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.

1) As you say "Some rules allow a unit from your army to always fight first in the Fight Phase, even if they didn't make a charge move this turn'"

This a clear implication in this phrase that chargeing is an always fight first rule

"always fight first in the Fight Phase, even if they didn't make a charge move this turn'"

The moment you write "even if they didn't" charge your implying that chargeing units are considered to have the criteria of the first clause "always fight first"

Thus the general implication is that having charged is considered an always fights first rule

2) I would also note it is not a definition of always fight first. If you start from my position it cooberates it and if you start from yours it cooberates yours. Your saying some units allow this to happen not defining what that term means specifically or its criteria. You are inferring that according to your assumptions. I don't have your assumptions so I do not display that confirmation bias.

3) Yes I recognise it only applies in a turn when you charged it is irrelevant to consider how it applies in other turns because it doesn't. Chargeing units always fight first, non chargeing units do not according to my interpretation. So why would I try and prove chargeing units still fight first in other turns when we are agreed that is wrong. (But it does make a great strawman you sure defeated it).

The things I asked you to prove would disprove my statement you could not provide them. The proofs you requested would disprove both of our interpretations and do not exist.

4) if always does not have a specific definition then their is no RAW and RAI we can reasonably consider the semantic or dictoral definition which would include chargeing, supported by your quote "always fight first in the Fight Phase, even if they didn't make a charge move this turn'" which strongly implies chargeing is an always fight first ability.

5) I stand by my position that it is ambiguous and in light of that you should play it according to the interpretation of the competative community

U02dah4 wrote:
1) As you say "Some rules allow a unit from your army to always fight first in the Fight Phase, even if they didn't make a charge move this turn'"

This a clear implication in this phrase that chargeing is an always fight first rule

"always fight first in the Fight Phase, even if they didn't make a charge move this turn'"

The moment you write "even if they didn't" charge your implying that chargeing units are considered to have the criteria of the first clause "always fight first"

Thus the general implication is that having charged is considered an always fights first rule

2) I would also note it is not a definition of always fight first. If you start from my position it cooberates it and if you start from yours it cooberates yours. Your saying some units allow this to happen not defining what that term means specifically or its criteria. You are inferring that according to your assumptions. I don't have your assumptions so I do not display that confirmation bias.

3) Yes I recognise it only applies in a turn when you charged it is irrelevant to consider how it applies in other turns because it doesn't. Chargeing units always fight first, non chargeing units do not according to my interpretation. So why would I try and prove chargeing units still fight first in other turns when we are agreed that is wrong. (But it does make a great strawman you sure defeated it).

The things I asked you to prove would disprove my statement you could not provide them. The proofs you requested would disprove both of our interpretations and do not exist.

4) if always does not have a specific definition then their is no RAW and RAI we can reasonably consider the semantic or dictoral definition which would include chargeing, supported by your quote "always fight first in the Fight Phase, even if they didn't make a charge move this turn'" which strongly implies chargeing is an always fight first ability.

5) I stand by my position that it is ambiguous and in light of that you should play it according to the interpretation of the competative community

No, you're reading into it more than what exists. There is a blanket statement in the core rules that "Units that made a charge move this turn fight before all other units". Abilities such as fight first or fight last modify how the core rules get resolved. When there is a clash between a Fight First and Fight Last rule, they cancel each other out, and you go back to the default game state - which is "Units that made a charge move this turn fight before all other units".

On a separate note, use the preview button rather than submitting and editing your post 12+ times. It makes discord with you more difficult that necessary, and considerably weakens any point you are trying to convey.

There's an example on pages 361-2 (Rare Rules Section) that litterally says that charging units and units with the fight first ability are equal.

It's also written that fight first vs fight last abilities/rules cancel each other out.

 Blackie wrote:
There's an example on pages 361-2 (Rare Rules Section) that litterally says that charging units and units with the fight first ability are equal.

It's also written that fight first vs fight last abilities/rules cancel each other out.

A charge move isn't an ability.

Abilities are not defined that comes up in no end of rules discussions. We therefore cannot say what an ability is - it has Been suggested that terrain traits are abilities so it is certainly possible that chargeing confers a fight first ability

U02dah4 wrote:
Abilities are not defined that comes up in no end of rules discussions. We therefore cannot say what an ability is - it has Been suggested that terrain traits are abilities so it is certainly possible that chargeing confers a fight first ability

No, it doesn't and there is no rule support to suggest otherwise.

