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.

Do the rules tell you what you can do, or what you cannot? Simple question. No discussion required

Roknar - timing ? No, no timing here. Simple layers of permission and restriction. The rule does NOT state you may assault the turn you come in from reserves. It is silent about this. What it does state is that you may assault the turn you disembark.

 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.

The problem with the rule (in terms of the likely intention) is that the RAW doesn't give you specific permission to disregard the restriction on charging after deep striking. If you consider the RAW as blanket permission to charge after disembarking and automatically disregard the restriction on charging after deep striking in the process, then this logic would also mean you could disregard the restriction on charging after running.

HIWPI/RAI, I think the rule lets you DS, disembark and charge all in the same turn, but not to Run before you charge though. It seems tthey've botched the writing of this rule though.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Do the rules tell you what you can do, or what you cannot? Simple question. No discussion required

Roknar - timing ? No, no timing here. Simple layers of permission and restriction. The rule does NOT state you may assault the turn you come in from reserves. It is silent about this. What it does state is that you may assault the turn you disembark.

The question was directed at those who would allow the turn 1 charge, regardless of how they got to that conclusion. And how they would treat running/rapid firing with their interpretation.

Call it a stack then if you prefer.

Top of the stack: Cannot charge
Codex/formation: Can Charge
BRB: Cannot charge

and then whichever is at the top of the stack applies. I say that the formation overrides the BRB and allows you to charge. But that doesn't suddenly allow you to illegally declare charges. It simply allows you to declare a charge in the first place.
Deepstriking means you aren't allowed to declare a charge period. Then the formation overrides that by saying you may (this is the assumption of his question)....so your back to the normal situation. Running then again prevents you from declaring a charge. This is unrelated to the formation in my opinion, as it is the newest event/restriction/whatever you want to call it and overrides anything that happens before that.

rulebook gives you the permission to assault -> deepstrike/reserves denies you that privilege -> formation reinstates it -> run revokes it yet again.

Roknar wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Do the rules tell you what you can do, or what you cannot? Simple question. No discussion required

Roknar - timing ? No, no timing here. Simple layers of permission and restriction. The rule does NOT state you may assault the turn you come in from reserves. It is silent about this. What it does state is that you may assault the turn you disembark.

The question was directed at those who would allow the turn 1 charge, regardless of how they got to that conclusion. And how they would treat running/rapid firing with their interpretation.

Call it a stack then if you prefer.

Top of the stack: Cannot charge
Codex/formation: Can Charge
BRB: Cannot charge

and then whichever is at the top of the stack applies. I say that the formation overrides the BRB and allows you to charge. But that doesn't suddenly allow you to illegally declare charges. It simply allows you to declare a charge in the first place.
Deepstriking means you aren't allowed to declare a charge period. Then the formation overrides that by saying you may (this is the assumption of his question)....so your back to the normal situation. Running then again prevents you from declaring a charge. This is unrelated to the formation in my opinion, as it is the newest event/restriction/whatever you want to call it and overrides anything that happens before that.

rulebook gives you the permission to assault -> deepstrike/reserves denies you that privilege -> formation reinstates it -> run revokes it yet again.

No, i don't see it as a stack either, it is more a combination of all.

So it is not:
Give permission --> remove --> give --> remove --> give --> remove

But rather:
- Give
- Give
- Deny
- Deny

And you remove the conflicts.

As such, in the examples you are using, we have the following restrictions:
- Cannot Charge from Deep Striking
- Cannot Charge from having Run
- Cannot Charge from Reserves
- Cannot Charge from Disembarking

Permissions:
- Can charge from Disembarking (<-- that is the rule right?)

So you cross out the restrictions concerned:
- Cannot Charge from Deep Striking
- Cannot Charge from having Run
- Cannot Charge from Reserves
- Cannot Charge from Disembarking

As such, the Unit may not declare a Charge, as it still has [3] restrictions. The permissions need to address either implicitly or explicitly (preferred) the restrictions applied.

The issue is, cannot charge from disembarking is not a restriction for that unit.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The actual rule talks about the turn you disembark. If disembarking isn't a restriction, then the turn must be. The only restrictions related to the turn, are the turn you arrive from reserve

 BlackTalos wrote:

Roknar wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Do the rules tell you what you can do, or what you cannot? Simple question. No discussion required

Roknar - timing ? No, no timing here. Simple layers of permission and restriction. The rule does NOT state you may assault the turn you come in from reserves. It is silent about this. What it does state is that you may assault the turn you disembark.

The question was directed at those who would allow the turn 1 charge, regardless of how they got to that conclusion. And how they would treat running/rapid firing with their interpretation.

Call it a stack then if you prefer.

