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.

Dionysodorus wrote:

nietzy wrote:

well its a direct word for word quote from the rules thats under the FIGHT section, so, its very relevant.

In step 2 hes saying he can pick the Berzerkers again to fight but the wording isnt specific in the rules but it implies SINGULAR i.e. "have fought" instead of "have finished/are done fighting".

Other thing I have been reading in threads like this is - "Well he can select first Berzerkers from charging (he sure can), then CSMs from charging (yep, they also charged), then because its his turn, use the Berzerkers again as the first unit to be selected..."

But the line I have put in BOLD seems to contradict that. its unclear but again it is in singular rather then plural i.e. "until all eligible units have fought once each" - instead of "Until all your units have fought (as many times as they need to)"

Its the Rain Red rule from Traitors Legion ported to 8th and made better - i.e. a set of attacks that happen AFTER your opponent has fought but can do sweet FA about

I'm still not seeing where you think the problem is. The sub-phase where the chargers attack does not end until "all charging units have fought" and the sub-phase where all eligible units can fight does not end "until all eligible units on both sides have fought once each". There doesn't seem to be anything here preventing a unit of Berserkers from fighting more than once, in either sub-phase, as long as the condition for the sub-phase ending is not met before they are chosen the second time. What Diablix is saying is that you can leave the charging CSMs to be your last selection in the first sub-phase so that it does not end after the Berserkers attack once, and then you can choose the Berserkers again, still before the CSMs go. Can you try to be precise about where you think this goes wrong? The only restriction I see on doing this in general is the later sentence that "No unit can be selected to fight more than once in each Fight phase", but obviously this is what's meant to be over-ridden by the Berserkers' special rule.

Well first off, there is no sub phases - its just the Fight Phase and its sequence is - Charging units, Player whose turn it is selects eligible, Other player selects eligible, etc etc

Second, I don't believe the sequence gets "over-ridden" by the BFTBG rule - I believe you port the BFTBG rule, on top of, or around, however which way you want to say it. Consider does any other unit in the game have rules that says it contradicts a main rule?

Another thing to consider is in Diablix's scenario - lets say the Berzerkers are 10 man strong and have chainswords - thats 31 attacks when they fight if i have my maths right. Why doesnt Diablix just throw down 62 attacks to save time? Think about it - he selects the Berzerkers first cause they charged, then the CSMs, then the Berzerkers again? All before the opponent has gotten to swing - why would you waste time throwing 31 dice, then the CSMs 11, then pick up another 31 dice?

Doesnt make sense and i think if you look across the rules of 8th you can see that doubling your attacks just isnt a feature.

Break that scenario down to just the Berkzerkers charging - nothing else.

So the berzerkers throw 31 attacks, followed by another 31 attacks, then the poor opponent gets to fight back?

nietzy wrote:

Well first off, there is no sub phases - its just the Fight Phase and its sequence is - Charging units, Player whose turn it is selects eligible, Other player selects eligible, etc etc

Second, I don't believe the sequence gets "over-ridden" by the BFTBG rule - I believe you port the BFTBG rule, on top of, or around, however which way you want to say it. Consider does any other unit in the game have rules that says it contradicts a main rule?

Another thing to consider is in Diablix's scenario - lets say the Berzerkers are 10 man strong and have chainswords - thats 31 attacks when they fight if i have my maths right. Why doesnt Diablix just throw down 62 attacks to save time? Think about it - he selects the Berzerkers first cause they charged, then the CSMs, then the Berzerkers again? All before the opponent has gotten to swing - why would you waste time throwing 31 dice, then the CSMs 11, then pick up another 31 dice?

Doesnt make sense and i think if you look across the rules of 8th you can see that doubling your attacks just isnt a feature.

Break that scenario down to just the Berkzerkers charging - nothing else.

So the berzerkers throw 31 attacks, followed by another 31 attacks, then the poor opponent gets to fight back?

Pretty much all of this is just obviously wrong.

First, clearly I'm using "sub-phase" to refer to the different parts of the Fight phase. There's a part where the player whose turn it is chooses the order in which charging units fight, and then a part where the players alternate choosing among all eligible units. Did you really not understand this?

