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.

Jaq Draco lives wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:

Jaq Draco lives wrote:
this would be codex vs BRB if it actually specifically over ruled the BRB.

But it doesn't since it says nothing about if you come out of reserve. And there are other possibilities like a second turn charge after using it as a skimmer.

It is an assault vehicle so it can already do that. So what do you think the formation rule does that it can't already do?

GW wrote a bad rule?

Never in the world!

So again what does the rule do? If your interpretation is the rule does nothing then your interpretation is wrong.

The rule waits for a FAQ (if it is even released in the posted form, since we're debating unreleased rules). A better hope is that they revise the kharybdis rules and include it in this supplement since the kharybdis is a forgeworld unit, not a GW unit, and its rules aren't in a codex.

On face, the formation does not allow assault after a deepstrike because the Kharybdis itself (not the BRB) prohibits assault after deepstriking and the formation rule does not counteract that. It is possible to read the rule as applying to disembarking from the Kharybdis in later turns since it doesn't require disembarkation.

Does this seem superfluous to assault vehicle? Yes. But that doesn't open the door to guessing about the intention.

Do we think they're intending to allow a first turn assault? Probably, but that's a guess, not a rule.

Anyone, and I mean anyone, who read the unit entry for the kharybdis would have seen this issue and would have known that it needed to include the phase 'after deepstriking' in the formation rule. GW didn't do that, and we don't get to make up what we think they meant when they wrote it. (In a friendly, sure, why not. In any competitive tournament, no).

Ragnulf wrote:
The rule waits for a FAQ (if it is even released in the posted form, since we're debating unreleased rules). A better hope is that they revise the kharybdis rules and include it in this supplement since the kharybdis is a forgeworld unit, not a GW unit, and its rules aren't in a codex.

On face, the formation does not allow assault after a deepstrike because the Kharybdis itself (not the BRB) prohibits assault after deepstriking and the formation rule does not counteract that. It is possible to read the rule as applying to disembarking from the Kharybdis in later turns since it doesn't require disembarkation.

Does this seem superfluous to assault vehicle? Yes. But that doesn't open the door to guessing about the intention.

Do we think they're intending to allow a first turn assault? Probably, but that's a guess, not a rule.

Anyone, and I mean anyone, who read the unit entry for the kharybdis would have seen this issue and would have known that it needed to include the phase 'after deepstriking' in the formation rule. GW didn't do that, and we don't get to make up what we think they meant when they wrote it. (In a friendly, sure, why not. In any competitive tournament, no).

Ah the old in a tournament cheating is OK adage... If your interpretation is that the rules does literally nothing then your interpretation is wrong. The rule seems clear to me and if you're being honest they are clear to you to. If you want to cheat in a game of toy soldiers then go ahead, but let's not pretend you don't know what this rule does.

When I first read the formation rules it was great that you could assault with a zerk unit from deepstrike.

After a re-read I realized that it was still bound to the no assault after deep strike which makes it kinda pointless, but GW loves giving chaos pointless and worthless rules.

The only thing you get from this formation is the str D rule when you misshap and even that is a terrible rule, getting immobilized takes one of the things that makes de Khad Pod cost as much as a Land Raider.

Finally I realized that you need 20 zerks in there, so no room for a character or anything else, 20 zerks are probably overkill for anything and will be left to be shot in the open.

What would be awesome is letting FW models get into KDK lists, hopefully with the addition to Blood for the Blood God! rule


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 FlingitNow wrote:

Ragnulf wrote:
The rule waits for a FAQ (if it is even released in the posted form, since we're debating unreleased rules). A better hope is that they revise the kharybdis rules and include it in this supplement since the kharybdis is a forgeworld unit, not a GW unit, and its rules aren't in a codex.

On face, the formation does not allow assault after a deepstrike because the Kharybdis itself (not the BRB) prohibits assault after deepstriking and the formation rule does not counteract that. It is possible to read the rule as applying to disembarking from the Kharybdis in later turns since it doesn't require disembarkation.

Does this seem superfluous to assault vehicle? Yes. But that doesn't open the door to guessing about the intention.

Do we think they're intending to allow a first turn assault? Probably, but that's a guess, not a rule.

Anyone, and I mean anyone, who read the unit entry for the kharybdis would have seen this issue and would have known that it needed to include the phase 'after deepstriking' in the formation rule. GW didn't do that, and we don't get to make up what we think they meant when they wrote it. (In a friendly, sure, why not. In any competitive tournament, no).

Ah the old in a tournament cheating is OK adage... If your interpretation is that the rules does literally nothing then your interpretation is wrong. The rule seems clear to me and if you're being honest they are clear to you to. If you want to cheat in a game of toy soldiers then go ahead, but let's not pretend you don't know what this rule does.