Top of the stack: Cannot charge
Codex/formation: Can Charge
BRB: Cannot charge

and then whichever is at the top of the stack applies. I say that the formation overrides the BRB and allows you to charge. But that doesn't suddenly allow you to illegally declare charges. It simply allows you to declare a charge in the first place.
Deepstriking means you aren't allowed to declare a charge period. Then the formation overrides that by saying you may (this is the assumption of his question)....so your back to the normal situation. Running then again prevents you from declaring a charge. This is unrelated to the formation in my opinion, as it is the newest event/restriction/whatever you want to call it and overrides anything that happens before that.

rulebook gives you the permission to assault -> deepstrike/reserves denies you that privilege -> formation reinstates it -> run revokes it yet again.

No, i don't see it as a stack either, it is more a combination of all.

So it is not:
Give permission --> remove --> give --> remove --> give --> remove

But rather:
- Give
- Give
- Deny
- Deny

And you remove the conflicts.

As such, in the examples you are using, we have the following restrictions:
- Cannot Charge from Deep Striking
- Cannot Charge from having Run
- Cannot Charge from Reserves
- Cannot Charge from Disembarking

Permissions:
- Can charge from Disembarking (<-- that is the rule right?)

So you cross out the restrictions concerned:
- Cannot Charge from Deep Striking
- Cannot Charge from having Run
- Cannot Charge from Reserves
- Cannot Charge from Disembarking

As such, the Unit may not declare a Charge, as it still has [3] restrictions. The permissions need to address either implicitly or explicitly (preferred) the restrictions applied.

Your talking about whether or not tehy can charge at all though. I was making my point under the assumption that they CAN charge, to answer whether or not that would allow you to run and charge.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
But to argue on your version if they can assault at all:

I agree with the list of restrictions (minus running, see later), but the permission is different to me. It's not can charge from Disembarking. It's simply: Can charge, provided they disembarked, which then crosses out all the other restrictions.
Can charge from disembark is already provided by assault vehicle and this formation rule must mean something else, aka : Can charge period. (Pure RAW, though they're the same. Meaning they can't assault, but that's just silly)

So now your left with only 1 permission. Can charge. And then later you decide to run and add another restriction, which then crosses out your existing permission. Meaning you can no longer charge.

Except that isn't how permissive systems work. You have a specific restriction. This must be overridden by a specific permission. You lack this specific permission

That's assuming this is a permissive system and not a: Let's do whatever the feth we fancy today system.

I'm not convinced there is any kind of system proper behind making the rules.

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.

a ML 3 psyker can have up to 5 powers, 3 for ML 1 for focus and 1 as force.

it relates to how many powers you can cast in that you cannot cast the same power twice, so at most said psyker could attempt 5 powers

a ML one psyker may know 2 powers, their one generated power and focus. So they could attempt 2 powers.

Given the rule in question only has a rule that states they may assault the turn they disembark, and RAW obviously does not say even if deep striking. Consider they can only ever arrive by deepstrike in that formation, if the rule then states they may assault when they disembark and they are able to disembark the turn they arrive then wouldn't the rule be taking into account that they are arriving from deep strike and disembarking from a transport the same turn, and we are told in the RAW that they may assault when they disembark. Otherwise the rule has no function.

Captyn_Bob wrote:
The issue is, cannot charge from disembarking is not a restriction for that unit.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The actual rule talks about the turn you disembark. If disembarking isn't a restriction, then the turn must be. The only restrictions related to the turn, are the turn you arrive from reserve

And you are left with the issue Roknar described:
If the permission covers simply "the Turn" and not disembarking, then the Unit could Disembark, Run, fire Ordnance, and then Charge (as the allowance is for "the Turn")

As Nos says, it is quite simple by RaW:

Permissions must refer to the restrictions they cancel. "can charge in the turn it disembarks" refers to disembarking in the same Turn. Not a permission to Charge that removes ALL restrictions...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Roknar wrote:
I agree with the list of restrictions (minus running, see later), but the permission is different to me. It's not can charge from Disembarking. It's simply: Can charge, provided they disembarked, which then crosses out all the other restrictions.
Can charge from disembark is already provided by assault vehicle and this formation rule must mean something else, aka : Can charge period. (Pure RAW, though they're the same. Meaning they can't assault, but that's just silly)

So now your left with only 1 permission. Can charge. And then later you decide to run and add another restriction, which then crosses out your existing permission. Meaning you can no longer charge.

Which does not work at all by RaW, as all rules are "constant".

You do not loose the permission to charge. All the rules apply until they are resolved, in this case, the permission to charge.

Upon checking whether you may Charge or not, you total up the Rules concerned. "Can charge, provided they disembarked, which then crosses out all the other restrictions" remains as it is. You don't suddenly ignore that rule because you Ran or fired Ordnance.