Then please provide the definition of of ability in a rules quote

If you can't you can't prove it isn't an ability

U02dah4: To make sure I understand your position, you believe that a unit that charged and is under a Fight Last rule attacks as if neither of those are in effect? I ask because that is the first implication of charging counting as an always fights first rule.

Yes that is the implication of my position. Neither rule is in effect if is also effected by a fight last rule

This is congruent with the tournament interpretations e.g. those of goonhammer

The only exception I would make to the goonhammer interpretation I have attached which is a seperate issue is that some fight last rules make units not eligible to be chosen and as such couldn't be targeted by the counter offensive stratagem as it can only target eligible units.

U02dah4 wrote:
Yes that is the implication of my position. Neither rule is in effect if is also effected by a fight last rule

This is congruent with the tournament interpretations e.g. those of goonhammer

The only exception I would make to the goonhammer interpretation I have attached which is a seperate issue is that some fight last rules make units not eligible to be chosen and as such couldn't be targeted by the counter offensive stratagem as it can only target eligible units.

It also seems that the rules are only interested in dealing with that specific Fight Phase, not worrying about future Fight Phases. If you're only dealing with the current Fight Phase, your interpretation makes sense, as you're Always Fighting First - in that specific phase (as per the definition of charging making you fight first).. In a future phase if there's an Always Fight Last on the unit you look at that phase, and they would Fight Last as there is no longer the condition of them charging applying in that future turn. Always Fighting Last affecting a charging the unit the same as a non-charging unit doesn't make sense due to charging units normally getting to attack first.

Charging in no way means you ALWAYS fight first. You do not always fight first. There is no argument here. That flow fails.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Charging in no way means you ALWAYS fight first. You do not always fight first. There is no argument here. That flow fails.

The charging rule states you fight first. You always fight first while charging, as per the rule. The fact that it only last for that round is immaterial for purposes of fighting first.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

U02dah4 wrote:
Abilities are not defined that comes up in no end of rules discussions. We therefore cannot say what an ability is - it has Been suggested that terrain traits are abilities so it is certainly possible that chargeing confers a fight first ability

"If a unit is under the effects of both a rule that always lets it fight first in the Fight phase, and a rule that says it cannot be selected to fight until after all other units have done so, it instead fights as if neither rule is affecting it"

Where does it specify "abilities"? It merely state "a rule". Charging is "a rule" that always lets a charging unit fight first.

JakeSiren wrote:

 Blackie wrote:
There's an example on pages 361-2 (Rare Rules Section) that litterally says that charging units and units with the fight first ability are equal.

It's also written that fight first vs fight last abilities/rules cancel each other out.

A charge move isn't an ability.

I never said it was that response was in response to this i mearly point out that this response is incorrect because the definition of an ability is undefined. Therefore we can't say whether it is or isn't.

U02dah4 wrote:
Yes that is the implication of my position. Neither rule is in effect if is also effected by a fight last rule

This is congruent with the tournament interpretations e.g. those of goonhammer

The only exception I would make to the goonhammer interpretation I have attached which is a seperate issue is that some fight last rules make units not eligible to be chosen and as such couldn't be targeted by the counter offensive stratagem as it can only target eligible units.

The chart you are showing is not the final or complete chart. The final and complete chart can be found at the bottom of their April 9, 2020 column.

As I said earlier I asked the specific topic question to them. I asked them this question:

In your April 8, 2020 fight phase flowchart you seem to be missing one situation. That situation occurs when you have a unit that always fights first charge a unit that makes them fight last. I know that it is a little late to add to the chart but my friend and I had a rules disagreement and your chart didn't address this specific issue.

I charged his silent king with a keeper of secrets so all of the above factors came into play. He claimed that the two models would fight in the no charge units phase ( the second column) since the rules cancelled each other out. I claimed that the rule book specifically says that you ignore both the fight first and fight last abilities and therefore since I charged I would still be striking in the charge phase (the first column). In the interest of time I acceded to his interpretation and fought in the second column.

