault, or fire a special weapon (if they could get one...) and assault.
not really. its says you can disembark and assault. so if it wouldnt be an assault vehicle you could still assault because the codex rule give you permission to do it (assault after disembarkation). but if you run or fire a heavy weapon then the rulebook forbids you to charge, because the codex rule doesnt mention any of it (so it doesnt override the rulebook).
and dont get me started on useless rules... i mean dok grotsnik from the ork kodex confers his unit (and himself) a 5+ fnp while having a wargear piece that give him a 6+ fnp...
But going by the logic mjl7atlas is using, the permission granted by being allowed to disembark and assault overrides everything, which is what nosferatu1001 was saying there.
Where does it SPECIFICALLY say you can charge after deepstriking/entering from reserves? Nowhere. Notice how (i.e.) SKyhammer specifically says they can assault after deepstriking.
(No, being able to charge after disembarking doesn't count, that's basically making every vehicle for them an assault vehicle.)
NO they didn't. The rule specifically states they can assault after disembarking. So again, unless there is a rule that prevents them from disembarking on the turn they arrive, they are allowed to via the Hungry for blood rule.
mjl7atlas wrote: NO they didn't. The rule specifically states they can assault after disembarking. So again, unless there is a rule that prevents them from disembarking on the turn they arrive, they are allowed to via the Hungry for blood rule.
There is a specific rule that prevents them from assaulting on the turn that they arrive from reserve that you keep ignoring. Just because they can assault after they disembark is not carte blanche permission to assault the turn they arrive from reserve.
mjl7atlas wrote: NO they didn't. The rule specifically states they can assault after disembarking. So again, unless there is a rule that prevents them from disembarking on the turn they arrive, they are allowed to via the Hungry for blood rule.
And where is the rule that SPECIFICALLY allows them to also assault after deepstriking? We have permission for assaulting after disembarking (i.e. if they hope in a rhino to get somewhere), but nothing says "you can also assault despite deepstriking."
Spoiler:
Nothing is allowing you to assault after deepstriking. We've covered the assaulting after disembarking.
Remember, 40k is a permissive rule set, which means it MUST specifically mention the ability to do X or Y or Z in order for you to do it.
mjl7atlas wrote: ....you disembark from a drop pod. Hungry for Blood is the rule you are looking for.
Again, where does it say they can charge the same turn they arrive from Reserve? Because 'Hungry for Blood' says no such thing.
Hungry for Blood: This Formation’s unit of Berzerkers must begin the game embarked upon this Formation’s Kharybdis Assault Claw. This unit can charge on the same turn that it disembarks from the Kharybdis Assault Claw.
Not a single mention of Reserves at all. The only restriction lifted is the one on charging on the turn you disembark from a vehicle. It does not lift the restriction on charging the turn you arrive from Reserve or any of the other restrictions which prevent you from charging.
mjl7atlas wrote: ....you disembark from a drop pod. Hungry for Blood is the rule you are looking for.
Hungry for Blood lifts the restriction on assaulting after disembarking. It does nothing about the separate restriction on assaulting after deep striking.
Think of it as a door with two locks. One of those locks is marked 'Disembarked', the other is marked 'Arrived by Deep Strike'.
Hungry for Blood unlocks the 'Disembarked' lock... But you still have another lock preventing you from opening the door.
mjl7atlas wrote: ....you disembark from a drop pod. Hungry for Blood is the rule you are looking for.
A pointless point. Drop Pods are Open-Topped which carry the Assault Vehicle rule, which allows for Assaulting after Disembarking. If it states, "may Charge after disembarking when the Drop Pod arrives from Deep Strike Reserves", that would be a different story. But if it is only "may Charge after disembarking", well, permission fo that is redundant with an Open-Topped Vehicle.
mjl7atlas wrote: ....you disembark from a drop pod. Hungry for Blood is the rule you are looking for.
Hungry for Blood lifts the restriction on assaulting after disembarking. It does nothing about the separate restriction on assaulting after deep striking.
Think of it as a door with two locks. One of those locks is marked 'Disembarked', the other is marked 'Arrived by Deep Strike'.
Hungry for Blood unlocks the 'Disembarked' lock... But you still have another lock preventing you from opening the door.
I'd say the Assault Vehicle rule unlocks the 'Disembarked' lock. The Hungry for Blood rule just smashes the 'Arrived by Deep Strike' lock to bits I. E. It is no longer a consideration.
My reading of the RAW is that the Hungry for Blood rule overrides the restriction of assaulting after Deep Strike. Could it have been better written? Certainly. I think if they bother to FAQ it they are fairly likely to go with the common sense interpretation in that they can assault on the same turn as Deep Strike.
mjl7atlas wrote: ....you disembark from a drop pod. Hungry for Blood is the rule you are looking for.
Hungry for Blood lifts the restriction on assaulting after disembarking. It does nothing about the separate restriction on assaulting after deep striking.
Think of it as a door with two locks. One of those locks is marked 'Disembarked', the other is marked 'Arrived by Deep Strike'.
Hungry for Blood unlocks the 'Disembarked' lock... But you still have another lock preventing you from opening the door.
I'd say the Assault Vehicle rule unlocks the 'Disembarked' lock. The Hungry for Blood rule just smashes the 'Arrived by Deep Strike' lock to bits I. E. It is no longer a consideration.
My reading of the RAW is that the Hungry for Blood rule overrides the restriction of assaulting after Deep Strike. Could it have been better written? Certainly. I think if they bother to FAQ it they are fairly likely to go with the common sense interpretation in that they can assault on the same turn as Deep Strike.
It however doesn't. It SPECIFICALLY states you can assault after disembarking. Nowhere there does it mention you can assault after deepstriking. Hopefully they'll do an FAQ that will fix it, but until then there is no permission being granted to assault after entering from reserves/deepstrike, just the ability to assault after disembarking.
mjl7atlas wrote: ....you disembark from a drop pod. Hungry for Blood is the rule you are looking for.
A pointless point. Drop Pods are Open-Topped which carry the Assault Vehicle rule, which allows for Assaulting after Disembarking. If it states, "may Charge after disembarking when the Drop Pod arrives from Deep Strike Reserves", that would be a different story. But if it is only "may Charge after disembarking", well, permission fo that is redundant with an Open-Topped Vehicle.
The experimental rules for the Kharybdis Assault Claw make no mention of being Open-topped. I'm not sure if there are more recent rules in one of the Forge World books.
mjl7atlas wrote: ....you disembark from a drop pod. Hungry for Blood is the rule you are looking for.
A pointless point. Drop Pods are Open-Topped which carry the Assault Vehicle rule, which allows for Assaulting after Disembarking. If it states, "may Charge after disembarking when the Drop Pod arrives from Deep Strike Reserves", that would be a different story. But if it is only "may Charge after disembarking", well, permission fo that is redundant with an Open-Topped Vehicle.
The experimental rules for the Kharybdis Assault Claw make no mention of being Open-topped. I'm not sure if there are more recent rules in one of the Forge World books.
True, however the Kharybdis rules (that you linked) does include "Assault Vehicle".
mjl7atlas wrote: ....you disembark from a drop pod. Hungry for Blood is the rule you are looking for.
A pointless point. Drop Pods are Open-Topped which carry the Assault Vehicle rule, which allows for Assaulting after Disembarking. If it states, "may Charge after disembarking when the Drop Pod arrives from Deep Strike Reserves", that would be a different story. But if it is only "may Charge after disembarking", well, permission fo that is redundant with an Open-Topped Vehicle.
The experimental rules for the Kharybdis Assault Claw make no mention of being Open-topped. I'm not sure if there are more recent rules in one of the Forge World books.
He didn't say from a Assault Claw, he said from a drop pod.
mjl7atlas wrote: ....you disembark from a drop pod. Hungry for Blood is the rule you are looking for.
Hungry for Blood lifts the restriction on assaulting after disembarking. It does nothing about the separate restriction on assaulting after deep striking.
Think of it as a door with two locks. One of those locks is marked 'Disembarked', the other is marked 'Arrived by Deep Strike'.
Hungry for Blood unlocks the 'Disembarked' lock... But you still have another lock preventing you from opening the door.
I'd say the Assault Vehicle rule unlocks the 'Disembarked' lock. The Hungry for Blood rule just smashes the 'Arrived by Deep Strike' lock to bits I. E. It is no longer a consideration.
My reading of the RAW is that the Hungry for Blood rule overrides the restriction of assaulting after Deep Strike. Could it have been better written? Certainly. I think if they bother to FAQ it they are fairly likely to go with the common sense interpretation in that they can assault on the same turn as Deep Strike.
It however doesn't. It SPECIFICALLY states you can assault after disembarking. Nowhere there does it mention you can assault after deepstriking. Hopefully they'll do an FAQ that will fix it, but until then there is no permission being granted to assault after entering from reserves/deepstrike, just the ability to assault after disembarking.
Exactly. It explicitly states that the berzerkers in the Kharybdis Assault Claw can assault after disembarking. This SPECIFIC rule overrides the general BRB restriction of not being able to assault after deep striking. I understand your argument and admit they could have written the rule better but I really don't see a problem in terms of RAW.
I think most would agree at least that this is the RAI, would you really make an issue of this with an opponent in an actual game, trying to argue RAW that their bezerkers couldn't charge? As you say, hopefully they will do an FAQ to clarify the rule.
Tonberry7 wrote: Exactly. It explicitly states that the berzerkers in the Kharybdis Assault Claw can assault after disembarking. This SPECIFIC rule overrides the general BRB restriction of not being able to assault after deep striking. I understand your argument and admit they could have written the rule better but I really don't see a problem in terms of RAW.
I think most would agree at least that this is the RAI, would you really make an issue of this with an opponent in an actual game, trying to argue RAW that their bezerkers couldn't charge? As you say, hopefully they will do an FAQ to clarify the rule.
