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.

So, some people say that this is possible.....but according to the Codex this rule can only apply to infantry.
Did i miss something?

C:SM Khan gives Dedicated Transport Outflank. Not sure if there are other cases. But you can't charge from the turn you come in from Reserve so don't worry.

If you get the right things, yeah you can. I think Khan allowed the normal marines to, as it mentioned applying to dedicated transports if I remember correctly. Which would allow just one to.

I was meaning in terms of Saga Of The Hunter.

Saga of the Hunter gains Outflank, and the new rules for Outflank allow one model int he unit having the rule to give the rule to the unit. You then give the IC with Saga to a unit which has a LR Dedicated transport, and because they can Outflank so can the dedicated transpoitr (from memory)

So yes, legal, But given you CANNOT charge the turn you arrive from reserves, not as useful as it would have been in 5th

nosferatu1001 wrote:Saga of the Hunter gains Outflank, and the new rules for Outflank allow one model int he unit having the rule to give the rule to the unit. You then give the IC with Saga to a unit which has a LR Dedicated transport, and because they can Outflank so can the dedicated transpoitr (from memory)

So yes, legal, But given you CANNOT charge the turn you arrive from reserves, not as useful as it would have been in 5th

You pretty much hit the nail right on the head.

Does Saga of the Hunter saying "The character has the ability to outflank" necessarily equate to having the Outflank USR by RAW?

It seems to me like it doesn't, and if it in fact does not, a Saga of the Hunter IC couldn't bring a unit with them (unless it separately had permission to outflank).

Drunkspleen wrote:Does Saga of the Hunter saying "The character has the ability to outflank" necessarily equate to having the Outflank USR by RAW?

It seems to me like it doesn't, and if it in fact does not, a Saga of the Hunter IC couldn't bring a unit with them (unless it separately had permission to outflank).

That's a stretch, and frankly I think you're only saying this because you hate space wolves and are trying to nerf them. The only units in the SW codex which have the "outflank" special rule are the Wolf Scouts and characters with Saga of the Hunter. What exactly do you think it means when the (5th edition) codex says

"The character has the ability to outflank"

if it DOESN'T mean he has the outflank USR?

Grugnuckle - dont ascribe negative motives to posters. It can make you look VERY foolish - for all you know Drunkspleen plays SW - and reduces the validity of any argument you wish to make.

You're right. It wasn't intended to be negative, but sometimes text sends un-intended emotion across.

I was laughing about the "nerf space wolves" comment - but you can't here it through the internets.

EDIT : you can't *hear it. (duh) Now I really sound foolish.

Internet-tone-of-voice aside though, you're right. How could it mean it any different?

If an IC has an ability, he passes that on to the unit he joins.

But more to the point, if a character with SotH has "the ability to outflank" what does that mean in the context of 6th edition? The rules governing "the ability to outflank" are in the USR section under "outflank". Under that paragraph it says IIRC something to the effect of, "if at least one model in the unit has the outflank rule" - but clearly the exact wording is going to be important. But I don't have my rulebook in front of me though, and in any case the edition is new and like everyone else I'm still digesting them.

The Outflank USR consists of two paragraphs, one explaining how a unit with at least one model that has the Outflank Special Rule may choose to outflank the enemy, and a second entirely separate one describing how a unit outflanks.

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.

It may seem pedantic to you, but as I see it, nothing says he gains a special rule, so there's no reason for him to gain said special rule.

I don't understand how you can the rule, but not the ability, that doesn't even make sense to me?

Afaik, the IC rule hasn't changed either, so he'd still pass that on to any unit that he joins.

Drunkspleen wrote:The Outflank USR consists of two paragraphs, one explaining how a unit with at least one model that has the Outflank Special Rule may choose to outflank the enemy, and a second entirely separate one describing how a unit outflanks.

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.

It may seem pedantic to you, but as I see it, nothing says he gains a special rule, so there's no reason for him to gain said special rule.