Second, tons of special rules contradict general rules in the BRB. Many special rules contradict even the rules we're already talking about. Several units have an ability that lets them "always fight first" in the fight phase or similar, and these rules prescribe a completely different process for determining the order in which units fight in the first fight "sub-phase". Dire Avengers hit on Overwatch on a 5+. Hormagaunts pile in and consolidate 6". Canoptek Scarabs never wound on worse than a 5+ in CC.

There is a big difference between a unit just getting to double its attacks and it being able to be chosen to fight twice. In the latter case, the other player has an opportunity to respond. They could pick one of their own units to attack, if eligible, for example. Even if the Berserkers charged, the other player would be able to activate a unit of Howling Banshees, or could just pay 2 CP to fight with anything. The Berserkers also benefit from getting to fight twice rather than just doubling their attacks, since they get to pile in and consolidate twice.

Dionysodorus wrote:

nietzy wrote:

Well first off, there is no sub phases - its just the Fight Phase and its sequence is - Charging units, Player whose turn it is selects eligible, Other player selects eligible, etc etc

Second, I don't believe the sequence gets "over-ridden" by the BFTBG rule - I believe you port the BFTBG rule, on top of, or around, however which way you want to say it. Consider does any other unit in the game have rules that says it contradicts a main rule?

Another thing to consider is in Diablix's scenario - lets say the Berzerkers are 10 man strong and have chainswords - thats 31 attacks when they fight if i have my maths right. Why doesnt Diablix just throw down 62 attacks to save time? Think about it - he selects the Berzerkers first cause they charged, then the CSMs, then the Berzerkers again? All before the opponent has gotten to swing - why would you waste time throwing 31 dice, then the CSMs 11, then pick up another 31 dice?

Doesnt make sense and i think if you look across the rules of 8th you can see that doubling your attacks just isnt a feature.

Break that scenario down to just the Berkzerkers charging - nothing else.

So the berzerkers throw 31 attacks, followed by another 31 attacks, then the poor opponent gets to fight back?

Pretty much all of this is just obviously wrong.

First, clearly I'm using "sub-phase" to refer to the different parts of the Fight phase. There's a part where the player whose turn it is chooses the order in which charging units fight, and then a part where the players alternate choosing among all eligible units. Did you really not understand this?

Second, tons of special rules contradict general rules in the BRB. Many special rules contradict even the rules we're already talking about. Several units have an ability that lets them "always fight first" in the fight phase or similar, and these rules prescribe a completely different process for determining the order in which units fight in the first fight "sub-phase". Dire Avengers hit on Overwatch on a 5+. Hormagaunts pile in and consolidate 6". Canoptek Scarabs never wound on worse than a 5+ in CC.

There is a big difference between a unit just getting to double its attacks and it being able to be chosen to fight twice. In the latter case, the other player has an opportunity to respond. They could pick one of their own units to attack, if eligible, for example. Even if the Berserkers charged, the other player would be able to activate a unit of Howling Banshees, or could just pay 2 CP to fight with anything. The Berserkers also benefit from getting to fight twice rather than just doubling their attacks, since they get to pile in and consolidate twice.

1. I got thats what you were trying to convey alright but your use of "sub-phases" reminded me of 7th and I wanted to move away from such distinctions since the SEQUENCE for FIGHT is laid out fairly clearly, charging units, alternating units ONCE EACH. This leads me on to my next point.

2. Special rules like "always fight first" do not contradict the SEQUENCE - i.e. Howling Banshees are charged by Berzerkers - Howling banshees are fighting first, the SEQUENCE remains in tact - berzerkers can fight immediately after cos they charged, if that was the only combat going on in this phase, then the Berzerkers are fighting twice in a row, and if you still have that 10 man squad i mentioned, you will be quicker throwing down 62 dice. The overwatch example you used isnt an example of contradiction, its just a special rule like BFTBG, you follow the main rule (Getting to overwatch on a lower BS then usual and congratulations - your special unit that you brought to the battle can do something better then anyone else.

3. You mention the other player has an opportunity to respond - they clearly do not in both Diablixs scenario nor in the singular combat example I gave. If you follow that thinking -"They fight twice anytime they want" then you're saying that Berzerkers have the opportunity to double their attacks. They've never had that before.

