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.

sirlynchmob wrote:
I've found the ultimate guy for first turn "charges" and he's not even charging.

I give you Zhadsnark, ork biker. He moves 12, then can turbo boost 24 and tank shock any units he can reach. Worse yet, if he starts with warbikers & is your warlord, he can scout. So redeploy 6" move 12" turbo boost/tank shock 24" so 40" threat range

SO he can tank shock any unit on the back of the table and it will be well worth it and funny as heck, any time a unit runs off the table

If the unit DOG's and causes a wound (which can be saved), then they're locked in combat with Zhadsnark in the shooting phase so they can move onto the assault phase as normal He didn't assault, so no overwatches, and it can be done on the first turn

Can you Tank Shock with bikes? (no) Or is Zhadsnark not a bike model?

Rorschach9 wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
I've found the ultimate guy for first turn "charges" and he's not even charging.

I give you Zhadsnark, ork biker. He moves 12, then can turbo boost 24 and tank shock any units he can reach. Worse yet, if he starts with warbikers & is your warlord, he can scout. So redeploy 6" move 12" turbo boost/tank shock 24" so 40" threat range

SO he can tank shock any unit on the back of the table and it will be well worth it and funny as heck, any time a unit runs off the table

If the unit DOG's and causes a wound (which can be saved), then they're locked in combat with Zhadsnark in the shooting phase so they can move onto the assault phase as normal He didn't assault, so no overwatches, and it can be done on the first turn

Can you Tank Shock with bikes? (no) Or is Zhadsnark not a bike model?

he's a biker and his bike gives him permission to tank shock. specifically while turboboosting 24" in the shooting phase

sirlynchmob wrote:

Rorschach9 wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
I've found the ultimate guy for first turn "charges" and he's not even charging.

I give you Zhadsnark, ork biker. He moves 12, then can turbo boost 24 and tank shock any units he can reach. Worse yet, if he starts with warbikers & is your warlord, he can scout. So redeploy 6" move 12" turbo boost/tank shock 24" so 40" threat range

SO he can tank shock any unit on the back of the table and it will be well worth it and funny as heck, any time a unit runs off the table

If the unit DOG's and causes a wound (which can be saved), then they're locked in combat with Zhadsnark in the shooting phase so they can move onto the assault phase as normal He didn't assault, so no overwatches, and it can be done on the first turn

Can you Tank Shock with bikes? (no) Or is Zhadsnark not a bike model?

he's a biker and his bike gives him permission to tank shock. specifically while turboboosting 24" in the shooting phase

Alright then. (Don't know Orks well enough).

It's a Forgeworld thing.

Rorschach9 wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

Rorschach9 wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
I've found the ultimate guy for first turn "charges" and he's not even charging.

I give you Zhadsnark, ork biker. He moves 12, then can turbo boost 24 and tank shock any units he can reach. Worse yet, if he starts with warbikers & is your warlord, he can scout. So redeploy 6" move 12" turbo boost/tank shock 24" so 40" threat range

SO he can tank shock any unit on the back of the table and it will be well worth it and funny as heck, any time a unit runs off the table

If the unit DOG's and causes a wound (which can be saved), then they're locked in combat with Zhadsnark in the shooting phase so they can move onto the assault phase as normal He didn't assault, so no overwatches, and it can be done on the first turn

Can you Tank Shock with bikes? (no) Or is Zhadsnark not a bike model?

he's a biker and his bike gives him permission to tank shock. specifically while turboboosting 24" in the shooting phase

Alright then. (Don't know Orks well enough).

he's one of those IA8 FW ones from the dread mob.

 yakface wrote:


This is not how rules in a game work. Permissions do not override restrictions unless the permissions explicitly say so. So in order for your premise #2 to be correct, the rule would have to say that flyers can start the game in hover mode on top of your shy shield landing pad, even when that landing pad is outside of your deployment zone.

Restrictions always override permissions, except when the permissions explicitly say that they override the restriction.

Opening a new can of worms here.

But the parts in red are the opinion of this site, and by no means actually written in rule.

If it is a rule, post pg# and what book its in, otherwise its how this site thinks it should be.

 Steel-W0LF wrote:

 yakface wrote:


This is not how rules in a game work. Permissions do not override restrictions unless the permissions explicitly say so. So in order for your premise #2 to be correct, the rule would have to say that flyers can start the game in hover mode on top of your shy shield landing pad, even when that landing pad is outside of your deployment zone.

Restrictions always override permissions, except when the permissions explicitly say that they override the restriction.

Opening a new can of worms here.

