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.

Drunkspleen wrote:

Tyr Grimtooth wrote:I would take your example of "move like jump infantry" and use it with caution as it was quite the debate in last edition if a hive tyrant with wings could deepstrike because he could "move like jump infantry" which then was FAQ'd to clarify that he was indeed able to deepstrike.

As it was in that case and is in this case, there is no "line in the sand" as to where having the ability to outflank ends in the USR. We know in the case of the hive tyrant debate that it was inclusive of the entire rule. By your standard, Saga of the Hunter would then not also confer stealth. But where did you get the right to draw the line at that point?

As there is no line drawn within the new USR and the only way to use Saga of the Hunter now is to reference the new USR, I think that you follow the USR in its entirety.

His point with regards to Jump Infantry was that it is a special case that specifically says "moves like uses all the rules and gets all the special rules" because otherwise, the phrase wouldn't inherently have that meaning, and would only allow you to move like jump infantry, you could debate what constitutes moving, but it certainly wouldn't grant associated USRs (if not for that specific exception in the rulebook).

It's foolish to try and use the "by your standard" schtick, especially when you do it incorrectly, anyone can look right in a discussion when they get to put words in the other person's mouth.

By any standard Saga of the Hunter still grants stealth, because it explicitly says the model has the Stealth rule, whereas, it does not say they have the outflank rule, but rather, only the ability to use said deployment method.

My bad. I was confusing it with Infiltrate and Scouts where an additional ability is conferred in the entry.

You are still just randomly drawing a line within the rule with no permission or guidance. You have to either let the ability to outflank mesh with the new USR completely or cannot use it at all. The very first sentence tells you,

"During deployment, players can declare that any unit that contains at least one model with this special rule is attempting to Outflank the enemy."

As the IC with Saga of the Hunter does not have the USR, per your interpretation, the player can never declare that the IC is attempting to Outflank.

However, if you check the new SW FAQ, there are no longer any references to an IC with Saga of the Hunter as there was in 5th edition. If Saga of the Hunter was as you interpret it, those FAQ would have to still be in the FAQ to allow it to work. The only way that those FAQ are no longer needed is if Saga of the Hunter is actually referencing and uses the newer Outflank USR.

So you have to either accept that the ability to outflank in Saga of the Hunter equates to using the Outflank USR completely or accept that it does absolutely nothing.

Both sides are wrong on this one. RAW it does absolutely nothing. RAW it only allows Stealth as the ability to outflank is not enough to just outflank, whether or not with a unit. Conferring outflank to a unit, much less a dedicated transport is moot as the IC in question cannot even outflank himself.

Once again, please don't think to put words in people's mouths to formulate your argument, you are basically strawmanning.

Per my interpretation, he can use outflank even without having the USR, because he has a special rule that says he can, having the Outflank USR is just one way of getting permission to outflank, other rules not called Outflank can also give that permission, but unless they specifically say the model gains the Outflank Special Rule, then the model does not.

Out flank wasn't an ability you had in 5th was it it was conferred by abilitys like scout wasn't it???????

By any standard Saga of the Hunter still grants stealth, because it explicitly says the model has the Stealth rule, whereas, it does not say they have the outflank rule, but rather, only the ability to use said deployment method.

Remember that in 5th Edition, Outflank was not a universal special rule. It is therefore unreasonable to expect a 5th edition codex to refer to "the outflank special rule" or to give any model or unit "the outflank special rule". In sixth edition, it IS a USR. Moreover, the rules for using "the ability to outflank" in 6th edition are only covered in the Outflank USR paragraph. Under that paragraph, it says "if at least one model in the unit has the USR the unit my outflank".

You can argue all day that the phrase, "has the ability to outflank" does not confer the outflank USR, but I think that the exact meaning of the phrase is open to interpretation. However, when put into context, you must factor in the recent change to the new edition rules. In a friendly game, I would expect that at best both players would agree that SotH confers the USR, at worst to dice it off. Furthermore, no reasonable TO would intentionally interpret this to mean SotH does NOT confer the outflank USR simply because it complicates the rules. If ruled the way you want it, now we would have to go back and revisit the wording of every 5th Ed codex with units that have "the ability to outflank". Do they get the USR or not? And what would be the purpose of that exercise?

Drunkspleen wrote:Once again, please don't think to put words in people's mouths to formulate your argument, you are basically strawmanning.

Per my interpretation, he can use outflank even without having the USR, because he has a special rule that says he can, having the Outflank USR is just one way of getting permission to outflank, other rules not called Outflank can also give that permission, but unless they specifically say the model gains the Outflank Special Rule, then the model does not.

