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.
2016/05/30 03:39:16
Subject: Deep Striking an Assault Vehicle, Can the Unit inside Disembark/Charge?
Lammikkovalas wrote: ... and the Kharybdis is clearly stated to be from the CSM faction...
I see where it states that a Kharybdis Assault Claw is a Heavy Support choice for an army created using a Space Marine Crusade army list or a Codex: Chaos Space Marines army. I see nothing stating its Faction.
That is stating its Faction right there.
No, it doesn't. The only rule that I can see for determining a unit's Faction are covered on page 118 of the main rulebook. The Kharybdis doesn't have a symbol on it's datasheet, it's not in a codex supplement and they don't state that the experimental rules are an addition to the Codex: Chaos Space Marines.
'It is a source of constant consternation that my opponents cannot correlate their innate inferiority with their inevitable defeat. It would seem that stupidity is as eternal as war.'
- Nemesor Zahndrekh of the Sautekh Dynasty Overlord of the Crownworld of Gidrim
2016/05/30 03:55:51
Subject: Deep Striking an Assault Vehicle, Can the Unit inside Disembark/Charge?
Lammikkovalas wrote: ... and the Kharybdis is clearly stated to be from the CSM faction...
I see where it states that a Kharybdis Assault Claw is a Heavy Support choice for an army created using a Space Marine Crusade army list or a Codex: Chaos Space Marines army. I see nothing stating its Faction.
ITs most resent rules are also in IA13 and it stats its for CSM faction
2016/05/30 05:28:21
Subject: Deep Striking an Assault Vehicle, Can the Unit inside Disembark/Charge?
Lammikkovalas wrote: ... and the Kharybdis is clearly stated to be from the CSM faction...
I see where it states that a Kharybdis Assault Claw is a Heavy Support choice for an army created using a Space Marine Crusade army list or a Codex: Chaos Space Marines army. I see nothing stating its Faction.
That is stating its Faction right there.
No, it doesn't. The only rule that I can see for determining a unit's Faction are covered on page 118 of the main rulebook. The Kharybdis doesn't have a symbol on it's datasheet, it's not in a codex supplement and they don't state that the experimental rules are an addition to the Codex: Chaos Space Marines.
Yes, it is. This is how it is done with the old school army list entry on a data slate. This thing is way older than Datasheets.
Are you a Wolf, a Sheep, or a Hound?
Megavolt wrote:They called me crazy…they called me insane…THEY CALLED ME LOONEY!! and boy, were they right.
2016/05/30 09:20:52
Subject: Deep Striking an Assault Vehicle, Can the Unit inside Disembark/Charge?
I'd say the Assault Vehicle rule unlocks the 'Disembarked' lock. The Hungry for Blood rule just smashes the 'Arrived by Deep Strike' lock to bits I. E. It is no longer a consideration.
Both rules remove the disembarking restriction. That's all. Having two separate rules that both remove a specific restriction doesn't magically give you the ability to ignore a completely different restriction.
Exactly. It explicitly states that the berzerkers in the Kharybdis Assault Claw can assault after disembarking. This SPECIFIC rule overrides the general BRB restriction of not being able to assault after deep striking.
How does a rule that specifically refers to disembarking apply to deep striking?
OK I do understand what you are all saying about the restriction on assaulting after deep striking still applying. It just seems to me that the Hungry for Blood rule was written to override this restriction. Otherwise it's a pointless rule as it just doesn't allow anything the Assault Vehicle rule doesn't already allow.
I've already stated that Hungry for Blood was badly written but I'd therefore expect any FAQ to confirm that the berzerkers could indeed assault after deep striking. If I'm wrong then I'd accept that but then the Hungry for Blood rule really would then be pointless.
Welcome to GW rules writing. They sometimes write pointless rules, because (under Kirby atleast) the goal was to push as much product with as little quality required (now, I'm not saying it's entirely his fault, but his attitude influenced everything in the company)
I think you have to give the rules writers at least a bit of credit. It's one thing to specify a redundant piece of war gear for example but to write an entire rule with no effect just seems bizarre. I suppose I'll just have to wait for an FAQ which hopefully will resolve the situation.
2016/05/30 09:37:27
Subject: Deep Striking an Assault Vehicle, Can the Unit inside Disembark/Charge?
I'd say the Assault Vehicle rule unlocks the 'Disembarked' lock. The Hungry for Blood rule just smashes the 'Arrived by Deep Strike' lock to bits I. E. It is no longer a consideration.
Both rules remove the disembarking restriction. That's all. Having two separate rules that both remove a specific restriction doesn't magically give you the ability to ignore a completely different restriction.
Exactly. It explicitly states that the berzerkers in the Kharybdis Assault Claw can assault after disembarking. This SPECIFIC rule overrides the general BRB restriction of not being able to assault after deep striking.
How does a rule that specifically refers to disembarking apply to deep striking?
OK I do understand what you are all saying about the restriction on assaulting after deep striking still applying. It just seems to me that the Hungry for Blood rule was written to override this restriction. Otherwise it's a pointless rule as it just doesn't allow anything the Assault Vehicle rule doesn't already allow.
I've already stated that Hungry for Blood was badly written but I'd therefore expect any FAQ to confirm that the berzerkers could indeed assault after deep striking. If I'm wrong then I'd accept that but then the Hungry for Blood rule really would then be pointless.