You might have a case if the Embarked unit in an Assault Claw was required to Disembark upon Deep Striking like a Drop Pod. But it is not. Embarked models in an Assault Claw may stay inside after it arrives.
mjl7atlas wrote: ....you disembark from a drop pod. Hungry for Blood is the rule you are looking for.
Hungry for Blood lifts the restriction on assaulting after disembarking. It does nothing about the separate restriction on assaulting after deep striking.
Think of it as a door with two locks. One of those locks is marked 'Disembarked', the other is marked 'Arrived by Deep Strike'.
Hungry for Blood unlocks the 'Disembarked' lock... But you still have another lock preventing you from opening the door.
I'd say the Assault Vehicle rule unlocks the 'Disembarked' lock. The Hungry for Blood rule just smashes the 'Arrived by Deep Strike' lock to bits I. E. It is no longer a consideration.
My reading of the RAW is that the Hungry for Blood rule overrides the restriction of assaulting after Deep Strike. Could it have been better written? Certainly. I think if they bother to FAQ it they are fairly likely to go with the common sense interpretation in that they can assault on the same turn as Deep Strike.
It however doesn't. It SPECIFICALLY states you can assault after disembarking. Nowhere there does it mention you can assault after deepstriking. Hopefully they'll do an FAQ that will fix it, but until then there is no permission being granted to assault after entering from reserves/deepstrike, just the ability to assault after disembarking.
Exactly. It explicitly states that the berzerkers in the Kharybdis Assault Claw can assault after disembarking. This SPECIFIC rule overrides the general BRB restriction of not being able to assault after deep striking. I understand your argument and admit they could have written the rule better but I really don't see a problem in terms of RAW.
I think most would agree at least that this is the RAI, would you really make an issue of this with an opponent in an actual game, trying to argue RAW that their bezerkers couldn't charge? As you say, hopefully they will do an FAQ to clarify the rule.
But it doesn't override it. If a rule says I can run and shoot (and nothing about snapshots), does that mean I can run and shoot ordinance weapons? Or blast weapons? I mean, it says I can run and shoot!
Same situation, same answer. No, you can't run and shoot blasts, no you can't assault after disembarking if you arrived via deepstrike. Both cases have ADDITIONAL RESTRICTIONS that haven't been overridden. That's what you're missing, you MUST have all restrictions removed to be able to do something.
I'd say the Assault Vehicle rule unlocks the 'Disembarked' lock. The Hungry for Blood rule just smashes the 'Arrived by Deep Strike' lock to bits I. E. It is no longer a consideration.
Both rules remove the disembarking restriction. That's all. Having two separate rules that both remove a specific restriction doesn't magically give you the ability to ignore a completely different restriction.
Exactly. It explicitly states that the berzerkers in the Kharybdis Assault Claw can assault after disembarking. This SPECIFIC rule overrides the general BRB restriction of not being able to assault after deep striking.
How does a rule that specifically refers to disembarking apply to deep striking?
mjl7atlas wrote: ....you disembark from a drop pod. Hungry for Blood is the rule you are looking for.
A pointless point. Drop Pods are Open-Topped which carry the Assault Vehicle rule, which allows for Assaulting after Disembarking. If it states, "may Charge after disembarking when the Drop Pod arrives from Deep Strike Reserves", that would be a different story. But if it is only "may Charge after disembarking", well, permission fo that is redundant with an Open-Topped Vehicle.
The experimental rules for the Kharybdis Assault Claw make no mention of being Open-topped. I'm not sure if there are more recent rules in one of the Forge World books.
He didn't say from a Assault Claw, he said from a drop pod.
The rule he's referencing (Hungry for Blood) requires them to begin the game in a Kharybdis Assault Claw and only gives them permission to assault on the turn they disembark from the Assault Claw, not any other vehicles.
Tonberry7 wrote: This SPECIFIC rule overrides the general BRB restriction of not being able to assault after deep striking. I understand your argument and admit they could have written the rule better but I really don't see a problem in terms of RAW.
2) Restrictions always override permissions, where the two conflict.
So, lets pretend we have a conflict here, or a new situation as used by him which is somewhat the same (thinking an advanced permission is overriding a basic restriction):
yakface wrote: For example, an advanced rule may say: 'models with jump packs are able to move 12" in the movement phase', but if a model has gone to ground, then the basic rules restriction against a model being able to move in the movement phase still overrides the advanced rules permission that the model can move 12" in the movement phase.
Replace "jump pack/moving" with assaulting after deepstriking and disembarking as needed, and it's the same thing.
I'm not saying yakface is the end all, be all there is to rules, but he did a great job on explaining how the rule set works.
The rule he's referencing (Hungry for Blood) requires them to begin the game in a Kharybdis Assault Claw and only gives them permission to assault on the turn they disembark from the Assault Claw, not any other vehicles.
But mjl7atlas still referenced disembarking from a drop pod, which makes his point even more off. In addition, the Claw also carries the Assault Vehicle rule (at least the version you referenced), which carries the exact same permission as Hungry For Blood.
So, if Hungry for Blood works to allow the Berzerkers to Charge from Claws when they Disembark, then they already had permission to, just like any other unit Disembarking from a standard Drop Pod. That includes Deathwing Dreadnoughts, Skyhammer Annihilation Force Devastator Squads, or even just your basic Tactical Squads either from a CAD or a Battle Demi-Company.
So, unless it is a different Claw they are referencing, it is a rather pointless rule.
I'd say the Assault Vehicle rule unlocks the 'Disembarked' lock. The Hungry for Blood rule just smashes the 'Arrived by Deep Strike' lock to bits I. E. It is no longer a consideration.
Both rules remove the disembarking restriction. That's all. Having two separate rules that both remove a specific restriction doesn't magically give you the ability to ignore a completely different restriction.
Exactly. It explicitly states that the berzerkers in the Kharybdis Assault Claw can assault after disembarking. This SPECIFIC rule overrides the general BRB restriction of not being able to assault after deep striking.
How does a rule that specifically refers to disembarking apply to deep striking?
OK I do understand what you are all saying about the restriction on assaulting after deep striking still applying. It just seems to me that the Hungry for Blood rule was written to override this restriction. Otherwise it's a pointless rule as it just doesn't allow anything the Assault Vehicle rule doesn't already allow.
I've already stated that Hungry for Blood was badly written but I'd therefore expect any FAQ to confirm that the berzerkers could indeed assault after deep striking. If I'm wrong then I'd accept that but then the Hungry for Blood rule really would then be pointless.
I'd say the Assault Vehicle rule unlocks the 'Disembarked' lock. The Hungry for Blood rule just smashes the 'Arrived by Deep Strike' lock to bits I. E. It is no longer a consideration.
Both rules remove the disembarking restriction. That's all. Having two separate rules that both remove a specific restriction doesn't magically give you the ability to ignore a completely different restriction.
Exactly. It explicitly states that the berzerkers in the Kharybdis Assault Claw can assault after disembarking. This SPECIFIC rule overrides the general BRB restriction of not being able to assault after deep striking.
How does a rule that specifically refers to disembarking apply to deep striking?
OK I do understand what you are all saying about the restriction on assaulting after deep striking still applying. It just seems to me that the Hungry for Blood rule was written to override this restriction. Otherwise it's a pointless rule as it just doesn't allow anything the Assault Vehicle rule doesn't already allow.
I've already stated that Hungry for Blood was badly written but I'd therefore expect any FAQ to confirm that the berzerkers could indeed assault after deep striking. If I'm wrong then I'd accept that but then the Hungry for Blood rule really would then be pointless.
Welcome to GW rules writing. They sometimes write pointless rules, because (under Kirby atleast) the goal was to push as much product with as little quality required (now, I'm not saying it's entirely his fault, but his attitude influenced everything in the company)
Wolfblade wrote: Welcome to GW rules writing. They sometimes write pointless rules, because (under Kirby atleast) the goal was to push as much product with as little quality required (now, I'm not saying it's entirely his fault, but his attitude influenced everything in the company)
Like the Necron Obelisk's Gravity Pulse being able to force Swooping Monstrous Creatures to take a Dangerous Terrain Test, even though all of them would automatically pass it (not just ignore it, PASS it) because of their innate Move Through Cover?
mjl7atlas wrote: Except the hungry for blood rule specifically allows them to charge upon disembarking.
But does not specifically allow them to do so on the turn they arrive from reserve
More importantly, the formation would require them to be embarked in a battle brother transport which can't be done anymore.
You think two units from the same faction and even same detachment are treated as battle brothers?
The Berzerkers must have KDK faction and the Kharybdis is clearly stated to be from the CSM faction, can't really see how else it could be seen. There are other detachments that draw from multiple factions in the game too, the Dominus Maniple comes to mind first.
Lammikkovalas wrote: ... and the Kharybdis is clearly stated to be from the CSM faction...
I see where it states that a Kharybdis Assault Claw is a Heavy Support choice for an army created using a Space Marine Crusade army list or a Codex: Chaos Space Marines army. I see nothing stating its Faction.
Lammikkovalas wrote: ... and the Kharybdis is clearly stated to be from the CSM faction...
I see where it states that a Kharybdis Assault Claw is a Heavy Support choice for an army created using a Space Marine Crusade army list or a Codex: Chaos Space Marines army. I see nothing stating its Faction.
Lammikkovalas wrote: ... and the Kharybdis is clearly stated to be from the CSM faction...
I see where it states that a Kharybdis Assault Claw is a Heavy Support choice for an army created using a Space Marine Crusade army list or a Codex: Chaos Space Marines army. I see nothing stating its Faction.
That is stating its Faction right there.
No, it doesn't. The only rule that I can see for determining a unit's Faction are covered on page 118 of the main rulebook. The Kharybdis doesn't have a symbol on it's datasheet, it's not in a codex supplement and they don't state that the experimental rules are an addition to the Codex: Chaos Space Marines.