I know you're not really in the rule judging business but could you resolve this issue for us?

The response I got:

Per the Rare rules, the Silent King has an ability which makes it so a unit can't be selected until all eligible units from the SK's army have fought (note that he does not make the affected units "not eligible" like the Judiciar's ability). This means that when a Keeper of Secrets charges him, it will act as if neither the Fight FIrst nor the Obeisance Generator rules apply (p. 90 of the GT missions pack, third paragraph of "Always Fight First/Last"). This means you'd fight with the KoS in the chargers step. If he hadn't charged, you'd instead fight with him in the "no chargers" step.

As you can see they say that the fight first and fight last rules are ignored but the charge rule is still in play.

1) Well according to Google that chart was Sep 17th 2020

https://www.goonhammer.com/ruleshammer-qa-september-17th-2020/

9th edition was released Jul 25th

If they answered your question in Apr 2020 then you have a good 8th edition answer

Which has no bearing on 9th edition

2) the situation is covered in the flowchart if you are effected by both you count as not benefiting from either rule not that you don't have either. This would presumably effect all instances of the rule

Leo_the_Rat wrote:

U02dah4 wrote:
Yes that is the implication of my position. Neither rule is in effect if is also effected by a fight last rule

This is congruent with the tournament interpretations e.g. those of goonhammer

The only exception I would make to the goonhammer interpretation I have attached which is a seperate issue is that some fight last rules make units not eligible to be chosen and as such couldn't be targeted by the counter offensive stratagem as it can only target eligible units.

The chart you are showing is not the final or complete chart. The final and complete chart can be found at the bottom of their April 9, 2020 column.

As I said earlier I asked the specific topic question to them. I asked them this question:

In your April 8, 2020 fight phase flowchart you seem to be missing one situation. That situation occurs when you have a unit that always fights first charge a unit that makes them fight last. I know that it is a little late to add to the chart but my friend and I had a rules disagreement and your chart didn't address this specific issue.

I charged his silent king with a keeper of secrets so all of the above factors came into play. He claimed that the two models would fight in the no charge units phase ( the second column) since the rules cancelled each other out. I claimed that the rule book specifically says that you ignore both the fight first and fight last abilities and therefore since I charged I would still be striking in the charge phase (the first column). In the interest of time I acceded to his interpretation and fought in the second column.

I know you're not really in the rule judging business but could you resolve this issue for us?

The response I got:

Per the Rare rules, the Silent King has an ability which makes it so a unit can't be selected until all eligible units from the SK's army have fought (note that he does not make the affected units "not eligible" like the Judiciar's ability). This means that when a Keeper of Secrets charges him, it will act as if neither the Fight FIrst nor the Obeisance Generator rules apply (p. 90 of the GT missions pack, third paragraph of "Always Fight First/Last"). This means you'd fight with the KoS in the chargers step. If he hadn't charged, you'd instead fight with him in the "no chargers" step.

As you can see they say that the fight first and fight last rules are ignored but the charge rule is still in play.

They're allowed to play it how they want at their tournaments, but from a RAW standpoint I don't see anything giving permission for charging to stack with always fight first, so that only one of those gets cancelled by an always fights last. It seems more that you have three conditions - always fight first, fight normally and fight last, and that if something making you fight last if you are in the fight first condition (through charging or some ability), fighting first and fighting last (no matter how many of each condition get stacked on the unit) negate each other conditions out so that the model should go "normally", as if it doesn't fight either first or last, but after all the "fight first" people have gone and before the "fight last" people have gone.

But, as I said, if that's how they rule it at their tournaments, that's perfectly fine. I'm just not convinced that's how GW would handle it.

If only the sentence introducing always fights first was along the lines of…
"Some rules also allow a unit to always fight first even if they didn't make a charge move".

or

“In additional to making a charge move some rules will allow a unit to always fight first”

Or alternatively mentions of always fight first were replaced with simply “fights first”.

To me any of these would remove the ambiguity, and clearly establish that fighting first from charging is an always fight first affect….

As it stands I’m happy to call it a day, I really don’t think any sides going to achieve victory (a bit like the seemingly eternal drop-pod issue).

@doctortom 8th Ed answer they don't play it that way now. which is why you dont see it.