A model with Eternal Warrior does not suddenly gain the Rule when he has to remove Wounds. He has the Rule, period. They apply as a constant when you are told to apply them.

Upon checking whether you may Charge or not, what rules apply?
If you think "Can charge period" is the permission in this case, why does "having Run" apply, but "having arrived by Deep Strike" or "Having fired Ordnance" or any other restrictions would not?

It's obvious you can assault straight from the pod when it arrives. That's how it is.

I was under the impression that running was a temporary rule, but I read it again and it seems that is indeed a constant rule that you cannot charge in the following assault if you ran in the previous shooting.

In that case I have to revise my statement. It seems you can indeed run and charge.

Assuming your in the camp of allowing the first turn assault anyway. Hungry for blood gives you a blanket permission to charge on the the turn you disembark from the kharybdis.

Why?, because it says so. You can charge on the turn you disembark. It makes no exceptions.

Since its a badly written rule people want to make it what its not.

Thats fair and reasonable. Just not right. I'm not saying that couldn't have been their intention (I think might have been) but it isn't.

So thats it. If you say it over writes the rule you are just putting your own spin and hoping that is what was meant when we don't know until its FAQ'd.

That it would make sense is not an argument, its not what the rule is.

HWYPI?

I just find it amusing that the "Spear of Sicarius" formation from the same book actually has the rule right in order to allow the charge after deepstrike.

I dont see that as a sign they didnt intend it to work that way for the khorne formation. I just see that as a sign of how terrible their projects are managed and how little they care about QC.

Mywik. For a company that is so top notch this kind of tedious mistake is tiresome and I must say I think I agree even if I argue it can't be played that way.

What really annoys me is this kind of stupid teenager style pride they have that means they refuse to engage with the community and fix mistakes.

....not really the time or the place to say this but there is only one way to fix a company that acts like that (I've worked for one that begins with an M and ends with vista was gak) is for some competition to hit it right in the teeth.

Roknar wrote:
I was under the impression that running was a temporary rule, but I read it again and it seems that is indeed a constant rule that you cannot charge in the following assault if you ran in the previous shooting.

In that case I have to revise my statement. It seems you can indeed run and charge.

Assuming your in the camp of allowing the first turn assault anyway. Hungry for blood gives you a blanket permission to charge on the the turn you disembark from the kharybdis.

Why?, because it says so. You can charge on the turn you disembark. It makes no exceptions.

Your "stack" concept doesnt apply to 40k. A specific restriction requires a specific permission to override it

There is no "blanket" permission here. It would need to state "You may assault first turn, regardles of other restrictions" in order to do so. HEll, it would even let you shoot another unit thanthe one you declare your charge against, taking the naive reading of the rule.

Jaq Draco lives wrote:
Mywik. For a company that is so top notch this kind of tedious mistake is tiresome and I must say I think I agree even if I argue it can't be played that way.

What really annoys me is this kind of stupid teenager style pride they have that means they refuse to engage with the community and fix mistakes.

....not really the time or the place to say this but there is only one way to fix a company that acts like that (I've worked for one that begins with an M and ends with vista was gak) is for some competition to hit it right in the teeth.

So what do you think the rule does? What does the rule allow (or disallow) that is different to what the unit could normally do?

What effect would you play the rule as having?

 FlingitNow wrote:

Jaq Draco lives wrote:
Mywik. For a company that is so top notch this kind of tedious mistake is tiresome and I must say I think I agree even if I argue it can't be played that way.

What really annoys me is this kind of stupid teenager style pride they have that means they refuse to engage with the community and fix mistakes.

....not really the time or the place to say this but there is only one way to fix a company that acts like that (I've worked for one that begins with an M and ends with vista was gak) is for some competition to hit it right in the teeth.

So what do you think the rule does? What does the rule allow (or disallow) that is different to what the unit could normally do?

What effect would you play the rule as having?

Still presuming all rules have function, and ignoring where this was proven false?

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:

Jaq Draco lives wrote:
Mywik. For a company that is so top notch this kind of tedious mistake is tiresome and I must say I think I agree even if I argue it can't be played that way.

What really annoys me is this kind of stupid teenager style pride they have that means they refuse to engage with the community and fix mistakes.

....not really the time or the place to say this but there is only one way to fix a company that acts like that (I've worked for one that begins with an M and ends with vista was gak) is for some competition to hit it right in the teeth.

So what do you think the rule does? What does the rule allow (or disallow) that is different to what the unit could normally do?

What effect would you play the rule as having?

Still presuming all rules have function, and ignoring where this was proven false?

Nope. All named Special Rules have a function RaW. The rules tell us special rules change the core rules. The rulebook however is scattered with redundant reminders and contextual lines that have no functionality. Now can you please find a named special rule that NEVER serves a function? Page and paragraph or concede.