Lammikkovalas wrote: ... and the Kharybdis is clearly stated to be from the CSM faction...
I see where it states that a Kharybdis Assault Claw is a Heavy Support choice for an army created using a Space Marine Crusade army list or a Codex: Chaos Space Marines army. I see nothing stating its Faction.
ITs most resent rules are also in IA13 and it stats its for CSM faction
Lammikkovalas wrote: ... and the Kharybdis is clearly stated to be from the CSM faction...
I see where it states that a Kharybdis Assault Claw is a Heavy Support choice for an army created using a Space Marine Crusade army list or a Codex: Chaos Space Marines army. I see nothing stating its Faction.
That is stating its Faction right there.
No, it doesn't. The only rule that I can see for determining a unit's Faction are covered on page 118 of the main rulebook. The Kharybdis doesn't have a symbol on it's datasheet, it's not in a codex supplement and they don't state that the experimental rules are an addition to the Codex: Chaos Space Marines.
Yes, it is. This is how it is done with the old school army list entry on a data slate. This thing is way older than Datasheets.
I'd say the Assault Vehicle rule unlocks the 'Disembarked' lock. The Hungry for Blood rule just smashes the 'Arrived by Deep Strike' lock to bits I. E. It is no longer a consideration.
Both rules remove the disembarking restriction. That's all. Having two separate rules that both remove a specific restriction doesn't magically give you the ability to ignore a completely different restriction.
Exactly. It explicitly states that the berzerkers in the Kharybdis Assault Claw can assault after disembarking. This SPECIFIC rule overrides the general BRB restriction of not being able to assault after deep striking.
How does a rule that specifically refers to disembarking apply to deep striking?
OK I do understand what you are all saying about the restriction on assaulting after deep striking still applying. It just seems to me that the Hungry for Blood rule was written to override this restriction. Otherwise it's a pointless rule as it just doesn't allow anything the Assault Vehicle rule doesn't already allow.
I've already stated that Hungry for Blood was badly written but I'd therefore expect any FAQ to confirm that the berzerkers could indeed assault after deep striking. If I'm wrong then I'd accept that but then the Hungry for Blood rule really would then be pointless.
Welcome to GW rules writing. They sometimes write pointless rules, because (under Kirby atleast) the goal was to push as much product with as little quality required (now, I'm not saying it's entirely his fault, but his attitude influenced everything in the company)
I think you have to give the rules writers at least a bit of credit. It's one thing to specify a redundant piece of war gear for example but to write an entire rule with no effect just seems bizarre. I suppose I'll just have to wait for an FAQ which hopefully will resolve the situation.
I'd say the Assault Vehicle rule unlocks the 'Disembarked' lock. The Hungry for Blood rule just smashes the 'Arrived by Deep Strike' lock to bits I. E. It is no longer a consideration.
Both rules remove the disembarking restriction. That's all. Having two separate rules that both remove a specific restriction doesn't magically give you the ability to ignore a completely different restriction.
Exactly. It explicitly states that the berzerkers in the Kharybdis Assault Claw can assault after disembarking. This SPECIFIC rule overrides the general BRB restriction of not being able to assault after deep striking.
How does a rule that specifically refers to disembarking apply to deep striking?
OK I do understand what you are all saying about the restriction on assaulting after deep striking still applying. It just seems to me that the Hungry for Blood rule was written to override this restriction. Otherwise it's a pointless rule as it just doesn't allow anything the Assault Vehicle rule doesn't already allow.
I've already stated that Hungry for Blood was badly written but I'd therefore expect any FAQ to confirm that the berzerkers could indeed assault after deep striking. If I'm wrong then I'd accept that but then the Hungry for Blood rule really would then be pointless.
Welcome to GW rules writing. They sometimes write pointless rules, because (under Kirby atleast) the goal was to push as much product with as little quality required (now, I'm not saying it's entirely his fault, but his attitude influenced everything in the company)
I think you have to give the rules writers at least a bit of credit. It's one thing to specify a redundant piece of war gear for example but to write an entire rule with no effect just seems bizarre. I suppose I'll just have to wait for an FAQ which hopefully will resolve the situation.
You really don't, the game is filled with example of bad rules writing (massive imbalances, rules with unclear/debatable interpretations, and useless rules). I don't expect it to be perfect, but I do expect it to be somewhat balanced (i.e. where orks aren't pretty much much auto lose vs tau/eldar)
Tonberry, Eldar Wimndriders have the Battle Focus rule. Battle Focus allows you to Run and shoot in either order. Units that cannot run, cannot benefit from Battle Focus. Does this mean that GW intended to allow Eldar Jetbikes to Run? Or did they give them a rule that does nothing?
Happyjew wrote: Tonberry, Eldar Wimndriders have the Battle Focus rule. Battle Focus allows you to Run and shoot in either order. Units that cannot run, cannot benefit from Battle Focus. Does this mean that GW intended to allow Eldar Jetbikes to Run? Or did they give them a rule that does nothing?
They gave them a rule that does nothing but this is a very poor comparison. Several Eldar units have the battle focus rule but the Hungry for Blood rule was written specifically for the Fist of Khorne Formation. They probably just wrote battle focus as a codex wide rule then removed it from those units they absolutely didn't want to give it to, resulting in some weird interactions like you pointed out.
Happyjew wrote: Tonberry, Eldar Wimndriders have the Battle Focus rule. Battle Focus allows you to Run and shoot in either order. Units that cannot run, cannot benefit from Battle Focus. Does this mean that GW intended to allow Eldar Jetbikes to Run? Or did they give them a rule that does nothing?
They gave them a rule that does nothing but this is a very poor comparison. Several Eldar units have the battle focus rule but the Hungry for Blood rule was written specifically for the Fist of Khorne Formation. They probably just wrote battle focus as a codex wide rule then removed it from those units they absolutely didn't want to give it to, resulting in some weird interactions like you pointed out.
It's a decent comparison. Battle focus helps some units, but is useless for bikes. Hungry for Blood is great if you could start in say, a rhino.
Happyjew wrote: Tonberry, Eldar Wimndriders have the Battle Focus rule. Battle Focus allows you to Run and shoot in either order. Units that cannot run, cannot benefit from Battle Focus. Does this mean that GW intended to allow Eldar Jetbikes to Run? Or did they give them a rule that does nothing?
They gave them a rule that does nothing but this is a very poor comparison. Several Eldar units have the battle focus rule but the Hungry for Blood rule was written specifically for the Fist of Khorne Formation. They probably just wrote battle focus as a codex wide rule then removed it from those units they absolutely didn't want to give it to, resulting in some weird interactions like you pointed out.
It's a decent comparison. Battle focus helps some units, but is useless for bikes. Hungry for Blood is great if you could start in say, a rhino.
No it isn't. Hungry for Blood applies to one specific unit in one specific formation with only one option for the composition of that formation. And they can't start in a rhino so this point is irrelevant.
Happyjew wrote: Tonberry, Eldar Wimndriders have the Battle Focus rule. Battle Focus allows you to Run and shoot in either order. Units that cannot run, cannot benefit from Battle Focus. Does this mean that GW intended to allow Eldar Jetbikes to Run? Or did they give them a rule that does nothing?
They gave them a rule that does nothing but this is a very poor comparison. Several Eldar units have the battle focus rule but the Hungry for Blood rule was written specifically for the Fist of Khorne Formation. They probably just wrote battle focus as a codex wide rule then removed it from those units they absolutely didn't want to give it to, resulting in some weird interactions like you pointed out.
It's a decent comparison. Battle focus helps some units, but is useless for bikes. Hungry for Blood is great if you could start in say, a rhino.
No it isn't. Hungry for Blood applies to one specific unit in one specific formation with only one option for the composition of that formation. And they can't start in a rhino so this point is irrelevant.
Both are pointless rules as written, how is it NOT a decent comparison? And no, IF they could start in rhinos, the rule would be fine, which is why I said IF, but seeing as they can only deepstrike, the rule is worthless as it stands.
Happyjew wrote: Tonberry, Eldar Wimndriders have the Battle Focus rule. Battle Focus allows you to Run and shoot in either order. Units that cannot run, cannot benefit from Battle Focus. Does this mean that GW intended to allow Eldar Jetbikes to Run? Or did they give them a rule that does nothing?
They gave them a rule that does nothing but this is a very poor comparison. Several Eldar units have the battle focus rule but the Hungry for Blood rule was written specifically for the Fist of Khorne Formation. They probably just wrote battle focus as a codex wide rule then removed it from those units they absolutely didn't want to give it to, resulting in some weird interactions like you pointed out.
It's a decent comparison. Battle focus helps some units, but is useless for bikes. Hungry for Blood is great if you could start in say, a rhino.
No it isn't. Hungry for Blood applies to one specific unit in one specific formation with only one option for the composition of that formation. And they can't start in a rhino so this point is irrelevant.
Both are pointless rules as written, how is it NOT a decent comparison? And no, IF they could start in rhinos, the rule would be fine, which is why I said IF, but seeing as they can only deepstrike, the rule is worthless as it stands.
Well I've already explained twice but third time lucky and all that. Battle Focus was written as an army special rule applying to multiple units. Given GWs record it doesn't surprise me that there are oversights resulting in cases where the rule is effectively pointless.
But the Hungry for Blood rule was written for one specific unit in one specific formation. I find it much less likely in those circumstances that they would go ahead and publish it with it being effectively pointless.
Tonberry7 wrote: Well I've already explained twice but third time lucky and all that. Battle Focus was written as an army special rule applying to multiple units. Given GWs record it doesn't surprise me that there are oversights resulting in cases where the rule is effectively pointless.
But the Hungry for Blood rule was written for one specific unit in one specific formation. I find it much less likely in those circumstances that they would go ahead and publish it with it being effectively pointless.
Gravity Pulse affecting Swooping Creatures. They are specifically called out, yet still completely pointless.