What they have had before is the RED RAIN special rule (7th - Traitors LEgions - Some Berzerker formation I cant remember the name of now) - once per game all units in this formation at the start of the movement phase are allowed to attack once - and the enemy cant fight back. Does that not sound VERY similar to what I am saying? Except now its been ported to 8th and made awesome.

So again - why does the FIGHT SEQUENCE clearly state:

"After all units that have charged have fought (NOT DONE FIGHT, NOT FOUGHT AS MANY TIMES AS THEY NEED, JUST FOUGHT I.E. ONCE), the players alternate choosing eligible units to fight with (starting with the player whose turn it is) until all eligible units have fought once (heres that special word again!) each."

If your allowed to fight twice in the charging "subphase" and fight twice in the "Alternating subphase" according to you and Diablix's interpretation of the rules?

nietzy wrote:

1. I got thats what you were trying to convey alright but your use of "sub-phases" reminded me of 7th and I wanted to move away from such distinctions since the SEQUENCE for FIGHT is laid out fairly clearly, charging units, alternating units ONCE EACH. This leads me on to my next point.

2. Special rules like "always fight first" do not contradict the SEQUENCE - i.e. Howling Banshees are charged by Berzerkers - Howling banshees are fighting first, the SEQUENCE remains in tact - berzerkers can fight immediately after cos they charged, if that was the only combat going on in this phase, then the Berzerkers are fighting twice in a row, and if you still have that 10 man squad i mentioned, you will be quicker throwing down 62 dice. The overwatch example you used isnt an example of contradiction, its just a special rule like BFTBG, you follow the main rule (Getting to overwatch on a lower BS then usual and congratulations - your special unit that you brought to the battle can do something better then anyone else.

3. You mention the other player has an opportunity to respond - they clearly do not in both Diablixs scenario nor in the singular combat example I gave. If you follow that thinking -"They fight twice anytime they want" then you're saying that Berzerkers have the opportunity to double their attacks. They've never had that before.

What they have had before is the RED RAIN special rule (7th - Traitors LEgions - Some Berzerker formation I cant remember the name of now) - once per game all units in this formation at the start of the movement phase are allowed to attack once - and the enemy cant fight back. Does that not sound VERY similar to what I am saying? Except now its been ported to 8th and made awesome.

So again - why does the FIGHT SEQUENCE clearly state:

"After all units that have charged have fought (NOT DONE FIGHT, NOT FOUGHT AS MANY TIMES AS THEY NEED, JUST FOUGHT I.E. ONCE), the players alternate choosing eligible units to fight with (starting with the player whose turn it is) until all eligible units have fought once (heres that special word again!) each."

If your allowed to fight twice in the charging "subphase" and fight twice in the "Alternating subphase" according to you and Diablix's interpretation of the rules?

You're really just not making any sense. I suggest you slow down and try to lay out clearly and precisely where Diablix's suggested procedure goes wrong. You just keep gesturing at this condition for when the charging part of the fight phase ends as if it stops units from fighting twice in that part, but you never explain how you're getting that out of the rule.

And I have no idea why you think what I'm saying implies that the Berserkers can attack twice in both sub-phases. They're allowed to fight twice in each Fight phase, which over-rides the usual rule that units can only be chosen to fight once in each Fight phase. How do you get four fights out of that? If they fought twice during the chargers sub-phase then they're not eligible to be chosen to fight in the alternating sub-phase.

Dionysodorus wrote:


And I have no idea why you think what I'm saying implies that the Berserkers can attack twice in both sub-phases. They're allowed to fight twice in each Fight phase, which over-rides the usual rule that units can only be chosen to fight once in each Fight phase. How do you get four fights out of that? If they fought twice during the chargers sub-phase then they're not eligible to be chosen to fight in the alternating sub-phase.

There is no sub-phases mate

Four fights? I havent a clue where you got that from.

I am saying that the main rule as written, is slightly unclear. It states fights in the singular - cos most units fight once - but again at the end of the line its suggesting that ALL UNITS FOUGHT ONCE -

Yes its true they can fight twice in the FIGHT phase, but the FIGHT phase is the SEQUENCE and not individual little sub-phases you want to break it up into. But where can they fight in the SEQUENCE? I am saying at the end because "ALL UNITS HAVE FOUGHT ONCE"

And I did point to Diablixs procedure - step 2 - the part when he says he can FIGHT twice with the KBs because its the "Charging sub-phase"

A unit which has fought twice has still fought once. That's just not a restriction on how many times units can fight. It's telling you when that sub-phase ends. This is really not that complicated.