But the parts in red are the opinion of this site, and by no means actually written in rule.

If it is a rule, post pg# and what book its in, otherwise its how this site thinks it should be.

yakface's comment is part of the definition of a Permissive Ruleset.

 Happyjew wrote:

 Steel-W0LF wrote:

 yakface wrote:


This is not how rules in a game work. Permissions do not override restrictions unless the permissions explicitly say so. So in order for your premise #2 to be correct, the rule would have to say that flyers can start the game in hover mode on top of your shy shield landing pad, even when that landing pad is outside of your deployment zone.

Restrictions always override permissions, except when the permissions explicitly say that they override the restriction.

Opening a new can of worms here.

But the parts in red are the opinion of this site, and by no means actually written in rule.

If it is a rule, post pg# and what book its in, otherwise its how this site thinks it should be.

yakface's comment is part of the definition of a Permissive Ruleset.

And thats defined in the BRB?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And actually no, the parts in red are not required to be a permissive rule set. Yo can have a permissive rule set where permissions over rule restrictions with no "explicit" saying so.

The BRB does not define everything. I've never seen a game where the instructions outright say "This game uses a permissive rulset. This means..."

However, if games did not use permissive rules, then I could challenge you to a game, wait for you to set up and declare myself the winner.

 Steel-W0LF wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

 Steel-W0LF wrote:

 yakface wrote:


This is not how rules in a game work. Permissions do not override restrictions unless the permissions explicitly say so. So in order for your premise #2 to be correct, the rule would have to say that flyers can start the game in hover mode on top of your shy shield landing pad, even when that landing pad is outside of your deployment zone.

Restrictions always override permissions, except when the permissions explicitly say that they override the restriction.

Opening a new can of worms here.

But the parts in red are the opinion of this site, and by no means actually written in rule.

If it is a rule, post pg# and what book its in, otherwise its how this site thinks it should be.

yakface's comment is part of the definition of a Permissive Ruleset.

And thats defined in the BRB?

That's how rules work. If they didn't the whole system would fail.

For example you're given permission to Assault.
There's then a restriction on Assaulting from Reserve.

Assault Vehicles give permission to Assault, but it doesn't explicitly say it overrides the reserve restriction. So it doesn't.
Zaggstrukk (Ork named character) has a rule that explicitly overrides the reserve restriction, so he can assault from reserve.

The "can of worms" you mention, is if you don't follow the principles of a permissive ruleset.

 grendel083 wrote:

 Steel-W0LF wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

 Steel-W0LF wrote:

 yakface wrote:


This is not how rules in a game work. Permissions do not override restrictions unless the permissions explicitly say so. So in order for your premise #2 to be correct, the rule would have to say that flyers can start the game in hover mode on top of your shy shield landing pad, even when that landing pad is outside of your deployment zone.

Restrictions always override permissions, except when the permissions explicitly say that they override the restriction.

Opening a new can of worms here.

But the parts in red are the opinion of this site, and by no means actually written in rule.

If it is a rule, post pg# and what book its in, otherwise its how this site thinks it should be.

yakface's comment is part of the definition of a Permissive Ruleset.

And thats defined in the BRB?

That's how rules work. If they didn't the whole system would fail.

For example you're given permission to Assault.
There's then a restriction on Assaulting from Reserve.

Assault Vehicles give permission to Assault, but it doesn't explicitly say it overrides the reserve restriction. So it doesn't.
Zaggstrukk (Ork named character) has a rule that explicitly overrides the reserve restriction, so he can assault from reserve.

The "can of worms" you mention, is if you don't follow the principles of a permissive ruleset.

I agree with this line of thought, but here's the counter argument for debatings sake:

The argument you gave above is more of an general vs specific thing. You cannot assault from reserves is more specific, and you can assault from an assault vehicle is more general.

My problem with what I originally quoted in red is where there is a specific rule that counters a general rule, without explicitly saying so. As there are cases of that....and they usually end up in 15+ page threads here.

 Steel-W0LF wrote:
My problem with what I originally quoted in red is where there is a specific rule that counters a general rule, without explicitly saying so. As there are cases of that....and they usually end up in 15+ page threads here.

You mean where people attempt to misapply that concept?
Yes, that happens. That doesn't change reality, but it happens.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Steel-W0LF wrote:
My problem with what I originally quoted in red is where there is a specific rule that counters a general rule, without explicitly saying so. As there are cases of that....and they usually end up in 15+ page threads here.

You mean where people attempt to misapply that concept?
Yes, that happens. That doesn't change reality, but it happens.

