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.

I believe i've seen this before, but i couldn't find it. When a rule is formulated as "in the movement phase, this unit may choose to X, instead of moving", or "in the shooting phase, this unit may choose to X instead of shooting", if the act of moving/shooting/assaulting (in the case of an assault phase rule of this type) is denied due to some prior condition, is the alternative also denied?

As a general principle, the inability to do y does not preclude doing x instead. For instance, units without ranged weapons can run even though they cannot fire weapons.

Depending on what rule you are hinting at asking about, there may be further issues limiting the ability to do x, however.

It really depends on the wording

A Model with no ranged weapons can run.
A Stunned Fire prism cannot link up.
A Stunned Walker cannot run, but can pop smoke.

And if you are asking about Blood Claws, it's covered in my Unofficial FAQ

Specifically, warp spiders. I believe the rule is (no codex at work) 'in the assault phase the warp spiders may choose to make a second warp jump instead of assaulting'. This came up because warp spiders aren't fleet, so in the game we were playing, we ruled that if they ran, they couldn't jump (as they could not assault) and if they deep striked, they couldn't jump (also, could not assault)

Gwyidion wrote:Specifically, warp spiders. I believe the rule is (no codex at work) 'in the assault phase the warp spiders may choose to make a second warp jump instead of assaulting'. This came up because warp spiders aren't fleet, so in the game we were playing, we ruled that if they ran, they couldn't jump (as they could not assault) and if they deep striked, they couldn't jump (also, could not assault)

You ruled correctly. Because you cannot assault, you cannot do something instead of doing it because you are unable to do it.

Gwar! wrote:

Gwyidion wrote:Specifically, warp spiders. I believe the rule is (no codex at work) 'in the assault phase the warp spiders may choose to make a second warp jump instead of assaulting'. This came up because warp spiders aren't fleet, so in the game we were playing, we ruled that if they ran, they couldn't jump (as they could not assault) and if they deep striked, they couldn't jump (also, could not assault)

You ruled correctly. Because you cannot assault, you cannot do something instead of doing it because you are unable to do it.

Except that GW disagrees with you, Gwar. I know you don't use the FAQ (except when you do), but this one's pretty clear cut. They can run and teleport or deep strike and teleport.

http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m1610177_Eldar_FAQ_2008-05_Edition.pdf

Edit: forgot to add linky.

This is a case of the FAQ ignoring the rules, so yes, I do not use that FAQ ruling, I actually use the rules.

If they made it errata, I would have no problem.

Gwar! wrote:This is a case of the FAQ ignoring the rules, so yes, I do not use that FAQ ruling, I actually use the rules.

If they made it errata, I would have no problem.

You are interpreting that by the wording you can't jump without having an assault to trade. I don't see the FAQ as going against RAW, although it does go against your interpretation.

When I read the rules I see it as an inclusive statement with specific exceptions made. You can do x, but not if you do y is the core of it, rather than your alternative interpretation of you can only do x if you have y to offer in trade. This logic fits the same language used around some combat tactics questions such as whether a tank could get twin linked flamers.

Just a different interpretation. Both are valid within the rules of language, but one (in my opinion) fits how the game works and the other doesn't.

Kaaihn wrote:

Gwar! wrote:This is a case of the FAQ ignoring the rules, so yes, I do not use that FAQ ruling, I actually use the rules.

If they made it errata, I would have no problem.

You are interpreting that by the wording you can't jump without having an assault to trade. I don't see the FAQ as going against RAW, although it does go against your interpretation.

When I read the rules I see it as an inclusive statement with specific exceptions made. You can do x, but not if you do y is the core of it, rather than your alternative interpretation of you can only do x if you have y to offer in trade. This logic fits the same language used around some combat tactics questions such as whether a tank could get twin linked flamers.

Just a different interpretation. Both are valid within the rules of language, but one (in my opinion) fits how the game works and the other doesn't.

Kaaihn's point is well made. This is in line with the ruling on star engines from the same FAQ. You can't shoot if you use your star engine movement, but you don't have to be able to shoot in order to use the move -- hence, the ability to use star engines when shaken. Warp Spiders are the same thing. You can't teleport when you are assaulting, but you don't need to be able to assault in order to teleport. You have made an incorrect assumption in this case, Gwar.

So why is it that Fire prisms cannot link if they are unable to shoot?