I think we can all agree what the likely RAI is here. Unfortunately the RAW just doesn't allow this due to not specifically permitting the restriction on charging after deep striking to be disregarded. And you don't need another example of a non-functional rule to demonstrate that they have botched the writing of this one.

 Tonberry7 wrote:
you don't need another example of a non-functional rule to demonstrate that they have botched the writing of this one.

This

 FlingitNow wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:

Jaq Draco lives wrote:
Mywik. For a company that is so top notch this kind of tedious mistake is tiresome and I must say I think I agree even if I argue it can't be played that way.

What really annoys me is this kind of stupid teenager style pride they have that means they refuse to engage with the community and fix mistakes.

....not really the time or the place to say this but there is only one way to fix a company that acts like that (I've worked for one that begins with an M and ends with vista was gak) is for some competition to hit it right in the teeth.

So what do you think the rule does? What does the rule allow (or disallow) that is different to what the unit could normally do?

What effect would you play the rule as having?

Still presuming all rules have function, and ignoring where this was proven false?

Nope. All named Special Rules have a function RaW. The rules tell us special rules change the core rules. The rulebook however is scattered with redundant reminders and contextual lines that have no functionality. Now can you please find a named special rule that NEVER serves a function? Page and paragraph or concede.

Goal shifting again? Shocked. Oh, and it DOES serve a function, by altering the basic rule that you cannot charge having disembarked from a transport vehicle. Without the assault vehicle rule, this rule is the only item that allows you to alter this basic rule.

GIven this rule *effectively* serves no function, as the vehicle HAS the Assault Vehicle USR, I have complied. Your concession is accepted.

I see youre still refusing to debate honestly. Back on ignore.

Goal shifting again? Shocked. Oh, and it DOES serve a function, by altering the basic rule that you cannot charge having disembarked from a transport vehicle. Without the assault vehicle rule, this rule is the only item that allows you to alter this basic rule. 

GIven this rule *effectively* serves no function, as the vehicle HAS the Assault Vehicle USR, I have complied. Your concession is accepted.

I see youre still refusing to debate honestly. Back on ignore.

Accuse me of not debating honestly when you also accuse me of goal shifting when I ask you for the same thing I have been asking all debate? Seriously?

Your refusal to answer along with your laughable jest tells me everything I need to know about your argument. Thank you for proving my side correct.

No, you asked for a "named rule" once I gave you the Rule around mastery levels. Once your initial argument was thwarted, you pretended you had meant something else.

What refusal to answer? The answers are plain as day. You just dont accept them. Crucial difference.

Bye.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
No, you asked for a "named rule" once I gave you the Rule around mastery levels. Once your initial argument was thwarted, you pretended you had meant something else.

What refusal to answer? The answers are plain as day. You just dont accept them. Crucial difference.

Bye.

You didn't give a named rule. You gave me a contextual line. Still waiting for a named rule.

 FlingitNow wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
No, you asked for a "named rule" once I gave you the Rule around mastery levels. Once your initial argument was thwarted, you pretended you had meant something else.

What refusal to answer? The answers are plain as day. You just dont accept them. Crucial difference.

Bye.

You didn't give a named rule. You gave me a contextual line. Still waiting for a named rule.

You asked for that *after* I posted the MAstery levels rule. Goal shifting as ever.

You're done, as is your argument


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 FlingitNow wrote:

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.

Just to "remind" you of where your goal shift occurred.

Are you still claiming that the bolded RULE in the RULEBOOK, where "bold" means this is the most important RULE in the paragraph, isnt a RULE that does nothing? Just for interest, of course. Seeing if youre being consistent.

How did my argument shift? Do you think shift means stay the same as that is what you seem to be claiming. Still no named rule I see.

 FlingitNow wrote:
How did my argument shift? Do you think shift means stay the same as that is what you seem to be claiming. Still no named rule I see.

You were claiming all rules had function, then decided on "all named rules" when the former was proven invalid.

Adamantium skull, for about 1 month in 4th. Named rule, had no function until 5th appeared. THats jsut off the top of my head.

Your claim remains debunked. Carry on pretending otherwise.

I dont see how citing another non functional rule has anything to do with the rule discussed in this thread.

Even if there are no other "named rules" that dont function - how exactly does that make the rule were discussing functional?

I think its another case of hywpi against raw. Most people accept the RAW says they cant charge the turn they deepstrike. I also think most people would let their opponent do it because they acknowledge the poor quality of gws releases. i also dont expect tournaments in my area to rule otherwise.

Thats not to say flingits interpretation is wrong or anything but i really dont think asking for other non functional rules proves anything here.