In regards to the landing pad question in this thread, I would say that RAI I agree the flyer could not deploy outside the deployment zone, and would not play that they could.

But from a rules perspective, I see the argument that they could. You have a general denial that says they cant, but specific permission due to the landing pad that works out that they could.


Personally I think this would be an oversight, which is why I wouldn't play it that way.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
As an added thought:

I think in general when a permission breaks a restriction, they try to list that it breaks the restrictions. But they dont always list them all.

So my original disagreement with what I quoted by yakface is that what is in red is touted and said on here a lot like its a hard written rule that GW adheres to. When its not. Its more of their ideal guideline that they miss the mark on sometimes.

Actually there are 2 denials, not 1.

Denial 1: Units must be deployed within your deployment zone.
Denial 2: Flyers must start the game in reserves.

RFTO overrides Denial 2, but not Denial 1.

 Steel-W0LF wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Steel-W0LF wrote:
My problem with what I originally quoted in red is where there is a specific rule that counters a general rule, without explicitly saying so. As there are cases of that....and they usually end up in 15+ page threads here.

You mean where people attempt to misapply that concept?
Yes, that happens. That doesn't change reality, but it happens.

In regards to the landing pad question in this thread, I would say that RAI I agree the flyer could not deploy outside the deployment zone, and would not play that they could.

But from a rules perspective, I see the argument that they could. You have a general denial that says they cant, but specific permission due to the landing pad that works out that they could.

You have 2 denials in different sections saying they can't, and one of those denials not being addressed - meaning it must still be enforced.
Which is why it doesn't work. Like I said - misapplying the concept.

Land Raider arrives from Reserves - the embarked Terminators can't assault for the following reasons:
1) Cannot assault after Disembark (overridden by Assault Vehicle)
2) Cannot assault after arriving from Reserves

We have 2 restrictions, 1 of which is overridden leaving a restriction. It's still a general restriction and still applies even though a specific rule has overridden a separate restriction.

 Happyjew wrote:
Actually there are 2 denials, not 1.

Denial 1: Units must be deployed within your deployment zone.
Denial 2: Flyers must start the game in reserves.

RFTO overrides Denial 2, but not Denial 1.

Where you are allowed to place the Skyshield is what over rides denial 1.

Headed off to work and I don't have the heart to sit and debate this specific issue, because I think RAI lines up with what you guys are saying.

 Steel-W0LF wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
Actually there are 2 denials, not 1.

Denial 1: Units must be deployed within your deployment zone.
Denial 2: Flyers must start the game in reserves.

RFTO overrides Denial 2, but not Denial 1.

Where you are allowed to place the Skyshield is what over rides denial 1.

Headed off to work and I don't have the heart to sit and debate this specific issue, because I think RAI lines up with what you guys are saying.

No, it absolutely doesn't. All it allows you to do is deploy the SSLP in your table half.
The rules literally never mention anything about allowing you to deploy another model anywhere in your table half.

That's your problem - you're taking one explicit rule and assuming it means more than it does.

I hate Necron scarab swarms, lol. 3 Spyders in 1 HS slot alone is enough to be a seriously solid addition to any Necron army (think of them as being the equivalent of a monstrous creature with T6, 9 wounds, 6 S6 attacks (9 on charge) and a 3+ armor save for 150 points - that is incredibly cheap, even if they have average WS and crappy initiative) , although the scarab swarm tactic requires you to expend 1 FA slot as well because you need swarm bases already in play to generate more.


Speaking of which, do Nid Tervigons still have that rule where if you spawn more Gaunts than you own models, you cannot place them all?

I dont think such a rule exists for scarab swarm bases?

 Sir Arun wrote:
Speaking of which, do Nid Tervigons still have that rule where if you spawn more Gaunts than you own models, you cannot place them all?

I dont think such a rule exists for scarab swarm bases?

They do.
It does.

So GW is essentially telling you: "Dont use coins or counters, ->buy moar modelz from uzz!<-"

Non sequitur much? What do necron scarab bases have to do with first turn charges? other than that it was once debatably possible with them too.

 Neorealist wrote:
Non sequitur much? What do necron scarab bases have to do with first turn charges? other than that it was once debatably possible with them too.

It's still possible with them. Just significantly less likely.

 Steel-W0LF wrote:

Opening a new can of worms here.

But the parts in red are the opinion of this site, and by no means actually written in rule.

If it is a rule, post pg# and what book its in, otherwise its how this site thinks it should be.

Please check out this link (which is also in my sig) about general vs. specific arguments

While it doesn't 100% exactly address what you're talking about (cause it was addressing the basic mistakes people make when parroting that codex always overrides rulebook), it does cover the basic points.