Like I said, GW rarely follow the clear RaW. Your "interpretations" are incorrect, and made for the sole reason of contradicting me. GW themselves say the FAQs are nothing more than house rules, so if given the option of playing by the rules, or playing by some random twits house rules, I'll pick the rules.

Gwar, just for completeness, where is the rule that the GW FAQ is violating in respect to Warp Spiders running + assault jumping?

Gwar! wrote:So why is it that Fire prisms cannot link if they are unable to shoot?

Like I said, GW rarely follow the clear RaW. Your "interpretations" are incorrect, and made for the sole reason of contradicting me. GW themselves say the FAQs are nothing more than house rules, so if given the option of playing by the rules, or playing by some random twits house rules, I'll pick the rules.

That post would be identical regardless of who I quoted. It has nothing to do with you. Paranoid much?

What GW also says is the FAQ's are for grey areas. The fact they answer a question at all means they (the people the have the true understanding of the game) are telling us the RAW has multiple interpretations.

You posted one interpretation, I posted an alternate. People are free to play the game using whichever (or a completely different one entirely) interpretation they choose.

As to Fire Prisms, the FAQ answers your question. They cannot link because voluntary forfeiture of a specific action is needed in their case for combined fire to occur. If they are not allowed to fire, they cannot forfeit their chance to shoot (as they have no shooting that turn to forfeit), so they can't satisfy the condition set out for combined fire. Fire Prisms are a unique thing, they follow slightly different rules than things like Warp Spiders.

Wow. Makes the Jetpacks assault move better. Jet packs can move 6" in the assault phase after deep striking (although the battle suits can't :()

Gwar! wrote:

Gwyidion wrote:Specifically, warp spiders. I believe the rule is (no codex at work) 'in the assault phase the warp spiders may choose to make a second warp jump instead of assaulting'. This came up because warp spiders aren't fleet, so in the game we were playing, we ruled that if they ran, they couldn't jump (as they could not assault) and if they deep striked, they couldn't jump (also, could not assault)

You ruled correctly. Because you cannot assault, you cannot do something instead of doing it because you are unable to do it.

Hold on.

So, by this logic, you cannot make the second Warp Spider jump unless the Warp Spiders could have assaulted?

Warp Spiders can only make a successful assault if they're within 6" of an enemy, same as everyone else. So, unless they are within 6" of an enemy unit, they can't ever make the second jump?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The logic goes..

1. Warp Spiders can only make the second jump 'instead of assaulting'

2. We must therefore establish if they can assault or not

3. If they run, they cannot assault, as they are not fleet. Since they cannot assault, they cannot make the second jump.

4. The only other way to establish if they can assault or not is to have them declare a charge, and then measure the charge distance.

5. If they declare a charge against an enemy unit, and are found to be in range, they are therefore capable of assaulting - they may therefore opt to make a second jump instead.

6. If they declare a charge against an enemy unit, and are found to be out of range, they are therefore incapable of assaulting - they may not therefore opt to make a second jump.

If you declare the charge, you are assaulting. If you are found to be out of range, you just don't move. If you have run that turn, and are not fleet, you cannot assault, so you cannot even attempt to declare a charge, thus you cannot do something instead of assaulting, because there is no assaulting for you to replace with the other action.
Your logic is flawed/plain wrong.

Gwar! appears to be inventing a double standard to apply to the Eldar codex.

There is nothing preventing a Warp Spider from using their warp generators on their turn when not engaged instead of assaulting when the unit either cannot or chooses not to assault. The reason Fire Prisms cannot link up when unable to fire is that Fire Prisms have the unique wording requiring them to forfeit firing, instead of merely linking up instead of firing.

To me they are the same thing. In any case, instead also implies you still have to be able to do something.

If you have an Orange, and then eat it (run) and I say "You may have an apple instead of an orange" (Warp Jump), you cannot have the apple because you have no orange.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

solkan wrote:Gwar! appears to be inventing a double standard to apply to the Eldar codex.

I am doing no such thing. Please refrain from personal attacks as they usually make Frazzled angry.

Gwar! wrote:To me they are the same thing. In any case, instead also implies you still have to be able to do something.

Doesn't this interpretation also make it impossible for a squad with a heavy weapon to run if they have moved normally?

Gwar! wrote:To me they are the same thing. In any case, instead also implies you still have to be able to do something.

If you have an Orange, and then eat it (run) and I say "You may have an apple instead of an orange" (Warp Jump), you cannot have the apple because you have no orange.