If you keep saying "sub-phases" its making it complicated lol

Heres the rule:

"After all units that have charged have fought, the players alternate choosing eligible units to fight with (starting with the player whose turn it is) until all eligible units have fought once each."


KBs can fight twice in the FIGHT phase. Great. But when and where within the SEQUENCE?

So if they are charging - clearly they can do it once and first before anyone else. The last line after the brackets could be clearer - "until all eligible units have fought once each."

That definitely makes no bones about it - the enemy gets to fight ONCE each. It could be clearer and say "...AT LEAST ONCE EACH" and then there would be no dispute. But it suggests to me that EVERYONE has to fight ONCE EACH.

So to answer the question of when and where within the SEQUENCE -

1. Once in the charging phase.
2. After all units have fought ONCE EACH they are able to fight TWICE.

nietzy wrote:
If you keep saying "sub-phases" its making it complicated lol

Heres the rule:

"After all units that have charged have fought, the players alternate choosing eligible units to fight with (starting with the player whose turn it is) until all eligible units have fought once each."


KBs can fight twice in the FIGHT phase. Great. But when and where within the SEQUENCE?

So if they are charging - clearly they can do it once and first before anyone else. The last line after the brackets could be clearer - "until all eligible units have fought once each."

That definitely makes no bones about it - the enemy gets to fight ONCE each. It could be clearer and say "...AT LEAST ONCE EACH" and then there would be no dispute. But it suggests to me that EVERYONE has to fight ONCE EACH.

So to answer the question of when and where within the SEQUENCE -

1. Once in the charging phase.
2. After all units have fought ONCE EACH they are able to fight TWICE.

Again, this is just not how English works. A unit that has fought twice has still fought once. It would have to say "exactly once" in order to be suggesting that units could only fight once in the alternating sub-phase. Regardless, I don't know why you're even talking about the alternating sub-phase right now because the question is whether the KBs can fight twice in the charger sub-phase, which ends when "all charging units have fought" with no mention of how many times they have to have fought.

Again, it would be great if you could stop just insisting that a quote fragment means that you're right without trying to offer a coherent explanation of why that is. Please go through the process Diablix laid out and say exactly where you think he's done something illegal, and why. In simple steps. Give me the clear logical argument against it.

Dionysodorus wrote:
Again, this is just not how English works. A unit that has fought twice has still fought once. It would have to say "exactly once" in order to be suggesting that units could only fight once in the alternating sub-phase.

You're not using English correctly either. You want 'once' to mean 'at least once'. The defintion of 'once' is "on one occasion only".

Dionysodorus wrote:

Again, this is just not how English works.

Says the German

Look, I've pointed to step 2 where Diablix made an error - he says you can fight twice because you've charged, I've said you can't. If you cant understand english mate and you cant see clear and logical difference between ONCE and TWICE, thats a problem for you.

Quote Fragment? I've quoted the whole line. From the rule book. Maybe you should try to learn English man and then try to take on a complicated game like 40k.

Heres the 3 arguments I've seen in this thread, starting from most extreme pro-KB (Diablix), to the Admin here and then to me.

1. Diablix: You can fight twice before any alternating - "NOTHING SAYS YOU CANT"
2. The admin here says - no you can activate the unit twice, once during charging and again during alternations.
3. Me saying, well the main rule says "EVERY ELIGIBLE UNIT FOUGHT ONCE" and so therefore, the second attacks happen AFTER all the units have fought once

There was another guy here saying he seen it on WTV Q&A and he mentioned a sequence like this:

1>2>3>4>5>6>2>3>4>5>6

That seems plausible as it sticks to the sequence and that might leave the Admins answer correct. But Diablixs reasoning "NOTHING SAY YOU CANT" and his follow up response to someone questioning him on his understanding says a lot.