In essence…these are not just my 'opinions', they are facts that have to be accepted for the game rules to work, whether you realize it or not.

If you disregard these facts about how rules function to construct a game, then the entire premise of the game rules crumples in upon itself like a house of cards and you have nothing.

I call them fundamentals, as they are the concepts on which Rules are then Written.

spore mines created from missed biovore barrages/harpy bombs, can make a first player turn charge as well.

 yakface wrote:

 Steel-W0LF wrote:

Opening a new can of worms here.

But the parts in red are the opinion of this site, and by no means actually written in rule.

If it is a rule, post pg# and what book its in, otherwise its how this site thinks it should be.

Please check out this link (which is also in my sig) about general vs. specific arguments

While it doesn't 100% exactly address what you're talking about (cause it was addressing the basic mistakes people make when parroting that codex always overrides rulebook), it does cover the basic points.

In essence…these are not just my 'opinions', they are facts that have to be accepted for the game rules to work, whether you realize it or not.

If you disregard these facts about how rules function to construct a game, then the entire premise of the game rules crumples in upon itself like a house of cards and you have nothing.

I agree with general vs specific, and that codex does not always trump BRB, even though the rules says it does.

My contention was with the statement that restrictions always trump permissions unless explicitly stated otherwise. And that is not always the case either. As mentioned earlier, I believe its the way they try to do things, but as with everything GW writes, things are missed or left out. So a blanket "this is always the case" statement cannot be made.

 Steel-W0LF wrote:
I agree with general vs specific, and that codex does not always trump BRB, even though the rules says it does.

The rule actually says "On rare occasions, a conflict will arise between a rule in this rulebook, and one printed in a codex.'Where this occurs, the rule printed in the codex always takes precedence." (7)

So the rules does not say codex always trumps BRB. it says codex always trumps BRB when there is a conflict.

Subtle but important difference.

 Steel-W0LF wrote:
My contention was with the statement that restrictions always trump permissions unless explicitly stated otherwise. And that is not always the case either. As mentioned earlier, I believe its the way they try to do things, but as with everything GW writes, things are missed or left out. So a blanket "this is always the case" statement cannot be made.

Except restrictions do actually always trump permissions unless explicitly stated otherwise, because that is how a permissive ruleset works.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Steel-W0LF wrote:
I agree with general vs specific, and that codex does not always trump BRB, even though the rules says it does.

The rule actually says "On rare occasions, a conflict will arise between a rule in this rulebook, and one printed in a codex.'Where this occurs, the rule printed in the codex always takes precedence." (7)

So the rules does not say codex always trumps BRB. it says codex always trumps BRB when there is a conflict.

Subtle but important difference.

 Steel-W0LF wrote:
My contention was with the statement that restrictions always trump permissions unless explicitly stated otherwise. And that is not always the case either. As mentioned earlier, I believe its the way they try to do things, but as with everything GW writes, things are missed or left out. So a blanket "this is always the case" statement cannot be made.

Except restrictions do actually always trump permissions unless explicitly stated otherwise, because that is how a permissive ruleset works.

There's that always" word again in reference to GW rule writing...... /opinion noted.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Do we need to go back a rehash LoS and weapons like Smart Missiles, or Impaler cannons being able to wound things that cannot be seen to prove your stance wrong again?

 Steel-W0LF wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
Actually there are 2 denials, not 1.

Denial 1: Units must be deployed within your deployment zone.
Denial 2: Flyers must start the game in reserves.

RFTO overrides Denial 2, but not Denial 1.

Where you are allowed to place the Skyshield is what over rides denial 1.

Headed off to work and I don't have the heart to sit and debate this specific issue, because I think RAI lines up with what you guys are saying.

Actually it doesn't. The Skyshield is not a unit, so it makes sense that where the Skyshield can be placed is different than where units can be placed.

Baktru wrote:

 Steel-W0LF wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
Actually there are 2 denials, not 1.

Denial 1: Units must be deployed within your deployment zone.
Denial 2: Flyers must start the game in reserves.

RFTO overrides Denial 2, but not Denial 1.

Where you are allowed to place the Skyshield is what over rides denial 1.

Headed off to work and I don't have the heart to sit and debate this specific issue, because I think RAI lines up with what you guys are saying.

Actually it doesn't. The Skyshield is not a unit, so it makes sense that where the Skyshield can be placed is different than where units can be placed.

And if you pay the points to allow a flyer to start on it, where it is placed is not in the equation.

Though as stated I believe it to be an oversight.