You need to take a look at VotLW on the Dark Apostle and realize there are rules that are printed there and do literally nothing.

Wrong Veterans of the Long War does stuff for lots of units that can take it. This rule exists in 1 formation and is a named rule for a current edition, the accusation that the rule NEVER does anything is clearly different to one where a functional rule does nothing in a particular incidence (or a rule for a previous edition that has become non-functional like the 6th supplement allying to main faction rules). Try again with a named rule that does literally nothing ever from the point it was written.

RAI the rule was meant to do something- people do not write rules text to create a rule that does nothing.

If the rule was meant to do something, and the current default kharbydis allows you to DS down, sit in it then assault next turn. With this in mind it is reasonable to state that RAI the RAW should override the assaulting from deepstrike restriction.

It is ambiguous what the authors meant, however stating they intended for the rule to not allow you to assault when deep striking but it deals only with an unit that arrives solely by deepstriking holds little merit as a point of discussion.

The rule specifically states they may charge on the same turn they disembark.

They have specific permission to do something that normally would not be able to do, a specific permission which is more specific than the rules for deep striking, so by the RAW they may assault the turn they disembark. There are no caveats put on the situation they may disembark.

If they drop in with the pod on say turn X and they are allowed to disembark the same turn, they by the specific special rule they have they may assault as per the RAW for their rule the same turn, as it overrides the more general rules for deep striking.

Not allowing them to assault is actually not following the rules as written in their entry. Further it is the same as saying special rules do not modify general rules.

I'm not trying to have an adversarial thing here. No, I'm not advocating cheating at tournaments. I'm pointing out that rules used in tournaments need to be RAW or FAQ'd. Opening up RAI is fine in a casual game where players can talk it out, but tournaments aren't a good setting for this as games are on a timer. If a TO wants to put forward a ruling one way or another ahead of time, that's also o.k. from my perspective. Other people may disagree, and I certainly don't speak for any TO's.

Again, this isn't the general rule being overridden by the formation. The unit entry for the assault claw prohibits deepstrike assaults. That is the most specific rule, and they need to FAQ it or exempt that specific rule in formation (or in a GW release of the Kharybdis rules since it's currently a FW rule). Since there is a way for berzerkers to disembark on a subsequent turn, the rule doesn't override the deepstrike portion. Unless you fill in the gap on what GW wrote with what you believe was intended, even though they very clearly could have written the rule to allow deepstrike assault (that is in the unit entry for the unit they're including in the formation) and chose not to do so.

There is a way for berzerkerz to disembark on a second turn, but by the rules there is a way for them to disembark on the first turn and they have a special rule when taken in a formation that requires them to be taken and embarked on the drop pod in question which states they may assault when they disembark.

if they disembark turn 1 they may assault.

if they disembark turn 1 and you say they cannot assault you are ignoring the special rule for an unit that modifies the rules of the transport they are required to be on and take in the same formation the rules regard.

Unless a faq comes out saying they have to wait to disembark until turn 2, then they may disembark turn 1. As per their special rule, they may assault when they disembark.

Except the Kharybdis also has a rule in the unit entry that says the unit may assault the turn they disembark. And then, in the unit entry, it excludes the turn that the unit deepstrikes.

Long and short - they blew it when they wrote the rule.

blaktoof wrote:
There is a way for berzerkerz to disembark on a second turn, but by the rules there is a way for them to disembark on the first turn and they have a special rule when taken in a formation that requires them to be taken and embarked on the drop pod in question which states they may assault when they disembark.

if they disembark turn 1 they may assault.

if they disembark turn 1 and you say they cannot assault you are ignoring the special rule for an unit that modifies the rules of the transport they are required to be on and take in the same formation the rules regard.

Unless a faq comes out saying they have to wait to disembark until turn 2, then they may disembark turn 1. As per their special rule, they may assault when they disembark.

Do you realise that this interpretation would allow the unit to disembark, run/shoot heavys, and then charge?

Its the same logic as allowing a unit to disembark from a LR with a dev squad, fire four heavy bolters, and then charge.

Can we have a roll call of people who would/would not allow a first turn charge? Its pointless arguing if we all agree to let it happen anyway.

I for one will allow it, if for no other reason than its not even the best formation that can do it.

True. At 650 points minimum, that's a pretty hefty price tag for a unit that can assault a single unit or give up Rage/Furious Charge in a multi-assault.

Even if it can DSA its still rubbish, especially compared to the Marine one, and quite possibly not even available outside of apocalypse where balance barely even matters.