I am only putting forth that which you already have stated.

You can't have it both ways. If you say that the IC can Outflank based on having the ability to outflank, the only way per the RAW that is possible is for him to have the Outflank special rule. That is the pure RAW of the rule itself that I have already quoted in the first sentence pf the rule. There is absolutely no other way to resolve the ability to outflank given by Saga of the Hunter without following the rules for Outflank USR, which the IC cannot because he does not have the USR.

It is an all or nothing premise because there is no direction to only partially follow the Outflank USR nor is there even any mention of what the ability to outflank is allowed to do without actually having the Outflank USR.

Like people have posted, it was considered a special type of move in 5th so the wording used in the SW codex reflects being able to use that special move. They removed all reference from the SW FAQ regarding Saga of the Hunter and outflank which means that the only way it can be used now is if you use it as it is written in 6th edition USR. That makes it clear to me that,

The ability to outflank = Outflank USR

Or else it does absolutely nothing.

So im guessing that my previous post is bieng ignored because the opposition can't argue against it. I won't quote myself so just go back a page.

BloodKnight82 wrote:As per pg. 32 in th BRB, "Whenever a creature or weapon has an ability that breaks or bends one of the main game rules, it is represented as a special rule" So saying he has an ability to outflank but not the special rule outflank is false. The what special rules do i have section is for situations such as I am using some space marine scouts so they should have the stealth and the scout usr, but unless its stated thats not true. IIRC I think this is currently the case with DA scouts and also Neophytes from Black Templars.

Yes. It's hard to argue against this interpretation.

"The ability to outflank" = "has the outflank USR".

Grugknuckle wrote: "The ability to outflank" = "has the outflank USR".

Agree

A 5th ed dex wouldn't have "this charater has the Outflank USR" because the outflank USR didn't exist..... just sayin.

I'm sure GW would have FAQd it in the SW codex if they didn't want it work that way.

Dozer Blades wrote:I'm sure GW would have FAQd it in the SW codex if they didn't want it work that way.

Eventhough GW should know better, I am sure they weren't expecting some players to argue that having the ability doesn't mean you have the Outflank USR. Who would have thunk?

Grugknuckle wrote:

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.

Well actually our store manager worked on the 6th Ed' rulebook (we live near Nottingham), he says it was started 3 years ago. The basic rules were written in the 1st year and the book was made and tested in the last 2. So it's perfectly possible it could have been made for 6th.

Back on topic I think that RAW yes you can Outflank the Land Raider. RAI probably not.

phantommaster wrote:
Well actually our store manager worked on the 6th Ed' rulebook (we live near Nottingham), he says it was started 3 years ago. The basic rules were written in the 1st year and the book was made and tested in the last 2. So it's perfectly possible it could have been made for 6th.

Any codex that came out more than a year before the new rules cannot be assumed to have been written for the new rules. Any claim that it was is pure speculation - especially when that claim is used to justify some RAI argument. Is it possible that it was written with 6th ed in mind? Sure. But we all know about the GW Gestapo's policy for keeping their new rules secret. I find it highly questionable to think that the team that wrote the SW codex would be privy to any information about 6th ed rules. But, even if they did have knowledge, I am certain that the actually wording of the rules had changed dramatically back and forth between the time that the SW codex was written and the 6th BRB came out. To claim otherwise is imbecility.

phantommaster wrote: So it's perfectly possible it could have been made for 6th.

I wasn't saying it was definite. In fact I rather doubt it, but it IS POSSIBLE.

Grugknuckle wrote:

phantommaster wrote:
Well actually our store manager worked on the 6th Ed' rulebook (we live near Nottingham), he says it was started 3 years ago. The basic rules were written in the 1st year and the book was made and tested in the last 2. So it's perfectly possible it could have been made for 6th.

Any codex that came out more than a year before the new rules cannot be assumed to have been written for the new rules. Any claim that it was is pure speculation - especially when that claim is used to justify some RAI argument. Is it possible that it was written with 6th ed in mind? Sure. But we all know about the GW Gestapo's policy for keeping their new rules secret. I find it highly questionable to think that the team that wrote the SW codex would be privy to any information about 6th ed rules. But, even if they did have knowledge, I am certain that the actually wording of the rules had changed dramatically back and forth between the time that the SW codex was written and the 6th BRB came out. To claim otherwise is imbecility.

The only real thing that comes to mind that shines in 6th edition from the SW codex as having been tailor made for 6th edition is Lukas' doppleganger cloak. That is it.