Welcome to GW rules writing. They sometimes write pointless rules, because (under Kirby atleast) the goal was to push as much product with as little quality required (now, I'm not saying it's entirely his fault, but his attitude influenced everything in the company)
I think you have to give the rules writers at least a bit of credit. It's one thing to specify a redundant piece of war gear for example but to write an entire rule with no effect just seems bizarre. I suppose I'll just have to wait for an FAQ which hopefully will resolve the situation.
You really don't, the game is filled with example of bad rules writing (massive imbalances, rules with unclear/debatable interpretations, and useless rules). I don't expect it to be perfect, but I do expect it to be somewhat balanced (i.e. where orks aren't pretty much much auto lose vs tau/eldar)
DQ:90S++G++M----B--I+Pw40k07+D+++A+++/areWD-R+DM+
bittersashes wrote:One guy down at my gaming club swore he saw an objective flag take out a full unit of Bane Thralls.
2016/05/30 16:29:22
Subject: Deep Striking an Assault Vehicle, Can the Unit inside Disembark/Charge?
Tonberry, Eldar Wimndriders have the Battle Focus rule. Battle Focus allows you to Run and shoot in either order. Units that cannot run, cannot benefit from Battle Focus. Does this mean that GW intended to allow Eldar Jetbikes to Run? Or did they give them a rule that does nothing?
Greebo had spent an irritating two minutes in that box. Technically, a cat locked in a box may be alive or it may be dead. You never know until you look. In fact, the mere act of opening the box will determine the state of the cat, although in this case there were three determinate states the cat could be in: these being Alive, Dead, and Bloody Furious.
Orks always ride in single file to hide their strength and numbers.
Gozer the Gozerian, Gozer the Destructor, Volguus Zildrohar, Gozer the Traveler, and Lord of the Sebouillia
2016/05/30 19:48:44
Subject: Deep Striking an Assault Vehicle, Can the Unit inside Disembark/Charge?
Happyjew wrote: Tonberry, Eldar Wimndriders have the Battle Focus rule. Battle Focus allows you to Run and shoot in either order. Units that cannot run, cannot benefit from Battle Focus. Does this mean that GW intended to allow Eldar Jetbikes to Run? Or did they give them a rule that does nothing?
They gave them a rule that does nothing but this is a very poor comparison. Several Eldar units have the battle focus rule but the Hungry for Blood rule was written specifically for the Fist of Khorne Formation. They probably just wrote battle focus as a codex wide rule then removed it from those units they absolutely didn't want to give it to, resulting in some weird interactions like you pointed out.
2016/05/30 19:53:15
Subject: Deep Striking an Assault Vehicle, Can the Unit inside Disembark/Charge?
Happyjew wrote: Tonberry, Eldar Wimndriders have the Battle Focus rule. Battle Focus allows you to Run and shoot in either order. Units that cannot run, cannot benefit from Battle Focus. Does this mean that GW intended to allow Eldar Jetbikes to Run? Or did they give them a rule that does nothing?
They gave them a rule that does nothing but this is a very poor comparison. Several Eldar units have the battle focus rule but the Hungry for Blood rule was written specifically for the Fist of Khorne Formation. They probably just wrote battle focus as a codex wide rule then removed it from those units they absolutely didn't want to give it to, resulting in some weird interactions like you pointed out.
It's a decent comparison. Battle focus helps some units, but is useless for bikes. Hungry for Blood is great if you could start in say, a rhino.
DQ:90S++G++M----B--I+Pw40k07+D+++A+++/areWD-R+DM+
bittersashes wrote:One guy down at my gaming club swore he saw an objective flag take out a full unit of Bane Thralls.
2016/05/30 22:49:33
Subject: Re:Deep Striking an Assault Vehicle, Can the Unit inside Disembark/Charge?
mjl7atlas wrote: Well it would seem that Gamesworkshop 40k seems to think they CAN assault 1st turn.
Some random Schmoe replying to a rules question has just about as much validity as using a magic 8-ball to answer that question...
There is nothing allowing them to assault after they arrive from reserve.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/05/30 22:52:26
"Did you notice a sign out in front of my chapel that said "Land Raider Storage"?" -High Chaplain Astorath the Grim Redeemer of the Lost.
I sold my soul to the devil and now the bastard is demanding a refund!
We do not have an attorney-client relationship. I am not your lawyer. The statements I make do not constitute legal advice. Any statements made by me are based upon the limited facts you have presented, and under the premise that you will consult with a local attorney. This is not an attempt to solicit business. This disclaimer is in addition to any disclaimers that this website has made.
2016/05/31 06:55:24
Subject: Deep Striking an Assault Vehicle, Can the Unit inside Disembark/Charge?
Happyjew wrote: Tonberry, Eldar Wimndriders have the Battle Focus rule. Battle Focus allows you to Run and shoot in either order. Units that cannot run, cannot benefit from Battle Focus. Does this mean that GW intended to allow Eldar Jetbikes to Run? Or did they give them a rule that does nothing?
They gave them a rule that does nothing but this is a very poor comparison. Several Eldar units have the battle focus rule but the Hungry for Blood rule was written specifically for the Fist of Khorne Formation. They probably just wrote battle focus as a codex wide rule then removed it from those units they absolutely didn't want to give it to, resulting in some weird interactions like you pointed out.
It's a decent comparison. Battle focus helps some units, but is useless for bikes. Hungry for Blood is great if you could start in say, a rhino.
No it isn't. Hungry for Blood applies to one specific unit in one specific formation with only one option for the composition of that formation. And they can't start in a rhino so this point is irrelevant.