Happyjew wrote: Tonberry, Eldar Wimndriders have the Battle Focus rule. Battle Focus allows you to Run and shoot in either order. Units that cannot run, cannot benefit from Battle Focus. Does this mean that GW intended to allow Eldar Jetbikes to Run? Or did they give them a rule that does nothing?
They gave them a rule that does nothing but this is a very poor comparison. Several Eldar units have the battle focus rule but the Hungry for Blood rule was written specifically for the Fist of Khorne Formation. They probably just wrote battle focus as a codex wide rule then removed it from those units they absolutely didn't want to give it to, resulting in some weird interactions like you pointed out.
It's a decent comparison. Battle focus helps some units, but is useless for bikes. Hungry for Blood is great if you could start in say, a rhino.
No it isn't. Hungry for Blood applies to one specific unit in one specific formation with only one option for the composition of that formation. And they can't start in a rhino so this point is irrelevant.
Both are pointless rules as written, how is it NOT a decent comparison? And no, IF they could start in rhinos, the rule would be fine, which is why I said IF, but seeing as they can only deepstrike, the rule is worthless as it stands.
Well I've already explained twice but third time lucky and all that. Battle Focus was written as an army special rule applying to multiple units. Given GWs record it doesn't surprise me that there are oversights resulting in cases where the rule is effectively pointless.
But the Hungry for Blood rule was written for one specific unit in one specific formation. I find it much less likely in those circumstances that they would go ahead and publish it with it being effectively pointless.
Then you still have too much faith in GW. Still a valid comparison though, in both cases you have a rule telling you, you can do something (run and shoot/shoot and run or assault after disembarking), but another restriction that prevents it (unit type jetbike or being unable to assault from reserve).
What does it matter if one is a codex wide rule (that's placed in each unit's entry...) vs a formation rule? None, it doesn't matter and saying it does is just grasping at straws to ignore that:
1. GW rules writing team is human, and might not have worked on EVERY set of rules in the game thus making a mistake here and
2. Have written plenty of unclear/terrible rules before (i.e. blasts, re-rolls, and preferred enemy before the FAQ draft, genestealer cult patty + psychic shriek and BS0, and as Charistoph pointed out, gravity pulse)
mjl7atlas wrote: Well it would seem that Gamesworkshop 40k seems to think they CAN assault 1st turn.
Some random Schmoe replying to a rules question has just about as much validity as using a magic 8-ball to answer that question...
There is nothing allowing them to assault after they arrive from reserve.
So at what point would you deem it official? The rule allowing them to assault is apparently to this board not a rule that allows them to do what it says it does. I have messaged FW,GW and emailed them and every single time they respond with the affirmative that they can.
mjl7atlas wrote: Well it would seem that Gamesworkshop 40k seems to think they CAN assault 1st turn.
Some random Schmoe replying to a rules question has just about as much validity as using a magic 8-ball to answer that question...
There is nothing allowing them to assault after they arrive from reserve.
So at what point would you deem it official?
That's what the FAQs are for.
mjl7atlas wrote: The rule allowing them to assault is apparently to this board not a rule that allows them to do what it says it does. I have messaged FW,GW and emailed them and every single time they respond with the affirmative that they can.
The rule does do what it says it does. The problem is you're trying to make it do more than what it says that it does.
mjl7atlas wrote: Well it would seem that Gamesworkshop 40k seems to think they CAN assault 1st turn.
Some random Schmoe replying to a rules question has just about as much validity as using a magic 8-ball to answer that question...
There is nothing allowing them to assault after they arrive from reserve.
So at what point would you deem it official?
When they release an FAQ, or in this case an errata, that says what the e-mail does.
The rule allowing them to assault is apparently to this board not a rule that allows them to do what it says it does. I have messaged FW,GW and emailed them and every single time they respond with the affirmative that they can.
No, The rule does exactly what it says it does, but nothing more.
The rule lifts the restriction on assaulting from a transport, but does not lift the restriction from assaulting from Reserves.
P.S. I have e-mailed GW in the past and I sent them the exact same E-mail three times and gotten a different answer each time.
Plus E-Mails can be faked (Not saying that happened here) and as such can not be relied upon.
Happyjew wrote: Tonberry, Eldar Wimndriders have the Battle Focus rule. Battle Focus allows you to Run and shoot in either order. Units that cannot run, cannot benefit from Battle Focus. Does this mean that GW intended to allow Eldar Jetbikes to Run? Or did they give them a rule that does nothing?
They gave them a rule that does nothing but this is a very poor comparison. Several Eldar units have the battle focus rule but the Hungry for Blood rule was written specifically for the Fist of Khorne Formation. They probably just wrote battle focus as a codex wide rule then removed it from those units they absolutely didn't want to give it to, resulting in some weird interactions like you pointed out.
It's a decent comparison. Battle focus helps some units, but is useless for bikes. Hungry for Blood is great if you could start in say, a rhino.
No it isn't. Hungry for Blood applies to one specific unit in one specific formation with only one option for the composition of that formation. And they can't start in a rhino so this point is irrelevant.
Both are pointless rules as written, how is it NOT a decent comparison? And no, IF they could start in rhinos, the rule would be fine, which is why I said IF, but seeing as they can only deepstrike, the rule is worthless as it stands.
Well I've already explained twice but third time lucky and all that. Battle Focus was written as an army special rule applying to multiple units. Given GWs record it doesn't surprise me that there are oversights resulting in cases where the rule is effectively pointless.
But the Hungry for Blood rule was written for one specific unit in one specific formation. I find it much less likely in those circumstances that they would go ahead and publish it with it being effectively pointless.
Then you still have too much faith in GW. Still a valid comparison though, in both cases you have a rule telling you, you can do something (run and shoot/shoot and run or assault after disembarking), but another restriction that prevents it (unit type jetbike or being unable to assault from reserve).
What does it matter if one is a codex wide rule (that's placed in each unit's entry...) vs a formation rule? None, it doesn't matter and saying it does is just grasping at straws to ignore that:
1. GW rules writing team is human, and might not have worked on EVERY set of rules in the game thus making a mistake here and
2. Have written plenty of unclear/terrible rules before (i.e. blasts, re-rolls, and preferred enemy before the FAQ draft, genestealer cult patty + psychic shriek and BS0, and as Charistoph pointed out, gravity pulse)
1. Obviously the writers of Hungry for Blood didn't work on EVERY rule in the game but i think you've missed the point yet again. I still find it hard to believe that the writers weren't aware of the Assault Vehicle rule and that the unit/formation specific rule that they were writing would be pointless if the intention was to essentially allow the same thing.
2. The instances you have mentioned weren't actually all that unclear if you just read the rules with common sense. The PE re-roll blasts one in particular was just clutching at straws by a vocal minority for some reason. The logic behind that argument was ridiculous and trying to play it that way would be borderline cheating imo. Thankfully the FAQs appear to be clarifying matters with the common sense explanations though. And since you have invoked the name of Christoph I believe he was wrong about both of those instances iirc. I'm not familiar with gravity pulse so can't comment at the moment.
Happyjew wrote: Tonberry, Eldar Wimndriders have the Battle Focus rule. Battle Focus allows you to Run and shoot in either order. Units that cannot run, cannot benefit from Battle Focus. Does this mean that GW intended to allow Eldar Jetbikes to Run? Or did they give them a rule that does nothing?
They gave them a rule that does nothing but this is a very poor comparison. Several Eldar units have the battle focus rule but the Hungry for Blood rule was written specifically for the Fist of Khorne Formation. They probably just wrote battle focus as a codex wide rule then removed it from those units they absolutely didn't want to give it to, resulting in some weird interactions like you pointed out.
It's a decent comparison. Battle focus helps some units, but is useless for bikes. Hungry for Blood is great if you could start in say, a rhino.
No it isn't. Hungry for Blood applies to one specific unit in one specific formation with only one option for the composition of that formation. And they can't start in a rhino so this point is irrelevant.
Both are pointless rules as written, how is it NOT a decent comparison? And no, IF they could start in rhinos, the rule would be fine, which is why I said IF, but seeing as they can only deepstrike, the rule is worthless as it stands.
Well I've already explained twice but third time lucky and all that. Battle Focus was written as an army special rule applying to multiple units. Given GWs record it doesn't surprise me that there are oversights resulting in cases where the rule is effectively pointless.
But the Hungry for Blood rule was written for one specific unit in one specific formation. I find it much less likely in those circumstances that they would go ahead and publish it with it being effectively pointless.
Then you still have too much faith in GW. Still a valid comparison though, in both cases you have a rule telling you, you can do something (run and shoot/shoot and run or assault after disembarking), but another restriction that prevents it (unit type jetbike or being unable to assault from reserve).
What does it matter if one is a codex wide rule (that's placed in each unit's entry...) vs a formation rule? None, it doesn't matter and saying it does is just grasping at straws to ignore that:
1. GW rules writing team is human, and might not have worked on EVERY set of rules in the game thus making a mistake here and
2. Have written plenty of unclear/terrible rules before (i.e. blasts, re-rolls, and preferred enemy before the FAQ draft, genestealer cult patty + psychic shriek and BS0, and as Charistoph pointed out, gravity pulse)
1. Obviously the writers of Hungry for Blood didn't work on EVERY rule in the game but i think you've missed the point yet again. I still find it hard to believe that the writers weren't aware of the Assault Vehicle rule and that the unit/formation specific rule that they were writing would be pointless if the intention was to essentially allow the same thing.
2. The instances you have mentioned weren't actually all that unclear if you just read the rules with common sense. The PE re-roll blasts one in particular was just clutching at straws by a vocal minority for some reason. The logic behind that argument was ridiculous and trying to play it that way would be borderline cheating imo. Thankfully the FAQs appear to be clarifying matters with the common sense explanations though. And since you have invoked the name of Christoph I believe he was wrong about both of those instances iirc. I'm not familiar with gravity pulse so can't comment at the moment.