The reason why your statement appears to me to be a double standard is that the rules for Run! in the rulebook also use the phrase "instead of" for shooting and it is well established that models which cannot fire some reason can still fire. Hence, a standard which rules out the warp spider jump but acknowledges the ability to run without being able to shoot based on the use of the phrase "instead of" is a double standard.

Yeah, IMO (for what thats worth ;P) the wording is the same for running/shooting as it is for warp jumping/assaulting.

Which would mean that (like Spetulhu said) if you have moved with a squad with heavy weapons, you cannot run as you cannot fire. (And the unit moves at the pace of the slowest model)

So if you say that you can't warp jump if you can't assault, then you shouldn't be able to run as you can't fire.

Can't have it both ways?

While Gwar's interpretation is the most straight-forward plain-English interpretation of the rule, GW has shown many times that in order to replace X action with Y action you do not necessarily have to be able to perform X action. Otherwise units with no ranged weapons, or units with heavy weapons that moved, would not be able to run at all.

I would say that the shaken fire prism being unable to link is the exception rather than the rule.

willydstyle wrote:While Gwar's interpretation is the most straight-forward plain-English interpretation of the rule, GW has shown many times that in order to replace X action with Y action you do not necessarily have to be able to perform X action. Otherwise units with no ranged weapons, or units with heavy weapons that moved, would not be able to run at all.

I would say that the shaken fire prism being unable to link is the exception rather than the rule.

fire prism must forfeit shooting to combine. Where as the others do it instead of shooting (assault, ect)

I think it is pretty obvious that they can always jump.

Gwar! wrote:To me they are the same thing. In any case, instead also implies you still have to be able to do something.

If you have an Orange, and then eat it (run) and I say "You may have an apple instead of an orange" (Warp Jump), you cannot have the apple because you have no orange.

Let me develop on your analogy:

If you are sitting in a room, and on the table in front of you is an apple, and a man walks into the room and says "Instead of eating an orange, you may eat an apple." Well, you don't have an orange, but you can still eat the apple.

The words "instead of" do not require the first object to even exist. Sure, the man's statement in that example may seem like a non-sequitor, but it's a perfectly valid statement.
You could just as easily say "Instead of exploding, you may continue breathing."
Just because I can't make myself explode doesn't mean I am no longer allowed to continue breathing.

I think the key difference between units with heavy weapons and the warp spiders is that the unit's with heavy weapons can fire, just not with the weapons they possess - if they had pistols or regular weapons, they could fire. The warp spiders cannot assault, as they are not fleet, and ran.

A stunned prism cannot fire at all, deep striked warp siders cannot assault at all. So the distinction i see is that a unit with heavy weapons possess the ability to fire, even if they have no weapons to fire, and for that reason, may still run. In the same way, a squad of warp spiders that did not run but is also more than 6" away from an enemy possesses the ability to launch an assault, even if there are no viable targets to assault, and so may jump.

So i would say, if for a rule formulated as "X instead of Y", the unit in question must have the ability to do Y, even if there is no way to actually carry out action Y. If Y is completely denied by another rule, then the unit cannot do X. Similar to armor saves and FNP - even though a unit with a 3+ save cannot take a save against AP3 weapons, they may still take FNP, as even though their armor save is denied, the weapon in question does not ignore all armor saves. Even though the heavy weapon squad cannot fire, they could if they had assault weapons.

if thats at all clear...

@Gwyidion

But by that logic walkers that are shaken could not run?
However in the rulebook it seems like they can, and also gives an example that only stunned or immobilized walkers cannot run.

By that logic it would mean that shaken walkers should not be able to run, but as this is an intersection of infantry and vehicle rules and could be an inconsistency, I'm fine with that.

Everything seems to point to the direction that you CAN do it:

Eldar FAQ suggest you can.
Shaken vehicles (star engines, walkers running).
40kBreadguy's oranges and apples.
(Ed: However I now noticed how 40kBreadguy only posts stuff against Gwar... so this isnt funny anymore :( )
BS0, weaponless models.


Seriously though, the only counter I've heard is the wording. But to me it just sounds like you can.
"You may drink water[warp jump] instead of milk[assault], but if your mother forbids you to drink milk[run w/o fleet] (lactose intolerance or w/e), does that mean you can't have the water?"
But hey, what do I know, I'm finnish

Seems like you don't want to change your mind, in which case I'll just bugger off. That way you can blame it all on exceptions without me bothering you.

Agree with Kaaihn & Solkan.