2016/05/31 07:58:01
Subject: Deep Striking an Assault Vehicle, Can the Unit inside Disembark/Charge?
Happyjew wrote: Tonberry, Eldar Wimndriders have the Battle Focus rule. Battle Focus allows you to Run and shoot in either order. Units that cannot run, cannot benefit from Battle Focus. Does this mean that GW intended to allow Eldar Jetbikes to Run? Or did they give them a rule that does nothing?
They gave them a rule that does nothing but this is a very poor comparison. Several Eldar units have the battle focus rule but the Hungry for Blood rule was written specifically for the Fist of Khorne Formation. They probably just wrote battle focus as a codex wide rule then removed it from those units they absolutely didn't want to give it to, resulting in some weird interactions like you pointed out.
It's a decent comparison. Battle focus helps some units, but is useless for bikes. Hungry for Blood is great if you could start in say, a rhino.
No it isn't. Hungry for Blood applies to one specific unit in one specific formation with only one option for the composition of that formation. And they can't start in a rhino so this point is irrelevant.
Both are pointless rules as written, how is it NOT a decent comparison? And no, IF they could start in rhinos, the rule would be fine, which is why I said IF, but seeing as they can only deepstrike, the rule is worthless as it stands.
DQ:90S++G++M----B--I+Pw40k07+D+++A+++/areWD-R+DM+
bittersashes wrote:One guy down at my gaming club swore he saw an objective flag take out a full unit of Bane Thralls.
2016/05/31 17:36:57
Subject: Deep Striking an Assault Vehicle, Can the Unit inside Disembark/Charge?
Happyjew wrote: Tonberry, Eldar Wimndriders have the Battle Focus rule. Battle Focus allows you to Run and shoot in either order. Units that cannot run, cannot benefit from Battle Focus. Does this mean that GW intended to allow Eldar Jetbikes to Run? Or did they give them a rule that does nothing?
They gave them a rule that does nothing but this is a very poor comparison. Several Eldar units have the battle focus rule but the Hungry for Blood rule was written specifically for the Fist of Khorne Formation. They probably just wrote battle focus as a codex wide rule then removed it from those units they absolutely didn't want to give it to, resulting in some weird interactions like you pointed out.
It's a decent comparison. Battle focus helps some units, but is useless for bikes. Hungry for Blood is great if you could start in say, a rhino.
No it isn't. Hungry for Blood applies to one specific unit in one specific formation with only one option for the composition of that formation. And they can't start in a rhino so this point is irrelevant.
Both are pointless rules as written, how is it NOT a decent comparison? And no, IF they could start in rhinos, the rule would be fine, which is why I said IF, but seeing as they can only deepstrike, the rule is worthless as it stands.
Well I've already explained twice but third time lucky and all that. Battle Focus was written as an army special rule applying to multiple units. Given GWs record it doesn't surprise me that there are oversights resulting in cases where the rule is effectively pointless.
But the Hungry for Blood rule was written for one specific unit in one specific formation. I find it much less likely in those circumstances that they would go ahead and publish it with it being effectively pointless.
2016/05/31 18:15:44
Subject: Deep Striking an Assault Vehicle, Can the Unit inside Disembark/Charge?
Tonberry7 wrote: Well I've already explained twice but third time lucky and all that. Battle Focus was written as an army special rule applying to multiple units. Given GWs record it doesn't surprise me that there are oversights resulting in cases where the rule is effectively pointless.
But the Hungry for Blood rule was written for one specific unit in one specific formation. I find it much less likely in those circumstances that they would go ahead and publish it with it being effectively pointless.
Gravity Pulse affecting Swooping Creatures. They are specifically called out, yet still completely pointless.
Are you a Wolf, a Sheep, or a Hound?
Megavolt wrote:They called me crazy…they called me insane…THEY CALLED ME LOONEY!! and boy, were they right.
2016/05/31 18:23:43
Subject: Deep Striking an Assault Vehicle, Can the Unit inside Disembark/Charge?
Happyjew wrote: Tonberry, Eldar Wimndriders have the Battle Focus rule. Battle Focus allows you to Run and shoot in either order. Units that cannot run, cannot benefit from Battle Focus. Does this mean that GW intended to allow Eldar Jetbikes to Run? Or did they give them a rule that does nothing?
They gave them a rule that does nothing but this is a very poor comparison. Several Eldar units have the battle focus rule but the Hungry for Blood rule was written specifically for the Fist of Khorne Formation. They probably just wrote battle focus as a codex wide rule then removed it from those units they absolutely didn't want to give it to, resulting in some weird interactions like you pointed out.
It's a decent comparison. Battle focus helps some units, but is useless for bikes. Hungry for Blood is great if you could start in say, a rhino.
No it isn't. Hungry for Blood applies to one specific unit in one specific formation with only one option for the composition of that formation. And they can't start in a rhino so this point is irrelevant.
Both are pointless rules as written, how is it NOT a decent comparison? And no, IF they could start in rhinos, the rule would be fine, which is why I said IF, but seeing as they can only deepstrike, the rule is worthless as it stands.
Well I've already explained twice but third time lucky and all that. Battle Focus was written as an army special rule applying to multiple units. Given GWs record it doesn't surprise me that there are oversights resulting in cases where the rule is effectively pointless.
But the Hungry for Blood rule was written for one specific unit in one specific formation. I find it much less likely in those circumstances that they would go ahead and publish it with it being effectively pointless.