U02dah4 wrote:
@doctortom 8th Ed answer they don't play it that way now. which is why you dont see it.

Fair enough.

U02dah4 wrote:
Then please provide the definition of of ability in a rules quote

If you can't you can't prove it isn't an ability

By virtue of a permissive rules set. We haven't been told that it is an ability, so it's not an ability. We also haven't been told it's a duck. But by your logic we can't prove it's not a duck because the rules don't tell us what a duck is (I already know your stance on abilities as you believe the term to be undefined)

The answer I received from them is from March 14, 2021. I wrote to them approximately a week earlier.

I agree that they are not an "official" channel for rules disputes but I think that most people would consider them qualified to give a reasonable answer.

I have not entered any events this year so I can't speak to the rulings of various TOs but I would say that unless/until GW answers the question in a FAQ update everyone will just have to muddle along with their own interpretation of the rules.

JakeSiren wrote:

U02dah4 wrote:
Then please provide the definition of of ability in a rules quote

If you can't you can't prove it isn't an ability

By virtue of a permissive rules set. We haven't been told that it is an ability, so it's not an ability. We also haven't been told it's a duck. But by your logic we can't prove it's not a duck because the rules don't tell us what a duck is (I already know your stance on abilities as you believe the term to be undefined)

Again, why does it have to be an ability?

"If a unit is under the effects of both a rule that always lets it fight first in the Fight phase, and a rule that says it cannot be selected to fight until after all other units have done so, it instead fights as if neither rule is affecting it"

There's no mention of it having to be an ability, only that it's uner the effect of a rule. If it charges, it's under the effect of the rules for charging. If it's in terrain (if it matters), it's under the effect of the rules for that type of terrain. If it's affected by a psychic power, it's under the effexct of the rules for that psychic power. If it has an ability, it's under the rules of that ability, but that does not make abilities the sole method for a unit to be under the effect of a rule for something. This insistence on whether something is an ability or not doesn't matter (unless the unit is under the effect of the rules for an ability). The question is what rules the unit is under the effect of.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
The answer I received from them is from March 14, 2021. I wrote to them approximately a week earlier.

I agree that they are not an "official" channel for rules disputes but I think that most people would consider them qualified to give a reasonable answer.

I have not entered any events this year so I can't speak to the rulings of various TOs but I would say that unless/until GW answers the question in a FAQ update everyone will just have to muddle along with their own interpretation of the rules.

So what we have is a claim that they made a ruling- that has not been publicly published - that contradicts their earlier answers. from a rules source that by your own definition is not official. With a rules date that changes across your posts

Well thats certainly strong evidence. On the otherhand If we cannot verify your sources answer all we have is hearsay that that is their view.

You are both correct and incorrect. You are correct that the general public can not verify that what I claim is indeed the truth.

You are incorrect, in that this specific instance was not addressed in their column and as such no answer has come from them regarding this specific issue.

I don't know if any of the people who write goonhammer are Dakka members but if they are hopefully they will come forth either on this forum or their own blog and state their opinoin publicly. Although, as has been stated, they aren't spokespeople for GW so their answer is no better than any one else's (unless they happen to agree with you).

JakeSiren wrote:

U02dah4 wrote:
Then please provide the definition of of ability in a rules quote

If you can't you can't prove it isn't an ability

By virtue of a permissive rules set. We haven't been told that it is an ability, so it's not an ability. We also haven't been told it's a duck. But by your logic we can't prove it's not a duck because the rules don't tell us what a duck is (I already know your stance on abilities as you believe the term to be undefined)

in a 40k setting duck is a maneuver performed by guardsmen consult regimental standard

https://www.warhammer-community.com › ...
Web results
The Regimental Standard: Duck & Cover! - Warhammer Community


You say charge is not an ability - I say there's no definition of ability so your argument doesn't work - you refute that - so I say well show the definition and your answer is "its a permissive ruleset we haven't been told that it's an ability so its not"

Lol well congradulations not only have you proven yourself wrong because you couldn't provide one but you've just established that the only abilities in the entire game are auras because they are the only things defined as abilities. Sure it's implied that abilities will be written in the abilities section of the datasheet but its not defined as you couldn't provide one so by your argument no abilities- good argument you really convinced me.