The only real thing that comes to mind that shines in 6th edition from the SW codex as having been tailor made for 6th edition is Lukas' doppleganger cloak. That is it.

OR ... they tailor made the 6th ed rules to that particular piece of wargear in the SW codex and other wargear like it in other codecies.
I mean, isn't that what we really want? We want them to write the rules so that the older codecies fit smoothly into the new rule set.

EDIT : I was going to say, "isn't that what we expect from GW", but then I realized that I actually expect them to write vague contradictory rules so that we can all argue about them.

Grugknuckle wrote:Remember that in 5th Edition, Outflank was not a universal special rule. It is therefore unreasonable to expect a 5th edition codex to refer to "the outflank special rule" or to give any model or unit "the outflank special rule". In sixth edition, it IS a USR. Moreover, the rules for using "the ability to outflank" in 6th edition are only covered in the Outflank USR paragraph. Under that paragraph, it says "if at least one model in the unit has the USR the unit my outflank".

You can argue all day that the phrase, "has the ability to outflank" does not confer the outflank USR, but I think that the exact meaning of the phrase is open to interpretation. However, when put into context, you must factor in the recent change to the new edition rules. In a friendly game, I would expect that at best both players would agree that SotH confers the USR, at worst to dice it off. Furthermore, no reasonable TO would intentionally interpret this to mean SotH does NOT confer the outflank USR simply because it complicates the rules. If ruled the way you want it, now we would have to go back and revisit the wording of every 5th Ed codex with units that have "the ability to outflank". Do they get the USR or not? And what would be the purpose of that exercise?

The change to 6th edition is irrelevant, if we were to interpret the phrase some way other than how it is written in the codex Games Workshop had the Errata to tell us to do so, they did not. The rules for using outflank also aren't in the paragraph you claim, the rules for using outflank are entirely separated into a different paragraph, the paragraph you are discussing is only used to grant permission to follow those rules. Your personal theories about what belongs in a friendly game and what a TO would rule are irrelevant to the discussion at hand too, the fact is, I would expect people to play by the rules in a friendly game, not look for undue advantages for their characters.

Grugknuckle wrote:

BloodKnight82 wrote:As per pg. 32 in th BRB, "Whenever a creature or weapon has an ability that breaks or bends one of the main game rules, it is represented as a special rule" So saying he has an ability to outflank but not the special rule outflank is false. The what special rules do i have section is for situations such as I am using some space marine scouts so they should have the stealth and the scout usr, but unless its stated thats not true. IIRC I think this is currently the case with DA scouts and also Neophytes from Black Templars.

Yes. It's hard to argue against this interpretation.

"The ability to outflank" = "has the outflank USR".

It's not an argument, the rules quote just says he has a special rule, sure he does, it's called "Saga of the Hunter" it's not called "Outflank", just because we are told rule bending/breaking is a Special rule, doesn't mean they are inherently a USR. "Saga of the Hunter" lets that one model have the ability to outflank, it does not grant him the Outflank USR, because it doesn't say he has the Outflank USR, and we are told models do not have Special Rules unless we are explicitly told they do have them.

It was ignored because there's no merit to it, not because it's hard to argue against.

Just to be clear when you say looking for undue advanatges for our characters you mean actually getting to use Saga of the Hunter in its entirety, not just the Stealth USR?

Man, who would have thought that trying to use a rule as intended I would be considered a WAAC or TFG?

Tyr Grimtooth wrote:Just to be clear when you say looking for undue advanatges for our characters you mean actually getting to use Saga of the Hunter in its entirety, not just the Stealth USR?

Man, who would have thought that trying to use a rule as intended I would be considered a WAAC or TFG?

No I mean being able to bring all sorts of attached units and transports with the character.

You are welcome to outflank the character, just you can't use him to outflank other things that themselves are unable to.

Clearly, Drunkspleen and I disagree. But I've made my points.

The rules for using outflank also aren't in the paragraph you claim, the rules for using outflank are entirely separated into a different paragraph

There are several paragraphs under the same heading of Outflank USR. I unfortunately referred to everything under that heading as a single paragraph (because I read lots of engineering documents and that's how we do it. So shoot me.) It doesn't change anything.

Your personal theories about what belongs in a friendly game and what a TO would rule are irrelevant to the discussion at hand too, the fact is, I would expect people to play by the rules in a friendly game, not look for undue advantages for their characters.

I expect people to play by the rules too. The problem is that we have a disagreement about what the rules actually are.
But now I think there is nearly a consensus on this forum. I think you're the only dissenter.