Then you still have too much faith in GW. Still a valid comparison though, in both cases you have a rule telling you, you can do something (run and shoot/shoot and run or assault after disembarking), but another restriction that prevents it (unit type jetbike or being unable to assault from reserve).
What does it matter if one is a codex wide rule (that's placed in each unit's entry...) vs a formation rule? None, it doesn't matter and saying it does is just grasping at straws to ignore that:
1. GW rules writing team is human, and might not have worked on EVERY set of rules in the game thus making a mistake here and
2. Have written plenty of unclear/terrible rules before (i.e. blasts, re-rolls, and preferred enemy before the FAQ draft, genestealer cult patty + psychic shriek and BS0, and as Charistoph pointed out, gravity pulse)
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/05/31 18:27:24
DQ:90S++G++M----B--I+Pw40k07+D+++A+++/areWD-R+DM+
bittersashes wrote:One guy down at my gaming club swore he saw an objective flag take out a full unit of Bane Thralls.
2016/06/01 02:11:52
Subject: Re:Deep Striking an Assault Vehicle, Can the Unit inside Disembark/Charge?
mjl7atlas wrote: Well it would seem that Gamesworkshop 40k seems to think they CAN assault 1st turn.
Some random Schmoe replying to a rules question has just about as much validity as using a magic 8-ball to answer that question...
There is nothing allowing them to assault after they arrive from reserve.
So at what point would you deem it official? The rule allowing them to assault is apparently to this board not a rule that allows them to do what it says it does. I have messaged FW,GW and emailed them and every single time they respond with the affirmative that they can.
2016/06/01 02:40:58
Subject: Re:Deep Striking an Assault Vehicle, Can the Unit inside Disembark/Charge?
mjl7atlas wrote: Well it would seem that Gamesworkshop 40k seems to think they CAN assault 1st turn.
Some random Schmoe replying to a rules question has just about as much validity as using a magic 8-ball to answer that question...
There is nothing allowing them to assault after they arrive from reserve.
So at what point would you deem it official?
That's what the FAQs are for.
mjl7atlas wrote: The rule allowing them to assault is apparently to this board not a rule that allows them to do what it says it does. I have messaged FW,GW and emailed them and every single time they respond with the affirmative that they can.
The rule does do what it says it does. The problem is you're trying to make it do more than what it says that it does.
'It is a source of constant consternation that my opponents cannot correlate their innate inferiority with their inevitable defeat. It would seem that stupidity is as eternal as war.'
- Nemesor Zahndrekh of the Sautekh Dynasty Overlord of the Crownworld of Gidrim
2016/06/01 03:52:22
Subject: Re:Deep Striking an Assault Vehicle, Can the Unit inside Disembark/Charge?
mjl7atlas wrote: Well it would seem that Gamesworkshop 40k seems to think they CAN assault 1st turn.
Some random Schmoe replying to a rules question has just about as much validity as using a magic 8-ball to answer that question...
There is nothing allowing them to assault after they arrive from reserve.
So at what point would you deem it official?
When they release an FAQ, or in this case an errata, that says what the e-mail does.
The rule allowing them to assault is apparently to this board not a rule that allows them to do what it says it does. I have messaged FW,GW and emailed them and every single time they respond with the affirmative that they can.
No, The rule does exactly what it says it does, but nothing more.
The rule lifts the restriction on assaulting from a transport, but does not lift the restriction from assaulting from Reserves.
P.S. I have e-mailed GW in the past and I sent them the exact same E-mail three times and gotten a different answer each time.
Plus E-Mails can be faked (Not saying that happened here) and as such can not be relied upon.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/06/01 03:53:32
"Did you notice a sign out in front of my chapel that said "Land Raider Storage"?" -High Chaplain Astorath the Grim Redeemer of the Lost.
I sold my soul to the devil and now the bastard is demanding a refund!
We do not have an attorney-client relationship. I am not your lawyer. The statements I make do not constitute legal advice. Any statements made by me are based upon the limited facts you have presented, and under the premise that you will consult with a local attorney. This is not an attempt to solicit business. This disclaimer is in addition to any disclaimers that this website has made.
2016/06/01 08:11:57
Subject: Deep Striking an Assault Vehicle, Can the Unit inside Disembark/Charge?
Happyjew wrote: Tonberry, Eldar Wimndriders have the Battle Focus rule. Battle Focus allows you to Run and shoot in either order. Units that cannot run, cannot benefit from Battle Focus. Does this mean that GW intended to allow Eldar Jetbikes to Run? Or did they give them a rule that does nothing?
They gave them a rule that does nothing but this is a very poor comparison. Several Eldar units have the battle focus rule but the Hungry for Blood rule was written specifically for the Fist of Khorne Formation. They probably just wrote battle focus as a codex wide rule then removed it from those units they absolutely didn't want to give it to, resulting in some weird interactions like you pointed out.
It's a decent comparison. Battle focus helps some units, but is useless for bikes. Hungry for Blood is great if you could start in say, a rhino.
No it isn't. Hungry for Blood applies to one specific unit in one specific formation with only one option for the composition of that formation. And they can't start in a rhino so this point is irrelevant.
Both are pointless rules as written, how is it NOT a decent comparison? And no, IF they could start in rhinos, the rule would be fine, which is why I said IF, but seeing as they can only deepstrike, the rule is worthless as it stands.
Well I've already explained twice but third time lucky and all that. Battle Focus was written as an army special rule applying to multiple units. Given GWs record it doesn't surprise me that there are oversights resulting in cases where the rule is effectively pointless.