I think people are holding GW's rules authors to a standard they themselves don't attempt, or maybe even cannot manage due to having the combined intelligence of a baked bean. Its entirely possible and I would say probably that the writer went "yup, "charge after disembarking" covers it, now off to go spank to eldar some more" and called it a day, expecting people to use 'common sense' to understand his intention and not read all that far into it - such as the "yep this must totally allow run then assault then" interpretation. And no thats not a good thing, nor a criticism of people who do not think that way, as everyone would benefit from proper rules writing

With that in mind, if "the rule does nothing" was considered to be an unacceptable answer, what would the best interpretation of this rule be? If the choice is between Deep Strike Assault and "it does nothing because the writers didn't write the rule to my standard" then I know I will rule it as Deep Strike Assault every time.

I'm not trying to have an adversarial thing here. No, I'm not advocating cheating at tournaments. I'm pointing out that rules used in tournaments need to be RAW or FAQ'd. 

Which of course is false and illustrates either you don't go to tournaments or don't understand RaW. RaI is rife in tournaments because RaW breaks near constantly. I have never once been to or heard a tournament FAQ that in 5th & 6th Ed that helmeted marines can draw LoS from the helmet lenses, yet without such an FAQ RaW Helmeted marines (and about every other model except Orks, Nids and Guard) could never shoot or charge anything. We assume with no RaW support that "roll again" is different to "reroll" yet nothing tells us this but without this game turn roll offs don't work if both players roll the same number twice. There are many many other examples where we just accept RaI because it is obvious and this is another one of those examples.

This is clearly specific rule in the formation vs general from rulebook.
And this thread is testament to why i have given up on using YMDC as a guidelight in how people play the game. Anyone stating that this formation cannot assault after disembark would be laughed out of the room at every tournament or flgs.

I'm ok with RAW discussions to find the true meaning of rules, but this is just trolling. YMDC is just losing all respect from this.

Can the berzerkers get out and charge on the turn that the claw deep strikes?

RAW: Probably not. Allowing them to charge after DS using that wording would mean the Berzerkers could also Run before charging, although maybe they can. They are Berzerkers after all.
RAI: Almost certainly yes, but it's just another example of poor rule writing. They should have said "this unit can charge on the turn in which the claw arrives via deep strike" or something to that effect.

Yonasu wrote:
This is clearly specific rule in the formation vs general from rulebook.
And this thread is testament to why i have given up on using YMDC as a guidelight in how people play the game. Anyone stating that this formation cannot assault after disembark would be laughed out of the room at every tournament or flgs.

I'm ok with RAW discussions to find the true meaning of rules, but this is just trolling. YMDC is just losing all respect from this.

No, it's a rule, but it is not specific. It does not SPECIFICALLY state they may assault after deep striking, and this is a fact. There is no smbiguity here. The actual written rule is clear but non functional

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Yonasu wrote:
This is clearly specific rule in the formation vs general from rulebook.
And this thread is testament to why i have given up on using YMDC as a guidelight in how people play the game. Anyone stating that this formation cannot assault after disembark would be laughed out of the room at every tournament or flgs.

I'm ok with RAW discussions to find the true meaning of rules, but this is just trolling. YMDC is just losing all respect from this.

No, it's a rule, but it is not specific. It does not SPECIFICALLY state they may assault after deep striking, and this is a fact. There is no smbiguity here. The actual written rule is clear but non functional

Yes RaW makes it non-functional thus it can not be the correct interpretation. Therefore why bother to continue discussing a clearly incorrect stance? Move on and discuss what the rule actually does and we have one option. Thus that must be the correct one.

The rule seems pretty clear. The Zerker unit can charge on the same turn that it disembarks from the Claw.

Is there any rule that prevents a unit from disembarking from a vehicle the turn it arrives from Deep Strike? If not, this is legal.

Sometimes special rules are really just that simple. They don't need to contradict EVERY other rule out there, they simply explain global condition that is true for that unit.

Incorrect, that isn't how permissive systems work. There is a restriction on charging when coming in from deepstrike. Does the rule override this? No? In which case you still may not charge.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 FlingitNow wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Yonasu wrote:
This is clearly specific rule in the formation vs general from rulebook.
And this thread is testament to why i have given up on using YMDC as a guidelight in how people play the game. Anyone stating that this formation cannot assault after disembark would be laughed out of the room at every tournament or flgs.

I'm ok with RAW discussions to find the true meaning of rules, but this is just trolling. YMDC is just losing all respect from this.

No, it's a rule, but it is not specific. It does not SPECIFICALLY state they may assault after deep striking, and this is a fact. There is no smbiguity here. The actual written rule is clear but non functional

Yes RaW makes it non-functional thus it can not be the correct interpretation. Therefore why bother to continue discussing a clearly incorrect stance? Move on and discuss what the rule actually does and we have one option. Thus that must be the correct one.