1. Again, it doesn't matter what you THINK of the writers, the proof is there. They messed up. Otherwise answer this: if the disembark, can they run and assault too? There's just as much permission given for that as there is for assaulting from reserves/deepstrike.
2. Blasts resolving scatter simply required the ability to reroll to hit, PE grants rerolls to hit, nothing is mentioned of how good the reroll needs to be. Therefore RAW, PE would grant rerolls to blasts, but this was apparently not RAI however, so it was fixed with the upcoming FAQ.
3. You missed the point. Again. I pointed out examples of bad rules writing and you're just hand waving them away. Believe it or not, the proof is there RAI or not (hopefully not), Hungry for Blood IS a useless rule currently. Also, what's Charistoph's previous thoughts on RAW got to do with this? I was literally just adding what he mentioned to the list of poorly written rules.
4. Play it how you want, but any way you play it other than RAW is a house rule, which only matters if you're planning on using it in a tourney.
PE Reroll blasts followed the rules precisely. No straw clutching required. Your argument required changing the word "ability" to mean something else than it does.
Gravity pulse requires FMC to take a dangerous terrain test. They automatically pass it. Do you think they knew about MCs auto passing dangerous terrain tests? the rule LITERALLY DOES NOTHING to FMCs, and is VERY specific
So, answer for the 4th time: does it allow them to Run and Charge? What was the interntion? Is it at all specififc, or is this your misunderstanding of the meaning of the word "specifc" again?
Happyjew wrote: Tonberry, Eldar Wimndriders have the Battle Focus rule. Battle Focus allows you to Run and shoot in either order. Units that cannot run, cannot benefit from Battle Focus. Does this mean that GW intended to allow Eldar Jetbikes to Run? Or did they give them a rule that does nothing?
They gave them a rule that does nothing but this is a very poor comparison. Several Eldar units have the battle focus rule but the Hungry for Blood rule was written specifically for the Fist of Khorne Formation. They probably just wrote battle focus as a codex wide rule then removed it from those units they absolutely didn't want to give it to, resulting in some weird interactions like you pointed out.
It's a decent comparison. Battle focus helps some units, but is useless for bikes. Hungry for Blood is great if you could start in say, a rhino.
No it isn't. Hungry for Blood applies to one specific unit in one specific formation with only one option for the composition of that formation. And they can't start in a rhino so this point is irrelevant.
Both are pointless rules as written, how is it NOT a decent comparison? And no, IF they could start in rhinos, the rule would be fine, which is why I said IF, but seeing as they can only deepstrike, the rule is worthless as it stands.
Well I've already explained twice but third time lucky and all that. Battle Focus was written as an army special rule applying to multiple units. Given GWs record it doesn't surprise me that there are oversights resulting in cases where the rule is effectively pointless.
But the Hungry for Blood rule was written for one specific unit in one specific formation. I find it much less likely in those circumstances that they would go ahead and publish it with it being effectively pointless.
Then you still have too much faith in GW. Still a valid comparison though, in both cases you have a rule telling you, you can do something (run and shoot/shoot and run or assault after disembarking), but another restriction that prevents it (unit type jetbike or being unable to assault from reserve).
What does it matter if one is a codex wide rule (that's placed in each unit's entry...) vs a formation rule? None, it doesn't matter and saying it does is just grasping at straws to ignore that:
1. GW rules writing team is human, and might not have worked on EVERY set of rules in the game thus making a mistake here and
2. Have written plenty of unclear/terrible rules before (i.e. blasts, re-rolls, and preferred enemy before the FAQ draft, genestealer cult patty + psychic shriek and BS0, and as Charistoph pointed out, gravity pulse)
1. Obviously the writers of Hungry for Blood didn't work on EVERY rule in the game but i think you've missed the point yet again. I still find it hard to believe that the writers weren't aware of the Assault Vehicle rule and that the unit/formation specific rule that they were writing would be pointless if the intention was to essentially allow the same thing.
2. The instances you have mentioned weren't actually all that unclear if you just read the rules with common sense. The PE re-roll blasts one in particular was just clutching at straws by a vocal minority for some reason. The logic behind that argument was ridiculous and trying to play it that way would be borderline cheating imo. Thankfully the FAQs appear to be clarifying matters with the common sense explanations though. And since you have invoked the name of Christoph I believe he was wrong about both of those instances iirc. I'm not familiar with gravity pulse so can't comment at the moment.
1. Again, it doesn't matter what you THINK of the writers, the proof is there. They messed up. Otherwise answer this: if the disembark, can they run and assault too? There's just as much permission given for that as there is for assaulting from reserves/deepstrike.
2. Blasts resolving scatter simply required the ability to reroll to hit, PE grants rerolls to hit, nothing is mentioned of how good the reroll needs to be. Therefore RAW, PE would grant rerolls to blasts, but this was apparently not RAI however, so it was fixed with the upcoming FAQ.
3. You missed the point. Again. I pointed out examples of bad rules writing and you're just hand waving them away. Believe it or not, the proof is there RAI or not (hopefully not), Hungry for Blood IS a useless rule currently. Also, what's Charistoph's previous thoughts on RAW got to do with this? I was literally just adding what he mentioned to the list of poorly written rules.
4. Play it how you want, but any way you play it other than RAW is a house rule, which only matters if you're planning on using it in a tourney.
I think I'll play it according to the FAQ which allows a Turn 1 charge by the bezerkers.
It doesn't seem worth refuting any of your points above now.
Q: Under the Hungry for Blood special rule, are the Berzerkers in the Fist of Khorne Formation allowed to charge in turn one, or from turn two, when they disembark?
A: The Berzerkers can charge on the same turn they disembark, regardless of which turn that is.
Happyjew wrote: Tonberry, Eldar Wimndriders have the Battle Focus rule. Battle Focus allows you to Run and shoot in either order. Units that cannot run, cannot benefit from Battle Focus. Does this mean that GW intended to allow Eldar Jetbikes to Run? Or did they give them a rule that does nothing?
They gave them a rule that does nothing but this is a very poor comparison. Several Eldar units have the battle focus rule but the Hungry for Blood rule was written specifically for the Fist of Khorne Formation. They probably just wrote battle focus as a codex wide rule then removed it from those units they absolutely didn't want to give it to, resulting in some weird interactions like you pointed out.
It's a decent comparison. Battle focus helps some units, but is useless for bikes. Hungry for Blood is great if you could start in say, a rhino.
No it isn't. Hungry for Blood applies to one specific unit in one specific formation with only one option for the composition of that formation. And they can't start in a rhino so this point is irrelevant.
Both are pointless rules as written, how is it NOT a decent comparison? And no, IF they could start in rhinos, the rule would be fine, which is why I said IF, but seeing as they can only deepstrike, the rule is worthless as it stands.
Well I've already explained twice but third time lucky and all that. Battle Focus was written as an army special rule applying to multiple units. Given GWs record it doesn't surprise me that there are oversights resulting in cases where the rule is effectively pointless.
But the Hungry for Blood rule was written for one specific unit in one specific formation. I find it much less likely in those circumstances that they would go ahead and publish it with it being effectively pointless.
Then you still have too much faith in GW. Still a valid comparison though, in both cases you have a rule telling you, you can do something (run and shoot/shoot and run or assault after disembarking), but another restriction that prevents it (unit type jetbike or being unable to assault from reserve).
What does it matter if one is a codex wide rule (that's placed in each unit's entry...) vs a formation rule? None, it doesn't matter and saying it does is just grasping at straws to ignore that:
1. GW rules writing team is human, and might not have worked on EVERY set of rules in the game thus making a mistake here and
2. Have written plenty of unclear/terrible rules before (i.e. blasts, re-rolls, and preferred enemy before the FAQ draft, genestealer cult patty + psychic shriek and BS0, and as Charistoph pointed out, gravity pulse)
1. Obviously the writers of Hungry for Blood didn't work on EVERY rule in the game but i think you've missed the point yet again. I still find it hard to believe that the writers weren't aware of the Assault Vehicle rule and that the unit/formation specific rule that they were writing would be pointless if the intention was to essentially allow the same thing.
2. The instances you have mentioned weren't actually all that unclear if you just read the rules with common sense. The PE re-roll blasts one in particular was just clutching at straws by a vocal minority for some reason. The logic behind that argument was ridiculous and trying to play it that way would be borderline cheating imo. Thankfully the FAQs appear to be clarifying matters with the common sense explanations though. And since you have invoked the name of Christoph I believe he was wrong about both of those instances iirc. I'm not familiar with gravity pulse so can't comment at the moment.
1. Again, it doesn't matter what you THINK of the writers, the proof is there. They messed up. Otherwise answer this: if the disembark, can they run and assault too? There's just as much permission given for that as there is for assaulting from reserves/deepstrike.
2. Blasts resolving scatter simply required the ability to reroll to hit, PE grants rerolls to hit, nothing is mentioned of how good the reroll needs to be. Therefore RAW, PE would grant rerolls to blasts, but this was apparently not RAI however, so it was fixed with the upcoming FAQ.
3. You missed the point. Again. I pointed out examples of bad rules writing and you're just hand waving them away. Believe it or not, the proof is there RAI or not (hopefully not), Hungry for Blood IS a useless rule currently. Also, what's Charistoph's previous thoughts on RAW got to do with this? I was literally just adding what he mentioned to the list of poorly written rules.
4. Play it how you want, but any way you play it other than RAW is a house rule, which only matters if you're planning on using it in a tourney.
I think I'll play it according to the FAQ which allows a Turn 1 charge by the bezerkers.
It doesn't seem worth refuting any of your points above now.
And yet, nothing allows assaulting from reserves/deepstrike BOTH of which prevent assaulting.
Again, congrats, you STILL only have permission to assault after disembarking... which does not include assaulting after you run, deepstrike/enter from reserve, etc.
edit: Oh, and will you answer the "run + assault" question already? Or do you know the answer to the question makes your argument fall apart?