But the Hungry for Blood rule was written for one specific unit in one specific formation. I find it much less likely in those circumstances that they would go ahead and publish it with it being effectively pointless.
Then you still have too much faith in GW. Still a valid comparison though, in both cases you have a rule telling you, you can do something (run and shoot/shoot and run or assault after disembarking), but another restriction that prevents it (unit type jetbike or being unable to assault from reserve).
What does it matter if one is a codex wide rule (that's placed in each unit's entry...) vs a formation rule? None, it doesn't matter and saying it does is just grasping at straws to ignore that:
1. GW rules writing team is human, and might not have worked on EVERY set of rules in the game thus making a mistake here and
2. Have written plenty of unclear/terrible rules before (i.e. blasts, re-rolls, and preferred enemy before the FAQ draft, genestealer cult patty + psychic shriek and BS0, and as Charistoph pointed out, gravity pulse)
1. Obviously the writers of Hungry for Blood didn't work on EVERY rule in the game but i think you've missed the point yet again. I still find it hard to believe that the writers weren't aware of the Assault Vehicle rule and that the unit/formation specific rule that they were writing would be pointless if the intention was to essentially allow the same thing.
2. The instances you have mentioned weren't actually all that unclear if you just read the rules with common sense. The PE re-roll blasts one in particular was just clutching at straws by a vocal minority for some reason. The logic behind that argument was ridiculous and trying to play it that way would be borderline cheating imo. Thankfully the FAQs appear to be clarifying matters with the common sense explanations though. And since you have invoked the name of Christoph I believe he was wrong about both of those instances iirc. I'm not familiar with gravity pulse so can't comment at the moment.
2016/06/01 09:39:30
Subject: Deep Striking an Assault Vehicle, Can the Unit inside Disembark/Charge?
Happyjew wrote: Tonberry, Eldar Wimndriders have the Battle Focus rule. Battle Focus allows you to Run and shoot in either order. Units that cannot run, cannot benefit from Battle Focus. Does this mean that GW intended to allow Eldar Jetbikes to Run? Or did they give them a rule that does nothing?
They gave them a rule that does nothing but this is a very poor comparison. Several Eldar units have the battle focus rule but the Hungry for Blood rule was written specifically for the Fist of Khorne Formation. They probably just wrote battle focus as a codex wide rule then removed it from those units they absolutely didn't want to give it to, resulting in some weird interactions like you pointed out.
It's a decent comparison. Battle focus helps some units, but is useless for bikes. Hungry for Blood is great if you could start in say, a rhino.
No it isn't. Hungry for Blood applies to one specific unit in one specific formation with only one option for the composition of that formation. And they can't start in a rhino so this point is irrelevant.
Both are pointless rules as written, how is it NOT a decent comparison? And no, IF they could start in rhinos, the rule would be fine, which is why I said IF, but seeing as they can only deepstrike, the rule is worthless as it stands.
Well I've already explained twice but third time lucky and all that. Battle Focus was written as an army special rule applying to multiple units. Given GWs record it doesn't surprise me that there are oversights resulting in cases where the rule is effectively pointless.
But the Hungry for Blood rule was written for one specific unit in one specific formation. I find it much less likely in those circumstances that they would go ahead and publish it with it being effectively pointless.
Then you still have too much faith in GW. Still a valid comparison though, in both cases you have a rule telling you, you can do something (run and shoot/shoot and run or assault after disembarking), but another restriction that prevents it (unit type jetbike or being unable to assault from reserve).
What does it matter if one is a codex wide rule (that's placed in each unit's entry...) vs a formation rule? None, it doesn't matter and saying it does is just grasping at straws to ignore that:
1. GW rules writing team is human, and might not have worked on EVERY set of rules in the game thus making a mistake here and
2. Have written plenty of unclear/terrible rules before (i.e. blasts, re-rolls, and preferred enemy before the FAQ draft, genestealer cult patty + psychic shriek and BS0, and as Charistoph pointed out, gravity pulse)
1. Obviously the writers of Hungry for Blood didn't work on EVERY rule in the game but i think you've missed the point yet again. I still find it hard to believe that the writers weren't aware of the Assault Vehicle rule and that the unit/formation specific rule that they were writing would be pointless if the intention was to essentially allow the same thing.
2. The instances you have mentioned weren't actually all that unclear if you just read the rules with common sense. The PE re-roll blasts one in particular was just clutching at straws by a vocal minority for some reason. The logic behind that argument was ridiculous and trying to play it that way would be borderline cheating imo. Thankfully the FAQs appear to be clarifying matters with the common sense explanations though. And since you have invoked the name of Christoph I believe he was wrong about both of those instances iirc. I'm not familiar with gravity pulse so can't comment at the moment.
1. Again, it doesn't matter what you THINK of the writers, the proof is there. They messed up. Otherwise answer this: if the disembark, can they run and assault too? There's just as much permission given for that as there is for assaulting from reserves/deepstrike.
2. Blasts resolving scatter simply required the ability to reroll to hit, PE grants rerolls to hit, nothing is mentioned of how good the reroll needs to be. Therefore RAW, PE would grant rerolls to blasts, but this was apparently not RAI however, so it was fixed with the upcoming FAQ.
3. You missed the point. Again. I pointed out examples of bad rules writing and you're just hand waving them away. Believe it or not, the proof is there RAI or not (hopefully not), Hungry for Blood IS a useless rule currently. Also, what's Charistoph's previous thoughts on RAW got to do with this? I was literally just adding what he mentioned to the list of poorly written rules.