Isn't it true that Land Raiders can only be taken as a Dedicated Transport for Terminators? And isn't it true that Terminators are not Troops?

On another note, the Warlord Trait Master of Manuver grants the Warlord and the Unit he joins (including dedicated transports according to the outflank rules) the ability to Outflank. So if your Warlord joins a unit of Terminators in a Land Raider, it may outflank.

reticent_bassist wrote:Isn't it true that Land Raiders can only be taken as a Dedicated Transport for Terminators? And isn't it true that Terminators are not Troops?

Read your Codex and find out. It varies. For Space Wolves, Wolf Guard are the only ones that can take it as a Dedicated Transport. There is no requirement that they be in Terminator armor.

Also Warlord Traits are random at the start of every game so its not really useful for planning an army around...

Does seem to be everyone saying yes and one person holding out with a no for some reason doesn't it? Funny.

Drunkspleen wrote:

Tyr Grimtooth wrote:Just to be clear when you say looking for undue advanatges for our characters you mean actually getting to use Saga of the Hunter in its entirety, not just the Stealth USR?

Man, who would have thought that trying to use a rule as intended I would be considered a WAAC or TFG?

No I mean being able to bring all sorts of attached units and transports with the character.

You are welcome to outflank the character, just you can't use him to outflank other things that themselves are unable to.

And that is where you fail.

You cannot even outflank the character because by your own argument he does not have the special rule to even attempt to outflank per the RAW of the rule. Having the ability does absolutely nothing because you need to have the special rule to even attempt to outflank, that is the absolute RAW.

So as I said, me wanting to use the rule as intended makes me TFG? Because as pointed out, the fact that an IC with Outflank joining units and allowing said units with their dedicated transports to outflank with the IC is supported by the rules. It is spelled out exactly how the USR transfers over.

Frankly you are just coming across as one of the, "SW are too overpowered already" individuals that post your opposition in any thread regarding SW on biased principle, and biased principle only.

Per your intepretation if the rules, Saga of the Hunter is broken. Having the ability to outflank is not enough for the IC to even outflank on his own, much less with a unit. The only part of the rule left unbroken by your interpretation is that he has the Stealth USR.

Fortunately logic and evidence are against you. And while it will take a FAQ to shut you up, the majority of players and organizers I know accept that the ability to outflank in Saga of the Hunter confers the Outflank USR in 6th edition.

Tyr Grimtooth wrote:
Frankly you are just coming across as one of the, "SW are too overpowered already" individuals that post your opposition in any thread regarding SW on biased principle, and biased principle only.

I actually said this on page 1, but was forced to edit out my comment.

Grugknuckle wrote:

Tyr Grimtooth wrote:
Frankly you are just coming across as one of the, "SW are too overpowered already" individuals that post your opposition in any thread regarding SW on biased principle, and biased principle only.

I actually said this on page 1, but was forced to edit out my comment.

Well just a quick search through his posting history regarding Space Wolves shows him on the opoosite opinion against anything Space Wolves. So if it needs to be edited out so be it, but I am just calling it as how it appears when it comes to Space Wolves.

Is outflanking a land raider really that big of a deal?

I mean, beyond the novelty of moving on from the short board edge and all... what's the point?

jcress410 wrote:Is outflanking a land raider really that big of a deal?

I mean, beyond the novelty of moving on from the short board edge and all... what's the point?

I guess it depends on the deployment type. Personally, I think that outflanking with a rhino would be better. Maybe? I don't really think it's such a big deal.

And I'd personally rather Outflank 15 Blood Claws and a few Wolf Scout units while a few Long Fangs lay down suppressing fire and Rhino/Pod mounted Grey Hunters help keep the enemy busy.

Outflank is powerful because of the capability to maneuver it unlocks. My favorite example is when you are playing length wise. Instead of having to trek across 6' of table, you are likely to come right up close on Turn 2 (especially with Acute Senses). Being able to cut out a couple of turns of movement is nice.

Tyr Grimtooth wrote:And that is where you fail.

You cannot even outflank the character because by your own argument he does not have the special rule to even attempt to outflank per the RAW of the rule. Having the ability does absolutely nothing because you need to have the special rule to even attempt to outflank, that is the absolute RAW.

No it's not, the Outflank USR tells you units with it can perform an outflank, it doesn't tell you units without it cannot perform an outflank, your insistence that that is the case is not founded on RAW. You do not necessarily need to have the Outflank USR to perform an Outflank.