Happyjew wrote: Tonberry, Eldar Wimndriders have the Battle Focus rule. Battle Focus allows you to Run and shoot in either order. Units that cannot run, cannot benefit from Battle Focus. Does this mean that GW intended to allow Eldar Jetbikes to Run? Or did they give them a rule that does nothing?
They gave them a rule that does nothing but this is a very poor comparison. Several Eldar units have the battle focus rule but the Hungry for Blood rule was written specifically for the Fist of Khorne Formation. They probably just wrote battle focus as a codex wide rule then removed it from those units they absolutely didn't want to give it to, resulting in some weird interactions like you pointed out.
It's a decent comparison. Battle focus helps some units, but is useless for bikes. Hungry for Blood is great if you could start in say, a rhino.
No it isn't. Hungry for Blood applies to one specific unit in one specific formation with only one option for the composition of that formation. And they can't start in a rhino so this point is irrelevant.
Both are pointless rules as written, how is it NOT a decent comparison? And no, IF they could start in rhinos, the rule would be fine, which is why I said IF, but seeing as they can only deepstrike, the rule is worthless as it stands.
Well I've already explained twice but third time lucky and all that. Battle Focus was written as an army special rule applying to multiple units. Given GWs record it doesn't surprise me that there are oversights resulting in cases where the rule is effectively pointless.
But the Hungry for Blood rule was written for one specific unit in one specific formation. I find it much less likely in those circumstances that they would go ahead and publish it with it being effectively pointless.
Then you still have too much faith in GW. Still a valid comparison though, in both cases you have a rule telling you, you can do something (run and shoot/shoot and run or assault after disembarking), but another restriction that prevents it (unit type jetbike or being unable to assault from reserve).
What does it matter if one is a codex wide rule (that's placed in each unit's entry...) vs a formation rule? None, it doesn't matter and saying it does is just grasping at straws to ignore that:
1. GW rules writing team is human, and might not have worked on EVERY set of rules in the game thus making a mistake here and
2. Have written plenty of unclear/terrible rules before (i.e. blasts, re-rolls, and preferred enemy before the FAQ draft, genestealer cult patty + psychic shriek and BS0, and as Charistoph pointed out, gravity pulse)
1. Obviously the writers of Hungry for Blood didn't work on EVERY rule in the game but i think you've missed the point yet again. I still find it hard to believe that the writers weren't aware of the Assault Vehicle rule and that the unit/formation specific rule that they were writing would be pointless if the intention was to essentially allow the same thing.
2. The instances you have mentioned weren't actually all that unclear if you just read the rules with common sense. The PE re-roll blasts one in particular was just clutching at straws by a vocal minority for some reason. The logic behind that argument was ridiculous and trying to play it that way would be borderline cheating imo. Thankfully the FAQs appear to be clarifying matters with the common sense explanations though. And since you have invoked the name of Christoph I believe he was wrong about both of those instances iirc. I'm not familiar with gravity pulse so can't comment at the moment.
1. Again, it doesn't matter what you THINK of the writers, the proof is there. They messed up. Otherwise answer this: if the disembark, can they run and assault too? There's just as much permission given for that as there is for assaulting from reserves/deepstrike.
2. Blasts resolving scatter simply required the ability to reroll to hit, PE grants rerolls to hit, nothing is mentioned of how good the reroll needs to be. Therefore RAW, PE would grant rerolls to blasts, but this was apparently not RAI however, so it was fixed with the upcoming FAQ.
3. You missed the point. Again. I pointed out examples of bad rules writing and you're just hand waving them away. Believe it or not, the proof is there RAI or not (hopefully not), Hungry for Blood IS a useless rule currently. Also, what's Charistoph's previous thoughts on RAW got to do with this? I was literally just adding what he mentioned to the list of poorly written rules.
4. Play it how you want, but any way you play it other than RAW is a house rule, which only matters if you're planning on using it in a tourney.
I think I'll play it according to the FAQ which allows a Turn 1 charge by the bezerkers.
It doesn't seem worth refuting any of your points above now.
And yet, nothing allows assaulting from reserves/deepstrike BOTH of which prevent assaulting.
Again, congrats, you STILL only have permission to assault after disembarking... which does not include assaulting after you run, deepstrike/enter from reserve, etc.
edit: Oh, and will you answer the "run + assault" question already? Or do you know the answer to the question makes your argument fall apart?
I appreciate that you're probably a little upset that the FAQ has rendered your entire argument irrelevant but is it really worth continuing to argue the point?
The FAQ gives the berzerkers explicit permission to charge on Turn 1, when they also must have arrived via deep strike in that turn. Remember if there's a conflict it's codex>BRB.
Just accept it and move on. Or don't, I really don't care.
Happyjew wrote: Tonberry, Eldar Wimndriders have the Battle Focus rule. Battle Focus allows you to Run and shoot in either order. Units that cannot run, cannot benefit from Battle Focus. Does this mean that GW intended to allow Eldar Jetbikes to Run? Or did they give them a rule that does nothing?
They gave them a rule that does nothing but this is a very poor comparison. Several Eldar units have the battle focus rule but the Hungry for Blood rule was written specifically for the Fist of Khorne Formation. They probably just wrote battle focus as a codex wide rule then removed it from those units they absolutely didn't want to give it to, resulting in some weird interactions like you pointed out.
It's a decent comparison. Battle focus helps some units, but is useless for bikes. Hungry for Blood is great if you could start in say, a rhino.
No it isn't. Hungry for Blood applies to one specific unit in one specific formation with only one option for the composition of that formation. And they can't start in a rhino so this point is irrelevant.
Both are pointless rules as written, how is it NOT a decent comparison? And no, IF they could start in rhinos, the rule would be fine, which is why I said IF, but seeing as they can only deepstrike, the rule is worthless as it stands.
Well I've already explained twice but third time lucky and all that. Battle Focus was written as an army special rule applying to multiple units. Given GWs record it doesn't surprise me that there are oversights resulting in cases where the rule is effectively pointless.
But the Hungry for Blood rule was written for one specific unit in one specific formation. I find it much less likely in those circumstances that they would go ahead and publish it with it being effectively pointless.
Then you still have too much faith in GW. Still a valid comparison though, in both cases you have a rule telling you, you can do something (run and shoot/shoot and run or assault after disembarking), but another restriction that prevents it (unit type jetbike or being unable to assault from reserve).
What does it matter if one is a codex wide rule (that's placed in each unit's entry...) vs a formation rule? None, it doesn't matter and saying it does is just grasping at straws to ignore that:
1. GW rules writing team is human, and might not have worked on EVERY set of rules in the game thus making a mistake here and
2. Have written plenty of unclear/terrible rules before (i.e. blasts, re-rolls, and preferred enemy before the FAQ draft, genestealer cult patty + psychic shriek and BS0, and as Charistoph pointed out, gravity pulse)
1. Obviously the writers of Hungry for Blood didn't work on EVERY rule in the game but i think you've missed the point yet again. I still find it hard to believe that the writers weren't aware of the Assault Vehicle rule and that the unit/formation specific rule that they were writing would be pointless if the intention was to essentially allow the same thing.
2. The instances you have mentioned weren't actually all that unclear if you just read the rules with common sense. The PE re-roll blasts one in particular was just clutching at straws by a vocal minority for some reason. The logic behind that argument was ridiculous and trying to play it that way would be borderline cheating imo. Thankfully the FAQs appear to be clarifying matters with the common sense explanations though. And since you have invoked the name of Christoph I believe he was wrong about both of those instances iirc. I'm not familiar with gravity pulse so can't comment at the moment.
1. Again, it doesn't matter what you THINK of the writers, the proof is there. They messed up. Otherwise answer this: if the disembark, can they run and assault too? There's just as much permission given for that as there is for assaulting from reserves/deepstrike.
2. Blasts resolving scatter simply required the ability to reroll to hit, PE grants rerolls to hit, nothing is mentioned of how good the reroll needs to be. Therefore RAW, PE would grant rerolls to blasts, but this was apparently not RAI however, so it was fixed with the upcoming FAQ.
3. You missed the point. Again. I pointed out examples of bad rules writing and you're just hand waving them away. Believe it or not, the proof is there RAI or not (hopefully not), Hungry for Blood IS a useless rule currently. Also, what's Charistoph's previous thoughts on RAW got to do with this? I was literally just adding what he mentioned to the list of poorly written rules.
4. Play it how you want, but any way you play it other than RAW is a house rule, which only matters if you're planning on using it in a tourney.
I think I'll play it according to the FAQ which allows a Turn 1 charge by the bezerkers.
It doesn't seem worth refuting any of your points above now.
And yet, nothing allows assaulting from reserves/deepstrike BOTH of which prevent assaulting.
Again, congrats, you STILL only have permission to assault after disembarking... which does not include assaulting after you run, deepstrike/enter from reserve, etc.
edit: Oh, and will you answer the "run + assault" question already? Or do you know the answer to the question makes your argument fall apart?
I appreciate that you're probably a little upset that the FAQ has rendered your entire argument irrelevant but is it really worth continuing to argue the point?
The FAQ gives the berzerkers explicit permission to charge on Turn 1, when they also must have arrived via deep strike in that turn. Remember if there's a conflict it's codex>BRB.
Just accept it and move on. Or don't, I really don't care.
It gives them permission to charge... after disembarking, nothing about deepstrike, reserves, or running.
Or are you trying to say that yes, they can charge after running.
My problem with the FAQ is that it didn't clear anything up. They already could charge turn 1 if it wasn't for the restriction on assaulting from reserves/deepstrike.
It's also quite a stretch to say this now covers deep strike. Like your opinion on PE and blasts.
.. the faq explicitly says you can charge turn 1, which can only be the turn you arrive via deep strike? This is not a stretch, it is a direct statement from the rules writers.