4. Play it how you want, but any way you play it other than RAW is a house rule, which only matters if you're planning on using it in a tourney.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/06/01 09:52:22
DQ:90S++G++M----B--I+Pw40k07+D+++A+++/areWD-R+DM+
bittersashes wrote:One guy down at my gaming club swore he saw an objective flag take out a full unit of Bane Thralls.
2016/06/01 09:41:24
Subject: Deep Striking an Assault Vehicle, Can the Unit inside Disembark/Charge?
PE Reroll blasts followed the rules precisely. No straw clutching required. Your argument required changing the word "ability" to mean something else than it does.
Gravity pulse requires FMC to take a dangerous terrain test. They automatically pass it. Do you think they knew about MCs auto passing dangerous terrain tests? the rule LITERALLY DOES NOTHING to FMCs, and is VERY specific
So, answer for the 4th time: does it allow them to Run and Charge? What was the interntion? Is it at all specififc, or is this your misunderstanding of the meaning of the word "specifc" again?
2016/06/01 15:00:00
Subject: Deep Striking an Assault Vehicle, Can the Unit inside Disembark/Charge?
Happyjew wrote: Tonberry, Eldar Wimndriders have the Battle Focus rule. Battle Focus allows you to Run and shoot in either order. Units that cannot run, cannot benefit from Battle Focus. Does this mean that GW intended to allow Eldar Jetbikes to Run? Or did they give them a rule that does nothing?
They gave them a rule that does nothing but this is a very poor comparison. Several Eldar units have the battle focus rule but the Hungry for Blood rule was written specifically for the Fist of Khorne Formation. They probably just wrote battle focus as a codex wide rule then removed it from those units they absolutely didn't want to give it to, resulting in some weird interactions like you pointed out.
It's a decent comparison. Battle focus helps some units, but is useless for bikes. Hungry for Blood is great if you could start in say, a rhino.
No it isn't. Hungry for Blood applies to one specific unit in one specific formation with only one option for the composition of that formation. And they can't start in a rhino so this point is irrelevant.
Both are pointless rules as written, how is it NOT a decent comparison? And no, IF they could start in rhinos, the rule would be fine, which is why I said IF, but seeing as they can only deepstrike, the rule is worthless as it stands.
Well I've already explained twice but third time lucky and all that. Battle Focus was written as an army special rule applying to multiple units. Given GWs record it doesn't surprise me that there are oversights resulting in cases where the rule is effectively pointless.
But the Hungry for Blood rule was written for one specific unit in one specific formation. I find it much less likely in those circumstances that they would go ahead and publish it with it being effectively pointless.
Then you still have too much faith in GW. Still a valid comparison though, in both cases you have a rule telling you, you can do something (run and shoot/shoot and run or assault after disembarking), but another restriction that prevents it (unit type jetbike or being unable to assault from reserve).
What does it matter if one is a codex wide rule (that's placed in each unit's entry...) vs a formation rule? None, it doesn't matter and saying it does is just grasping at straws to ignore that:
1. GW rules writing team is human, and might not have worked on EVERY set of rules in the game thus making a mistake here and
2. Have written plenty of unclear/terrible rules before (i.e. blasts, re-rolls, and preferred enemy before the FAQ draft, genestealer cult patty + psychic shriek and BS0, and as Charistoph pointed out, gravity pulse)
1. Obviously the writers of Hungry for Blood didn't work on EVERY rule in the game but i think you've missed the point yet again. I still find it hard to believe that the writers weren't aware of the Assault Vehicle rule and that the unit/formation specific rule that they were writing would be pointless if the intention was to essentially allow the same thing.
2. The instances you have mentioned weren't actually all that unclear if you just read the rules with common sense. The PE re-roll blasts one in particular was just clutching at straws by a vocal minority for some reason. The logic behind that argument was ridiculous and trying to play it that way would be borderline cheating imo. Thankfully the FAQs appear to be clarifying matters with the common sense explanations though. And since you have invoked the name of Christoph I believe he was wrong about both of those instances iirc. I'm not familiar with gravity pulse so can't comment at the moment.
1. Again, it doesn't matter what you THINK of the writers, the proof is there. They messed up. Otherwise answer this: if the disembark, can they run and assault too? There's just as much permission given for that as there is for assaulting from reserves/deepstrike.
2. Blasts resolving scatter simply required the ability to reroll to hit, PE grants rerolls to hit, nothing is mentioned of how good the reroll needs to be. Therefore RAW, PE would grant rerolls to blasts, but this was apparently not RAI however, so it was fixed with the upcoming FAQ.
3. You missed the point. Again. I pointed out examples of bad rules writing and you're just hand waving them away. Believe it or not, the proof is there RAI or not (hopefully not), Hungry for Blood IS a useless rule currently. Also, what's Charistoph's previous thoughts on RAW got to do with this? I was literally just adding what he mentioned to the list of poorly written rules.
4. Play it how you want, but any way you play it other than RAW is a house rule, which only matters if you're planning on using it in a tourney.
I think I'll play it according to the FAQ which allows a Turn 1 charge by the bezerkers.
It doesn't seem worth refuting any of your points above now.
2016/06/01 15:13:27
Subject: Re:Deep Striking an Assault Vehicle, Can the Unit inside Disembark/Charge?
