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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

^^ this.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Are you aware of what "specific" means?

Oh so you like to pick and choose then ?

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

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

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

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

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

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

nosferatu1001 wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

- edited -

I have no idea why this is even an argument.

It's not really.

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

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

For example:

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

For example:

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

Sorry. I must have skipped over those ones

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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