I also stand by doctortom that it being an ability is not relevant in any way but if your going to make false claims its amusing to watch them fail spectacularly.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
You are both correct and incorrect. You are correct that the general public can not verify that what I claim is indeed the truth.

You are incorrect, in that this specific instance was not addressed in their column and as such no answer has come from them regarding this specific issue.

I don't know if any of the people who write goonhammer are Dakka members but if they are hopefully they will come forth either on this forum or their own blog and state their opinoin publicly. Although, as has been stated, they aren't spokespeople for GW so their answer is no better than any one else's (unless they happen to agree with you).

I am correct we cannot verify it and frankly the source is heavily biased and the claim is spurious so if I cannot verify it then it is irrelevant.

If you say they addressed it in a colum then provide a link to the collum where you claim it was addressed so it can be verified.

That is only the case if it is there opinion and so far we only have your word on that.

Some of their writers are tied in with TOs and testers- their opinion is RAI as this argument is but it does carry some weight because it is often more reflective of both the tourney seen and GW intention in the way random dude on Facebook is. And the tourney seen rulings are more important than what random on ymdc says - because their the conditions under which you actually play when you go to an event and unsurprisingly this issue comes up a lot.



I can make an equally evidenced argument to yours that GW said you were wrong in everyway and that anyone named innis scores 0VP every game especially at London GT's - you'll just have to take my word for it because ummm they sent it in an email on the 30th of Feb no wait the 1st of Apr 2020 that was it and so no one can verify it but it's definitely true


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Or was it the 1st of Apr 2023 I'm always getting those confused

I don't know where you think that I've changed dates on things so I have no idea where you're coming from.
I stated that Goonhammer has not addressed this specific issue so it would be impossible for me to find you a column stating that they had.

U02dah4 wrote:

I can make an equally evidenced argument to yours that GW said you were wrong in everyway and that anyone named innis scores 0VP every game especially at London GT's - you'll just have to take my word for it because ummm they sent it in an email on the 30th of Feb no wait the 1st of Apr 2020 that was it and so no one can verify it but it's definitely true


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Or was it the 1st of Apr 2023 I'm always getting those confused

What would you hope to achieve with this 'argument', however?

He made a claim, and explained why he couldn't provide direct evidence of it. You're free to believe him or not, but there's not need to make a big deal of it.


That, obviously, goes both ways, though. If you're providing a claim with no direct evidence, it's potentially useful as a discussion topic... but you can't be particularly surprised if people choose to just dismiss it.

Let's all please try to remember that we're talking about a game of toy soldiers, and keep it civil, please.

 doctortom wrote:

JakeSiren wrote:

U02dah4 wrote:
Then please provide the definition of of ability in a rules quote

If you can't you can't prove it isn't an ability

By virtue of a permissive rules set. We haven't been told that it is an ability, so it's not an ability. We also haven't been told it's a duck. But by your logic we can't prove it's not a duck because the rules don't tell us what a duck is (I already know your stance on abilities as you believe the term to be undefined)

Again, why does it have to be an ability?

"If a unit is under the effects of both a rule that always lets it fight first in the Fight phase, and a rule that says it cannot be selected to fight until after all other units have done so, it instead fights as if neither rule is affecting it"

There's no mention of it having to be an ability, only that it's uner the effect of a rule. If it charges, it's under the effect of the rules for charging. If it's in terrain (if it matters), it's under the effect of the rules for that type of terrain. If it's affected by a psychic power, it's under the effexct of the rules for that psychic power. If it has an ability, it's under the rules of that ability, but that does not make abilities the sole method for a unit to be under the effect of a rule for something. This insistence on whether something is an ability or not doesn't matter (unless the unit is under the effect of the rules for an ability). The question is what rules the unit is under the effect of.

Fair enough, I had conflated what Blackie had said and what the rules actually said.

JakeSiren wrote:

Fair enough, I had conflated what Blackie had said and what the rules actually said.

What did I say that wasn't correct?

 Blackie wrote:

JakeSiren wrote:

Fair enough, I had conflated what Blackie had said and what the rules actually said.

What did I say that wasn't correct?

You didn't say anything incorrect. But I had conflated what you said and what the rules actually said into an incorrect understanding.