Q: Under the Hungry for Blood special rule, are the Berzerkers in the Fist of Khorne Formation allowed to charge in turn one, or from turn two, when they disembark?
A: The Berzerkers can charge on the same turn they disembark, regardless of which turn that is.
That still doesn't cover arriving from Reserve.
'It is a source of constant consternation that my opponents cannot correlate their innate inferiority with their inevitable defeat. It would seem that stupidity is as eternal as war.'
- Nemesor Zahndrekh of the Sautekh Dynasty Overlord of the Crownworld of Gidrim
2016/06/01 15:21:53
Subject: Deep Striking an Assault Vehicle, Can the Unit inside Disembark/Charge?
Happyjew wrote: Tonberry, Eldar Wimndriders have the Battle Focus rule. Battle Focus allows you to Run and shoot in either order. Units that cannot run, cannot benefit from Battle Focus. Does this mean that GW intended to allow Eldar Jetbikes to Run? Or did they give them a rule that does nothing?
They gave them a rule that does nothing but this is a very poor comparison. Several Eldar units have the battle focus rule but the Hungry for Blood rule was written specifically for the Fist of Khorne Formation. They probably just wrote battle focus as a codex wide rule then removed it from those units they absolutely didn't want to give it to, resulting in some weird interactions like you pointed out.
It's a decent comparison. Battle focus helps some units, but is useless for bikes. Hungry for Blood is great if you could start in say, a rhino.
No it isn't. Hungry for Blood applies to one specific unit in one specific formation with only one option for the composition of that formation. And they can't start in a rhino so this point is irrelevant.
Both are pointless rules as written, how is it NOT a decent comparison? And no, IF they could start in rhinos, the rule would be fine, which is why I said IF, but seeing as they can only deepstrike, the rule is worthless as it stands.
Well I've already explained twice but third time lucky and all that. Battle Focus was written as an army special rule applying to multiple units. Given GWs record it doesn't surprise me that there are oversights resulting in cases where the rule is effectively pointless.
But the Hungry for Blood rule was written for one specific unit in one specific formation. I find it much less likely in those circumstances that they would go ahead and publish it with it being effectively pointless.
Then you still have too much faith in GW. Still a valid comparison though, in both cases you have a rule telling you, you can do something (run and shoot/shoot and run or assault after disembarking), but another restriction that prevents it (unit type jetbike or being unable to assault from reserve).
What does it matter if one is a codex wide rule (that's placed in each unit's entry...) vs a formation rule? None, it doesn't matter and saying it does is just grasping at straws to ignore that:
1. GW rules writing team is human, and might not have worked on EVERY set of rules in the game thus making a mistake here and
2. Have written plenty of unclear/terrible rules before (i.e. blasts, re-rolls, and preferred enemy before the FAQ draft, genestealer cult patty + psychic shriek and BS0, and as Charistoph pointed out, gravity pulse)
1. Obviously the writers of Hungry for Blood didn't work on EVERY rule in the game but i think you've missed the point yet again. I still find it hard to believe that the writers weren't aware of the Assault Vehicle rule and that the unit/formation specific rule that they were writing would be pointless if the intention was to essentially allow the same thing.
2. The instances you have mentioned weren't actually all that unclear if you just read the rules with common sense. The PE re-roll blasts one in particular was just clutching at straws by a vocal minority for some reason. The logic behind that argument was ridiculous and trying to play it that way would be borderline cheating imo. Thankfully the FAQs appear to be clarifying matters with the common sense explanations though. And since you have invoked the name of Christoph I believe he was wrong about both of those instances iirc. I'm not familiar with gravity pulse so can't comment at the moment.
1. Again, it doesn't matter what you THINK of the writers, the proof is there. They messed up. Otherwise answer this: if the disembark, can they run and assault too? There's just as much permission given for that as there is for assaulting from reserves/deepstrike.
2. Blasts resolving scatter simply required the ability to reroll to hit, PE grants rerolls to hit, nothing is mentioned of how good the reroll needs to be. Therefore RAW, PE would grant rerolls to blasts, but this was apparently not RAI however, so it was fixed with the upcoming FAQ.
3. You missed the point. Again. I pointed out examples of bad rules writing and you're just hand waving them away. Believe it or not, the proof is there RAI or not (hopefully not), Hungry for Blood IS a useless rule currently. Also, what's Charistoph's previous thoughts on RAW got to do with this? I was literally just adding what he mentioned to the list of poorly written rules.
4. Play it how you want, but any way you play it other than RAW is a house rule, which only matters if you're planning on using it in a tourney.
I think I'll play it according to the FAQ which allows a Turn 1 charge by the bezerkers.
It doesn't seem worth refuting any of your points above now.
And yet, nothing allows assaulting from reserves/deepstrike BOTH of which prevent assaulting.
Again, congrats, you STILL only have permission to assault after disembarking... which does not include assaulting after you run, deepstrike/enter from reserve, etc.
edit: Oh, and will you answer the "run + assault" question already? Or do you know the answer to the question makes your argument fall apart?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/06/01 15:43:29
DQ:90S++G++M----B--I+Pw40k07+D+++A+++/areWD-R+DM+
bittersashes wrote:One guy down at my gaming club swore he saw an objective flag take out a full unit of Bane Thralls.
2016/06/01 16:20:58
Subject: Deep Striking an Assault Vehicle, Can the Unit inside Disembark/Charge?