The rule was badly written- Agreed. The FAQ hasn't quite grasped the problem- Agreed.
It is still explicitly clear that you can charge T1 after arriving from deep strike. Lets move on.
And no, it wouldn't give permission after running, as that has nothing to do with the turn you disembark.
The turn you disembark has nothing to do with the restriction on assaulting after arriving from reserves, either. Yet the claim is that, despite at best being implicit I, this is saying you can assault having arrived from reserves.
Running has as much to do with disembarking as arriving from reserves. This faq still states, explicitly, they can charge turn one. Under the contention that Reserves fails to prevent this, it cannot also prevent someone running and charging, as long as they disembarked. They are utterly equivalent.
Sorry for the naysayers, the FAQ is very clear. Perhaps not as clear as you'd want the answer to be for your own satisfaction, but (as before) the berzerkers can charge on the same turn they arrive from reserve.
It's over now. I will leave the miserable lot to debate it further, but neener neener neener. You lose.
Wolf_in_Human_Shape wrote: Sorry for the naysayers, the FAQ is very clear. Perhaps not as clear as you'd want the answer to be for your own satisfaction, but (as before) the berzerkers can charge on the same turn they arrive from reserve.
It's over now. I will leave the miserable lot to debate it further, but neener neener neener. You lose.
Riiiight, because clarifying literally nothing is "very clear". The fact we're stil having this discussion means they were SUPER CLEAR, right? The fact they didn't just say "errata, add/replace hjungry for blood with: 'May charge the turn the disembark and/or deepstrike/enter from reserves even though normally not allowed to'." couldn't possibly be any clearer right?
mjl7atlas wrote: Well it would seem that Gamesworkshop 40k seems to think they CAN assault 1st turn.
Some random Schmoe replying to a rules question has just about as much validity as using a magic 8-ball to answer that question...
There is nothing allowing them to assault after they arrive from reserve.
So at what point would you deem it official?
That's what the FAQs are for.
mjl7atlas wrote: The rule allowing them to assault is apparently to this board not a rule that allows them to do what it says it does. I have messaged FW,GW and emailed them and every single time they respond with the affirmative that they can.
The rule does do what it says it does. The problem is you're trying to make it do more than what it says that it does.
Except I wasn't adding anything more as you implied, I was using the rule provided. See the FAQ from GW or I'm sure that won't be good enough either right?
Wolf_in_Human_Shape wrote: Sorry for the naysayers, the FAQ is very clear. Perhaps not as clear as you'd want the answer to be for your own satisfaction, but (as before) the berzerkers can charge on the same turn they arrive from reserve.
It's over now. I will leave the miserable lot to debate it further, but neener neener neener. You lose.
No, it is not very clear, partially because it isn't on the official document yet. It was also asking one question, but did not provide the full parameters of the question, and these people tend to forget or not include parameters that are not included in the question. Namely, Deep Strike/Reserves was never mentioned in that "FAQ" itself, in addition, the unit Embarked in the Claw is not required to Disembark when it does arrive.
If they errata this rule, great, but until then, it does not mean what some people seems to think it means.
Wolf_in_Human_Shape wrote: Sorry for the naysayers, the FAQ is very clear. Perhaps not as clear as you'd want the answer to be for your own satisfaction, but (as before) the berzerkers can charge on the same turn they arrive from reserve.
It's over now. I will leave the miserable lot to debate it further, but neener neener neener. You lose.
No, it is not very clear, partially because it isn't on the official document yet. It was also asking one question, but did not provide the full parameters of the question, and these people tend to forget or not include parameters that are not included in the question. Namely, Deep Strike/Reserves was never mentioned in that "FAQ" itself, in addition, the unit Embarked in the Claw is not required to Disembark when it does arrive.
If they errata this rule, great, but until then, it does not mean what some people seems to think it means.
Except it does mean what some people think it means. Those people include GW, FW, and people like me who understand what assault on the turn they disembark means. It's almost as If some people are willfully mad at the rule and want to stick their head in the sand and cry about it.
The problem people have with the FAQ is that it asked the wrong question, not that it gave an answer they didn't like.
There is no restriction on a turn 1 charge. So a FAQ saying the rule is not effected by a restriction that doesn't exist hardly clarifies the question people really have which is does the rule override the Deep Strike restriction on a charge.
Yes, it's clear that they can charge on the same turn that they disembark , regardless of the turn. Now please point out where it says they can charge the same turn that they disembark regardless of deep striking that turn, because that's the problem. Its not what turn it is, but because the rules disallow you from charging in the turn you arrive via deep strike.
The RAW hasn't been changed. By the RAW, the rule does nothing, and the FAQ didn't fix that. But the RAI seems like it was cleared up. It really does seem like they meant to say they can assault on the turn their transport arrives from Deep Strike, but they just messed up saying it.
Someone has already brought this up in the comments on Facebook, so expect it to be changed to that when the official (ie not-draft) version of the FAQs shows up.
Yes, it's clear that they can charge on the same turn that they disembark , regardless of the turn. Now please point out where it says they can charge the same turn that they disembark regardless of deep striking that turn, because that's the problem. Its not what turn it is, but because the rules disallow you from charging in the turn you arrive via deep strike.
Now you're just trolling. You just said that they CAN charge on the turn that they disembark regardless of the turn. Then you turn and try to counter argue that that's not what it means because it doesn't fit your narrative on how you think "regardless of turn" means. lol
Yes, it's clear that they can charge on the same turn that they disembark , regardless of the turn. Now please point out where it says they can charge the same turn that they disembark regardless of deep striking that turn, because that's the problem. Its not what turn it is, but because the rules disallow you from charging in the turn you arrive via deep strike.
Now you're just trolling. You just said that they CAN charge on the turn that they disembark regardless of the turn. Then you turn and try to counter argue that that's not what it means because it doesn't fit your narrative on how you think "regardless of turn" means. lol
think about that.
"regardless of TURN" Does turn mean deepstrike? No. It means their RAI is that you can assault after deepstrike BUT RAI is not RAW.
Literally all they need to do is what I suggested above ("May charge the turn the disembark and/or deepstrike/enter play from reserves even though normally not allowed to") and it'll solve everything. Gets the turns RAI into RAW, everyone is happy.
Edit: I brought it up on the comments in facebook, hopefully they'll see it and fix it.
Yes, it's clear that they can charge on the same turn that they disembark , regardless of the turn. Now please point out where it says they can charge the same turn that they disembark regardless of deep striking that turn, because that's the problem. Its not what turn it is, but because the rules disallow you from charging in the turn you arrive via deep strike.
Now you're just trolling. You just said that they CAN charge on the turn that they disembark regardless of the turn. Then you turn and try to counter argue that that's not what it means because it doesn't fit your narrative on how you think "regardless of turn" means. lol
Yes. The problem is the turn is not the reason they can't charge, is it? How many times does that need to be repeated?
Yes. The problem is the turn is not the reason they can't charge, is it?
Technically no... however (and while I'm normally a rather loud proponent for clarity and specificity in rules), in this case, we have an FAQ entry about one specific unit's abilties that, while not as specific as it ideally should be, is, IMO, clear enough about what they meant.
They're given explicit permission to assault after disembarking, regardless of which turn that occurs in. The only way that this specific entity could be disembarking in turn 1 (a turn in which they are given explicit permission to assault after disembarking) is if they deep strike and disembark that turn.
It could (and IMOshould be clearer... but it sufficiently addresses the point in this specific case, I think.
If they had access to a transport that doesn't Deep Strike, then the FAQ would be insufficient.
mjl7atlas wrote: "Any turn" DOES in fact mean "ANY" turn. Not "any" turn "except", it means "ANY"! Why is this such a hard concept to grasp?
Because ordinarily, a rule granting permission to do something on any turn would be trumped by a more specific rule that forbids you from doing something on a turn in which specific conditions apply.
Basic rule of thumb with game rules - the more specific rule always wins.
So in just about any other example, the fact that they are given permission to assault after disembarking on any turn would be insufficient to trump the rule that forbids them from assaulting on a turn in which they deep strike... The rule that applies to that specific turn takes precedence over a blanket rule that applies to 'any' turn.
The only reason that the FAQ works in this case is that the question was so specific to that unit and there is simply no other way for the response to apply.
Yes. The problem is the turn is not the reason they can't charge, is it?
Technically no... however (and while I'm normally a rather loud proponent for clarity and specificity in rules), in this case, we have an FAQ entry about one specific unit's abilties that, while not as specific as it ideally should be, is, IMO, clear enough about what they meant.
They're given explicit permission to assault after disembarking, regardless of which turn that occurs in. The only way that this specific entity could be disembarking in turn 1 (a turn in which they are given explicit permission to assault after disembarking) is if they deep strike and disembark that turn.
It could (and IMOshould be clearer... but it sufficiently addresses the point in this specific case, I think.
If they had access to a transport that doesn't Deep Strike, then the FAQ would be insufficient.
The trouble is with GW's track record of what is seemingly perfectly clear rules and then changing them If we can't trust GW to say what they mean when the rule is clearly written, its hard to trust them when its a bit ambiguous.
mjl7atlas wrote:"Any turn" DOES in fact mean "ANY" turn. Not "any" turn "except", it means "ANY"! Why is this such a hard concept to grasp?
It still seems you haven't grasped the concept of what is preventing the charge, and it has absolutrely NOTHING to do with the game turn.
GW's intention is to allow them to charge after reserves.
but RAW they are not allowed, since none of their special rules specifically allows them to ignore the not-allowed-to-assault-after-reserve rule. not even the FAQ.
would i allow em to charge first turn? YES.
do i have to? NO.
mjl7atlas wrote: "Any turn" DOES in fact mean "ANY" turn. Not "any" turn "except", it means "ANY"! Why is this such a hard concept to grasp?