So as I said, me wanting to use the rule as intended makes me TFG? Because as pointed out, the fact that an IC with Outflank joining units and allowing said units with their dedicated transports to outflank with the IC is supported by the rules. It is spelled out exactly how the USR transfers over.

Frankly you are just coming across as one of the, "SW are too overpowered already" individuals that post your opposition in any thread regarding SW on biased principle, and biased principle only.

I never called you TFG, I don't think to comment on people or their motives when I don't know anything about them, frankly I think you are being insulting here and I really don't appreciate it.

It is spelled out how the USR transfers over only in the case that at least one model in the unit has the USR, which a lord with Saga of the Hunter does not, he has nothing that explicitly states he has the Outflank Special Rule, so per the core rulebook, we are forced to accept that he does not have that special rule.

Per your intepretation if the rules, Saga of the Hunter is broken. Having the ability to outflank is not enough for the IC to even outflank on his own, much less with a unit. The only part of the rule left unbroken by your interpretation is that he has the Stealth USR.

Ah the strawman once again, such a quality argument.

I have told you REPEATEDLY what the ramifications of my interpretation of the rules are, it's not that Saga of the Hunter is broken, it's that Saga of the Hunter works exactly the same way as it did before 6th edition came out.

If you are going to continue to insist that a model cannot use the Outflank deployment method without possessing the Outflank Special Rule, please show me some RAW to back it up, don't just keep saying it and think that it has any meaning.

Fortunately logic and evidence are against you. And while it will take a FAQ to shut you up, the majority of players and organizers I know accept that the ability to outflank in Saga of the Hunter confers the Outflank USR in 6th edition.

Great, I'm not saying everyone has to play by RAW, I'm just telling you what it is, if you want to play by some different means then that's well within your rights.

Drunkspleen wrote:

Tyr Grimtooth wrote:And that is where you fail.

You cannot even outflank the character because by your own argument he does not have the special rule to even attempt to outflank per the RAW of the rule. Having the ability does absolutely nothing because you need to have the special rule to even attempt to outflank, that is the absolute RAW.

No it's not, the Outflank USR tells you units with it can perform an outflank, it doesn't tell you units without it cannot perform an outflank, your insistence that that is the case is not founded on RAW. You do not necessarily need to have the Outflank USR to perform an Outflank.

So as I said, me wanting to use the rule as intended makes me TFG? Because as pointed out, the fact that an IC with Outflank joining units and allowing said units with their dedicated transports to outflank with the IC is supported by the rules. It is spelled out exactly how the USR transfers over.

Frankly you are just coming across as one of the, "SW are too overpowered already" individuals that post your opposition in any thread regarding SW on biased principle, and biased principle only.

I never called you TFG, I don't think to comment on people or their motives when I don't know anything about them, frankly I think you are being insulting here and I really don't appreciate it.

It is spelled out how the USR transfers over only in the case that at least one model in the unit has the USR, which a lord with Saga of the Hunter does not, he has nothing that explicitly states he has the Outflank Special Rule, so per the core rulebook, we are forced to accept that he does not have that special rule.

Per your intepretation if the rules, Saga of the Hunter is broken. Having the ability to outflank is not enough for the IC to even outflank on his own, much less with a unit. The only part of the rule left unbroken by your interpretation is that he has the Stealth USR.

Ah the strawman once again, such a quality argument.

I have told you REPEATEDLY what the ramifications of my interpretation of the rules are, it's not that Saga of the Hunter is broken, it's that Saga of the Hunter works exactly the same way as it did before 6th edition came out.

If you are going to continue to insist that a model cannot use the Outflank deployment method without possessing the Outflank Special Rule, please show me some RAW to back it up, don't just keep saying it and think that it has any meaning.

Fortunately logic and evidence are against you. And while it will take a FAQ to shut you up, the majority of players and organizers I know accept that the ability to outflank in Saga of the Hunter confers the Outflank USR in 6th edition.

Great, I'm not saying everyone has to play by RAW, I'm just telling you what it is, if you want to play by some different means then that's well within your rights.

You cannot have it both ways.

The USR is requiered to not only confer upon a unit but to even outflank in the first place. You keep coming up with this arbitrary line in the sand that you draw with zero rules basis saying that the IC can outflank but cannot confer. That is NOT the RAW of the rule.

There is no in-between. If you are admitting that the IC can outflank, then you are admitting that he has the USR because that is the only way he can outflank which in turn allows him to confer it to any unit he joins. That is the RAW of Outflank as a USR. There is no getting around it.