I have to disagree. Remember that the codex was written for the 5th edition rule set. There is no way they could have known the exact wording that would be used in the 6th ed BRB. Given GW's penchant for writing rules in the unfortunate colloquial English style instead of legalese English, I am sure that that "has the ability to outflank" was intended to mean "has the ability to use the rules governing outflank". Please don't go off on me about RAI vs. RAW. I have to interpret "has the ability to outflank" as having the outflank special rule. That is the simplest and most straight forward way of resolving this. Any other way of interpreting this just introduces more and more complications.

Now, I would agree with you that outflanking a land raider seems a little sketchy. Especially with the SW "acute senses" USR. Perhaps it would be better to address the larger issue of outflanking heavy vehicles.

Definitely for an army like SW this will work via SotH. It's really nice.

Grug, you may be sure but since that isn't what the rules actually say, it is open to debate. Having the ability to do something does not necessarily equate to having the rule that allows units to do that same thing.IMO, yes, that's probably what GW meant to say, but since they dd not say it, it can be read that an IC with Saga/Hunter can indeed Outflank on his own (or with Scouts) but as he does not actually have the USR Outflank, he cannot pass it on to another unit.

And yeah, I AM trying to nerf the puppies!!

My point was that it Specifically denotes that this rule can only be used for infantry models. Land Raiders are not infantry.
Also! The SW codex was written as a 6th edition Codex. Not 5th

don_mondo wrote:Grug, you may be sure but since that isn't what the rules actually say, it is open to debate. Having the ability to do something does not necessarily equate to having the rule that allows units to do that same thing. IMO, yes, that's probably what GW meant to say, but since they dd not say it, it can be read that an IC with Saga/Hunter can indeed Outflank on his own (or with Scouts) but as he does not actually have the USR Outflank, he cannot pass it on to another unit.

We agree that this is what was intended. Now you suggest that because of a poor choice of wording that we create an *exception* to the outflank USR. Quite frankly, I think that using Saga of the Hunter to magically allow tanks to outflank is NOT in the spirit of the game. But I don't think it's a good idea to have rules that say, "This is how you use outflank. Except if you're a space wolf, then you do it this way. And if you're a vanilla space marine then it's like this. Necrons have a different way etc." That's just confusing.

Having "the ability to outflank" means that - at least for that model - he can use the rules for outflanking as written in the BRB. The rules for outflanking are only under the USR section where it says "outflank". Now you suggest that a model with SotH can use the rules for outflank, but not the sentence that says he confers it to a unit.

And yeah, I AM trying to nerf the puppies!!

Heresy!

And demonstrates a conflict of interest!

dorantana wrote:
My point was that it Specifically denotes that this rule can only be used for infantry models. Land Raiders are not infantry.

When you say "it" specifically said that "this rule" can only be used for infantry models, what is "it" exactly? The outflank USR? Because that's probably the way it should be. I agree that outflanking with a land raider is abuse. What about people outflanking with a dedicated transport? Should they get to outflank or not? Not just SW rhino's but any dedicated transport attached to a unit with at least one model with the outflank USR? General consensus on Dakka seems to be that the answer is yes.

Also! The SW codex was written as a 6th edition Codex. Not 5th

Umm...no. The SW codex was out at least a year before there were even rumors of 6th edition. Anyone who argues that they had 6th ed in mind when they wrote this codex is smoking crack. Just by reading the 6th ed rules, I can tell that they barely had 6th edition rules in mind when they wrote the 6th edition rules.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
So just to get this on the record - I think that a model with SotH should confer the outflank USR the unit it is attached to. I don't see any other way of reading that without generating an exception to the rule.

As for the infantry only thing in the codex, that was meant to prohibit you from giving a character SotH AND a bike, or a jump pack or a thunderwolf mount. The character model has to be an infantry model.

Ok. Saga of the Hunte's entry STARTS with the first 2 word being INFANTRY ONLY! That is the question. Does the Infantry Only mean that Transports can be included as Infantry?

Second: There are many examples of how the SW codex is 6th edition written. I will only name one because I am on my phone.
Ex: the Axe of Morkai is an "Axe" on the model: However! They denote specifically that it is to be counted as a Frost Weapon!
If that's no enough proof the the fact that every box of SW models is cramed with enough Plasma Weapons to kill a horse should be.