Also we can read a lot into your replies - your not responding to the content, you seem to jump on "fragments" everytime I reply. Whether you are a natural English speaker, just dialing in from Germany or you think you're fluent enough to play 40k - great!

But when you say "it would have to say Exactly ONCE", well I could counter that by saying - "Well BFTBG rule would have to say "YOUR ALLOWED DOUBLE YOUR ATTACK IN THE CHARGE FIGHTS"

So its what we call in english speaking countries - its a grey area.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ghaz wrote:

Dionysodorus wrote:
Again, this is just not how English works. A unit that has fought twice has still fought once. It would have to say "exactly once" in order to be suggesting that units could only fight once in the alternating sub-phase.

You're not using English correctly either. You want 'once' to mean 'at least once'. The defintion of 'once' is "on one occasion only".

 Ghaz wrote:

Dionysodorus wrote:
Again, this is just not how English works. A unit that has fought twice has still fought once. It would have to say "exactly once" in order to be suggesting that units could only fight once in the alternating sub-phase.

You're not using English correctly either. You want 'once' to mean 'at least once'. The defintion of 'once' is "on one occasion only".

I mean, there are plenty of other definitions of "once" that mean essentially "one time". It's true that if you know the quantity of something and use "once", you're implying that it's happened only one time. But if the quantity is unknown it's pretty common to use "once" in a way that is inclusive of something happening more than one time. It's like how "all" doesn't imply "some" when quantities are unknown.

Your interpretation would seem to be completely game-breaking. I hope that everyone at least agrees that there are some situations in which a unit of Berserkers will fight twice in the alternating part of the Fight phase. For example, if they get charged. Your reading says that when they fight twice, then the alternating sub-phase never ends because it is never the case that "all eligible units on both sides have fought once each". Surely we ought to read the use of "once" here as not stalling the game indefinitely.

Regardless, I want to be clear that this was an aside that seems irrelevant to the question of whether charging Berserkers can fight twice during the part of the Fight phase when chargers are attacking.

Dionysodorus wrote:
I mean, there are plenty of other definitions of "once" that mean essentially "one time". It's true that if you know the quantity of something and use "once", you're implying that it's happened only one time. But if the quantity is unknown it's pretty common to use "once" in a way that is inclusive of something happening more than one time.

No. Again, you're trying to make 'once' mean 'at least once'. They don't mean the same thing. Someone wouldn't say they have one apple when they have two. They would say they have 'at least one' apple.

 Ghaz wrote:

Dionysodorus wrote:
I mean, there are plenty of other definitions of "once" that mean essentially "one time". It's true that if you know the quantity of something and use "once", you're implying that it's happened only one time. But if the quantity is unknown it's pretty common to use "once" in a way that is inclusive of something happening more than one time.

No. Again, you're trying to make 'once' mean 'at least once'. They don't mean the same thing. Someone wouldn't say they have one apple when they have two. They would say they have 'at least one' apple.

I think you missed the part where I talked about quantities being unknown. Like, I specifically addressed this exact objection so I'm not really sure what to say here other than to basically repeat myself. Yes, if quantities are known then it's generally assumed that you'll be as specific as possible if it doesn't take extra words -- if you have two apples you won't talk about how you have one apple. But if you don't know how many apples people have, and you say something like "Who here has one apple?" there are plenty of contexts (most contexts, I'd say) where you're expecting positive answers from anyone who has one or more apples. If you have two apples then you necessarily have one apple. "One" does not in general mean "only one" and "once" does not in general mean "only once".

I hope that clears it up, but I'll let you have the last word because this seems like a completely irrelevant aside that has absolutely nothing to say about when Berserkers fight. The only relevance of this for the actual game would seem to be that if "once" means "only once" then the game stalls forever in any Fight phase where Berserkers actually do manage to fight twice.

Dionysodorus wrote:

I mean, there are plenty of other definitions of "once" that mean essentially "one time".

Admins - can we get a username changed here from Dionysodorus to "Kelly-Anne Conway" or "Alternating Facts" please?

Who has an apple here? I have an apple.

How many times did you eat that apple? I ate it ONCE.

Did you have two apples? Yes I had two apples

How many times did you eat them apples? I ate the apples ONCE EACH.


text removed.
reds8n

We can dial this down a notch or two yeah ?


Thanks.