What rule prevents assaulting first turn? Nothing. What's preventing assaulting is the fact they entered play from reserves/deepstrike. Turn has nothing to do with it. So yeah, they can disembnark ANY turn and assault, assuming they have no other restrictions against assaulting (i.e. if they run, enter from reserves/deepstrike...)
mjl7atlas wrote: "Any turn" DOES in fact mean "ANY" turn. Not "any" turn "except", it means "ANY"! Why is this such a hard concept to grasp?
Because, and this is the clue, there is no restriction on charging turn 1. Or turn 2
So allowing them to charge, not caring about the turn number, simply means nothing
Now if it said "they can charge on the turn they arrive by deepstrike" now THAT *specifically* talks about the restriction that needs to be lifted, i.e. charging after arriving by deepstrike.
Hrmmm, Let's try presenting it this way, here is a list of potential (but not full list) reasons a unit can be restricted from Assaulting:
Unit has disembarked from a Transport
Unit has Infiltrated
Unit has Run in the shooting phase
Unit has shot a heavy weapon
Unit has arrived from Deep Strike Reserves
Unit has performed a Scout redeploy
Unit has changed Flight modes
Note: Turn 1 is not listed as one of these restrictions because there is no such rule.
Now, let's pretend a unit has Arrived from Deep Strike reserves in a transport, Disembarked said transport, then ran in the shooting phase all in Turn 1.
Here is what the active and inactive Restrictions for the charge would look like:
Active Unit has disembarked from a Transport
Unit has Run in the shooting phase
Unit has arrived from Deep Strike Reserves
Inactive Unit has Infiltrated
Unit has shot a heavy weapon
Unit has performed a Scout redeploy
Unit has changed Flight modes
Now we have a rule that says we can charge after we have disembarked from a transport. Here is how that list changes
Active Unit has Run in the shooting phase
Unit has arrived from Deep Strike Reserves
Inactive Unit has disembarked from a Transport
Unit has Infiltrated
Unit has shot a heavy weapon
Unit has performed a Scout redeploy
Unit has changed Flight modes
Notice despite the rule for disembarking, we still have two active restrictions on the charge. This is the problem with the FAQ just addressing the fact that the rule works on Turn 1 and any turn for that matter. We already know this, and everyone in this debate agrees with that ruling.
The FAQ is correct, the turn has no effect on whether or not you can lift the disembarking restriction via Hungry for Blood. That does not mean that other restrictions can be ignored.
Yes. The problem is the turn is not the reason they can't charge, is it?
Technically no... however (and while I'm normally a rather loud proponent for clarity and specificity in rules), in this case, we have an FAQ entry about one specific unit's abilties that, while not as specific as it ideally should be, is, IMO, clear enough about what they meant.
They're given explicit permission to assault after disembarking, regardless of which turn that occurs in. The only way that this specific entity could be disembarking in turn 1 (a turn in which they are given explicit permission to assault after disembarking) is if they deep strike and disembark that turn.
It could (and IMOshould be clearer... but it sufficiently addresses the point in this specific case, I think.
If they had access to a transport that doesn't Deep Strike, then the FAQ would be insufficient.
The trouble is with GW's track record of what is seemingly perfectly clear rules and then changing them If we can't trust GW to say what they mean when the rule is clearly written, its hard to trust them when its a bit ambiguous.
mjl7atlas wrote:"Any turn" DOES in fact mean "ANY" turn. Not "any" turn "except", it means "ANY"! Why is this such a hard concept to grasp?
It still seems you haven't grasped the concept of what is preventing the charge, and it has absolutrely NOTHING to do with the game turn.
It still seems you haven't grasped the concept that the special rule bypasses your desperate grab to cling to some turn order requirement. The rule doesn't care what turn it is. The rule doesn't care first turn, second turn, third turn, etc. The rule states that it allows a charge after disembarking. If there is a rule the prohibits them from disembarking turn one, then you win the prize. Otherwise the rule over rides the BRB and is also the clear purpose from GW/FW as indicated by the FAQ specific mention, my screen shot replies and email responses I have posted. Go ahead and call them fakes if you want, but this is the kind of bs that makes people not want to play this game.
It still seems you haven't grasped the concept that the special rule bypasses your desperate grab to cling to some turn order requirement. The rule doesn't care what turn it is. The rule doesn't care first turn, second turn, third turn, etc. The rule states that it allows a charge after disembarking. If there is a rule the prohibits them from disembarking turn one, then you win the prize. Otherwise the rule over rides the BRB and is also the clear purpose from GW/FW as indicated by the FAQ specific mention, my screen shot replies and email responses I have posted. Go ahead and call them fakes if you want, but this is the kind of bs that makes people not want to play this game.
See, your rebuttal shows you are not really understanding what everyone is talking about here.
No one is saying the turn is what is blocking the charge. As a matter a fact, the same restriction that that stops the charge is still present on turn 2-7 as it is on turn 1.
That restriction is you can't charge after arriving from Deep Strike Reserves.
So tell us, how does a rule that lifts the Restriction of Charging after disembarking a transport also lift the additional (and independent) restriction of arriving from Deep Strike Reserves?
Yes. The problem is the turn is not the reason they can't charge, is it?
Technically no... however (and while I'm normally a rather loud proponent for clarity and specificity in rules), in this case, we have an FAQ entry about one specific unit's abilties that, while not as specific as it ideally should be, is, IMO, clear enough about what they meant.
They're given explicit permission to assault after disembarking, regardless of which turn that occurs in. The only way that this specific entity could be disembarking in turn 1 (a turn in which they are given explicit permission to assault after disembarking) is if they deep strike and disembark that turn.
It could (and IMOshould be clearer... but it sufficiently addresses the point in this specific case, I think.
If they had access to a transport that doesn't Deep Strike, then the FAQ would be insufficient.
The trouble is with GW's track record of what is seemingly perfectly clear rules and then changing them If we can't trust GW to say what they mean when the rule is clearly written, its hard to trust them when its a bit ambiguous.
mjl7atlas wrote:"Any turn" DOES in fact mean "ANY" turn. Not "any" turn "except", it means "ANY"! Why is this such a hard concept to grasp?
It still seems you haven't grasped the concept of what is preventing the charge, and it has absolutrely NOTHING to do with the game turn.
It still seems you haven't grasped the concept that the special rule bypasses your desperate grab to cling to some turn order requirement. The rule doesn't care what turn it is. The rule doesn't care first turn, second turn, third turn, etc. The rule states that it allows a charge after disembarking. If there is a rule the prohibits them from disembarking turn one, then you win the prize. Otherwise the rule over rides the BRB and is also the clear purpose from GW/FW as indicated by the FAQ specific mention, my screen shot replies and email responses I have posted. Go ahead and call them fakes if you want, but this is the kind of bs that makes people not want to play this game.
You've missed the point completely. NOBODY cares what turn it is. The turn has never been the problem.
Also, will you answer the question about charging and running? (refresher: if you can assault after disembarking, thereby ignoring EVERYTHING else, can you charge after running?)
mjl7atlas wrote: It still seems you haven't grasped the concept that the special rule bypasses your desperate grab to cling to some turn order requirement. The rule doesn't care what turn it is. The rule doesn't care first turn, second turn, third turn, etc. The rule states that it allows a charge after disembarking. If there is a rule the prohibits them from disembarking turn one, then you win the prize. Otherwise the rule over rides the BRB and is also the clear purpose from GW/FW as indicated by the FAQ specific mention, my screen shot replies and email responses I have posted. Go ahead and call them fakes if you want, but this is the kind of bs that makes people not want to play this game.
Considering it says the same thing as Assault Vehicle, why should we treat it any differently than Assault Vehicle?
Which means that any Dreadnought riding a Drop Pod can Charge the same turn he arrives. Dark Eldar using their Webway Portal can Charge the turn they arrive. Necron Warriors coming in from Reserves on the table edge can Charge an enemy unit that same turn. Any unit coming out of the Assault Claw that was referenced could Charge when it Deep Strikes.
In other words, this rule means nothing for the situation in the Original Post, no matter your position on how much leeway permission to Charge covers.
vercingatorix wrote: Man orks would be OP with this idea in mind. Infiltrate and outflank everyoune then call a waaagh.
"It says I can assault after running! I guess I ignore EVERY restriction and my kommandoes actually assault from reserves! Cool!"
For those unfamiliar the waaagh! rule allows me to run then assault.
...wait what????? i completly take back my previous comments and claim the contrary! berzerkers are able to assault after they disembark!! the FAQ says so... for reasons call my lawyer, i will see you in court.
what comes to mind, is how an interceptor weapon can fire at units that come from reserves - which also includes units coming from out of drop pods, right?
reserves, scout, infiltrate, outflank - ALL deny charging the turn they arrive/utilize the rule.
Squad deepstrikes in via assault vehicle; assault vehicle say they may assault - no mention of deepstriking/reserves prohibiting.
However, the unit *IS* using the reserves 'rules' since they are using Deep Strike, so must now have the restrictions that reserves enforces upon them, too.
Bjorn comes in a Lucius Pod, but may not assault the turn he drops in, instead waiting inside the Pod til turn 2 to make it to CC.
MekLeN wrote: what comes to mind, is how an interceptor weapon can fire at units that come from reserves - which also includes units coming from out of drop pods, right?
reserves, scout, infiltrate, outflank - ALL deny charging the turn they arrive/utilize the rule.
Squad deepstrikes in via assault vehicle; assault vehicle say they may assault - no mention of deepstriking/reserves prohibiting.
However, the unit *IS* using the reserves 'rules' since they are using Deep Strike, so must now have the restrictions that reserves enforces upon them, too.
Bjorn comes in a Lucius Pod, but may not assault the turn he drops in, instead waiting inside the Pod til turn 2 to make it to CC.
Actually, I suggest you go read the assault vehicle rule. It specifically mentions deepstrike/reserves as preventing units from assaulting.
