Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

ok that was a little harse

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

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

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

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

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


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

also think this states the RAW quite simply

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

Drunkspleen wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. Who can attempt to Outflank?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Grugknuckle wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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