Infantry only means that only an infantry model can take SotH. Since the only models in the entire codex that can take SotH are a Wolf Priest or a Wolf Guard Battle Leader, it means that you cannot give the character both the Saga of the Hunter and a piece of wargear that changes his unit type to something other than infantry. So it means, for example, that I can't give my wolf priest a jump pack and Saga of the hunter. But I CAN give my wolf priest a jump pack (without SotH) and then attach him to a unit of wolf scouts and they would still be able to outflank (the wolf scouts all have the outflank USR), but they wouldn't be able to use "Behind Enemy Lines" anymore.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Second: There are many examples of how the SW codex is 6th edition written. I will only name one because I am on my phone.
Ex: the Axe of Morkai is an "Axe" on the model: However! They denote specifically that it is to be counted as a Frost Weapon!
If that's no enough proof the the fact that every box of SW models is cramed with enough Plasma Weapons to kill a horse should be.

This is TOTALLY false. I happen to have the Space Wolf Codex that was written for 3rd edition and the rules of the Axe of Morkai are word for word the same as in this codex. Did they write that codex for 6th edition too?

The restriction means that only an infantry model may take the upgrade.

Secondly, the axe is actually a frost blade or a power fist, his choice each assault phase, per swings accordingly. It's not an axe, since it's also a unusual power weapon.

Grugknuckle wrote:
I agree that outflanking with a land raider is abuse. What about people outflanking with a dedicated transport? Should they get to outflank or not? Not just SW rhino's but any dedicated transport attached to a unit with at least one model with the outflank USR? General consensus on Dakka seems to be that the answer is yes.

Outflanking is conferred upon the dedicated transport of a unit that outflanks, RAW. How is it abusive for a LR to outflank, if it's a dedicated transport? Especially taking into account that outflanking units can no longer assault the turn they come in.

Beamo wrote:
Outflanking is conferred upon the dedicated transport of a unit that outflanks, RAW. How is it abusive for a LR to outflank, if it's a dedicated transport? Especially taking into account that outflanking units can no longer assault the turn they come in.

How is it abusive? I don't know man, it just doesn't feel right to me. Is it allowed by the RAW? Yes, I think it is, if the land raider is a dedicated transport. So it would have to be a Wolf Guard unit - the only other LR's are heavy support choices. Would I complain if someone played that against me? No. Not at all. It's just that, I *HATE* it when people complain about my beloved space puppies being overpowered cheese and I don't want to give them any more ammunition.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Off the topic, but @Beamo : Did you paint this?

http://www.coolminiornot.com/246910?browseid=2200466

Because...wow man that's really beautiful work.

I'd rather you Outflank your Land Raider - it gives me one more turn (minimum) to prepare for it.

And I would LOVE a tutorial on how you did this guy's hand and hair.

http://www.coolminiornot.com/246911?browseid=2200466

dorantana wrote:Ok. Saga of the Hunte's entry STARTS with the first 2 word being INFANTRY ONLY! That is the question. Does the Infantry Only mean that Transports can be included as Infantry?

Second: There are many examples of how the SW codex is 6th edition written. I will only name one because I am on my phone.
Ex: the Axe of Morkai is an "Axe" on the model: However! They denote specifically that it is to be counted as a Frost Weapon!
If that's no enough proof the the fact that every box of SW models is cramed with enough Plasma Weapons to kill a horse should be.

That is an extremely weak example and you got it wrong, the entry states that it a frost blade, which if you then look to the entry on frost blades and axes in the SW codex, it tells you they are the same. However with the new SW FAQ change we see that frost axes and frost blades have specific seperate entries/rules.

The reason why the box is packed with plasma is because it is meant to build Grey Hunters, Blood Claws, and Wolf Scouts.

AND .... when I look at this it makes my wonder why I even bother to pick up a brush.

http://www.coolminiornot.com/282562?browseid=2200466

Just got an official ruling from GW customer service. Saga Hunter does not confer outflank to dedicated transports.

Too bad GW customer service is less reliable than uhh, something really unreliable...sorry couldn't think of a good analogy...