No, that's not how the rule book works. Or are you claiming that the mastery level rule has function?

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Incorrect, that isn't how permissive systems work. There is a restriction on charging when coming in from deepstrike. Does the rule override this? No? In which case you still may not charge.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 FlingitNow wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Yonasu wrote:
This is clearly specific rule in the formation vs general from rulebook.
And this thread is testament to why i have given up on using YMDC as a guidelight in how people play the game. Anyone stating that this formation cannot assault after disembark would be laughed out of the room at every tournament or flgs.

I'm ok with RAW discussions to find the true meaning of rules, but this is just trolling. YMDC is just losing all respect from this.

No, it's a rule, but it is not specific. It does not SPECIFICALLY state they may assault after deep striking, and this is a fact. There is no smbiguity here. The actual written rule is clear but non functional

Yes RaW makes it non-functional thus it can not be the correct interpretation. Therefore why bother to continue discussing a clearly incorrect stance? Move on and discuss what the rule actually does and we have one option. Thus that must be the correct one.

No, that's not how the rule book works. Or are you claiming that the mastery level rule has function?

Yes Mastery level helps determine how many powers you generate. It also has an effect on how you deny the witch.

And it relates to the number of powers you can cast, how? You know exactly the non functional rule I am talking about, don't stall.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
And it relates to the number of powers you can cast, how? You know exactly the non functional rule I am talking about, don't stall.

Well you can keep casting until you run out of powers or dice. Yes that rule is non-functional it is not really a rule but a contextual sentence explaining what different mastery levels means. It is not a named rule with no function. As it is not a named special rule that does nothing. Come up with an actual equivalent example.

It is a bolded rule, and thus is the most important part of that rules paragraph. You know this.

It is equivalent. You're just equivocating because you know your absolutist statement is false, but won't admit as such.

This rule is, as written, non functional. This is fact.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
It is a bolded rule, and thus is the most important part of that rules paragraph. You know this.

It is equivalent. You're just equivocating because you know your absolutist statement is false, but won't admit as such.

This rule is, as written, non functional. This is fact.

It is copy pasted from the previous edition you know this. There is no functionality even hinted in the rule. It is the most important part of a contextual paragraph that is all. It is a contextual line not a rule. Try again. This time with an actual equivalent example.

Fun side question to those who believe this rule does allow you to assault after deep striking:

Does this rule (and Assault Vehicle) allow you to assault after running or firing a rapid fire weapon, provided that you disembarked from the vehicle that turn?

Might be a bit of a straw man argument, but I really don't see the difference.

 FlingitNow wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
It is a bolded rule, and thus is the most important part of that rules paragraph. You know this.

It is equivalent. You're just equivocating because you know your absolutist statement is false, but won't admit as such.

This rule is, as written, non functional. This is fact.

It is copy pasted from the previous edition you know this. There is no functionality even hinted in the rule. It is the most important part of a contextual paragraph that is all. It is a contextual line not a rule. Try again. This time with an actual equivalent example.

Yes, it is copy pasted.

It is a rule. In a rule section. It provides a rule, that has no function. Case proven, try again.

We all know your absolutist position is gak. Feel free to bow out gracefully and accept your error, or continue to argue. I won't engage while you "debate" dishonestly.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Incorrect, that isn't how permissive systems work.

I'm sorry, but what page is that on ?

It isn't within the rule book. It is how the game and all similar games are designed. Do you have something constructive?

 Cheexsta wrote:
Fun side question to those who believe this rule does allow you to assault after deep striking:

Does this rule (and Assault Vehicle) allow you to assault after running or firing a rapid fire weapon, provided that you disembarked from the vehicle that turn?

Might be a bit of a straw man argument, but I really don't see the difference.

Well firing rapid fire weapons is going to be difficult in a khorne berzerker squad lol, but no and no.
The reason being timing basically. BRB says you can't charge after arriving from reserves (the drop pod assault rule repeats this), but then the formation overrides that by saying you can. And then later in the game you decide to run (or fire rapid fire), which then imposes an ADDITIONAL restriction that you can't charge anymore from that point onwards.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
It isn't within the rule book. It is how the game and all similar games are designed. Do you have something constructive?

People argue RAW and use that "permissive systems" line of thinking as a justification frequently. I want to know where they are getting it from.

If it's not RAW I don't see how it's being used to justify a RAW interpretation.

I've played a gak ton of games and not one of them has ever mentioned "permissive systems" as a mechanic, or even in the design notes.