Happyjew wrote: Tonberry, Eldar Wimndriders have the Battle Focus rule. Battle Focus allows you to Run and shoot in either order. Units that cannot run, cannot benefit from Battle Focus. Does this mean that GW intended to allow Eldar Jetbikes to Run? Or did they give them a rule that does nothing?
They gave them a rule that does nothing but this is a very poor comparison. Several Eldar units have the battle focus rule but the Hungry for Blood rule was written specifically for the Fist of Khorne Formation. They probably just wrote battle focus as a codex wide rule then removed it from those units they absolutely didn't want to give it to, resulting in some weird interactions like you pointed out.
It's a decent comparison. Battle focus helps some units, but is useless for bikes. Hungry for Blood is great if you could start in say, a rhino.
No it isn't. Hungry for Blood applies to one specific unit in one specific formation with only one option for the composition of that formation. And they can't start in a rhino so this point is irrelevant.
Both are pointless rules as written, how is it NOT a decent comparison? And no, IF they could start in rhinos, the rule would be fine, which is why I said IF, but seeing as they can only deepstrike, the rule is worthless as it stands.
Well I've already explained twice but third time lucky and all that. Battle Focus was written as an army special rule applying to multiple units. Given GWs record it doesn't surprise me that there are oversights resulting in cases where the rule is effectively pointless.
But the Hungry for Blood rule was written for one specific unit in one specific formation. I find it much less likely in those circumstances that they would go ahead and publish it with it being effectively pointless.
Then you still have too much faith in GW. Still a valid comparison though, in both cases you have a rule telling you, you can do something (run and shoot/shoot and run or assault after disembarking), but another restriction that prevents it (unit type jetbike or being unable to assault from reserve).
What does it matter if one is a codex wide rule (that's placed in each unit's entry...) vs a formation rule? None, it doesn't matter and saying it does is just grasping at straws to ignore that:
1. GW rules writing team is human, and might not have worked on EVERY set of rules in the game thus making a mistake here and
2. Have written plenty of unclear/terrible rules before (i.e. blasts, re-rolls, and preferred enemy before the FAQ draft, genestealer cult patty + psychic shriek and BS0, and as Charistoph pointed out, gravity pulse)
1. Obviously the writers of Hungry for Blood didn't work on EVERY rule in the game but i think you've missed the point yet again. I still find it hard to believe that the writers weren't aware of the Assault Vehicle rule and that the unit/formation specific rule that they were writing would be pointless if the intention was to essentially allow the same thing.
2. The instances you have mentioned weren't actually all that unclear if you just read the rules with common sense. The PE re-roll blasts one in particular was just clutching at straws by a vocal minority for some reason. The logic behind that argument was ridiculous and trying to play it that way would be borderline cheating imo. Thankfully the FAQs appear to be clarifying matters with the common sense explanations though. And since you have invoked the name of Christoph I believe he was wrong about both of those instances iirc. I'm not familiar with gravity pulse so can't comment at the moment.
1. Again, it doesn't matter what you THINK of the writers, the proof is there. They messed up. Otherwise answer this: if the disembark, can they run and assault too? There's just as much permission given for that as there is for assaulting from reserves/deepstrike.
2. Blasts resolving scatter simply required the ability to reroll to hit, PE grants rerolls to hit, nothing is mentioned of how good the reroll needs to be. Therefore RAW, PE would grant rerolls to blasts, but this was apparently not RAI however, so it was fixed with the upcoming FAQ.
3. You missed the point. Again. I pointed out examples of bad rules writing and you're just hand waving them away. Believe it or not, the proof is there RAI or not (hopefully not), Hungry for Blood IS a useless rule currently. Also, what's Charistoph's previous thoughts on RAW got to do with this? I was literally just adding what he mentioned to the list of poorly written rules.
4. Play it how you want, but any way you play it other than RAW is a house rule, which only matters if you're planning on using it in a tourney.
I think I'll play it according to the FAQ which allows a Turn 1 charge by the bezerkers.
It doesn't seem worth refuting any of your points above now.
And yet, nothing allows assaulting from reserves/deepstrike BOTH of which prevent assaulting.
Again, congrats, you STILL only have permission to assault after disembarking... which does not include assaulting after you run, deepstrike/enter from reserve, etc.
edit: Oh, and will you answer the "run + assault" question already? Or do you know the answer to the question makes your argument fall apart?
I appreciate that you're probably a little upset that the FAQ has rendered your entire argument irrelevant but is it really worth continuing to argue the point?
The FAQ gives the berzerkers explicit permission to charge on Turn 1, when they also must have arrived via deep strike in that turn. Remember if there's a conflict it's codex>BRB.
Just accept it and move on. Or don't, I really don't care.
2016/06/01 16:26:47
Subject: Deep Striking an Assault Vehicle, Can the Unit inside Disembark/Charge?
Happyjew wrote: Tonberry, Eldar Wimndriders have the Battle Focus rule. Battle Focus allows you to Run and shoot in either order. Units that cannot run, cannot benefit from Battle Focus. Does this mean that GW intended to allow Eldar Jetbikes to Run? Or did they give them a rule that does nothing?
They gave them a rule that does nothing but this is a very poor comparison. Several Eldar units have the battle focus rule but the Hungry for Blood rule was written specifically for the Fist of Khorne Formation. They probably just wrote battle focus as a codex wide rule then removed it from those units they absolutely didn't want to give it to, resulting in some weird interactions like you pointed out.
It's a decent comparison. Battle focus helps some units, but is useless for bikes. Hungry for Blood is great if you could start in say, a rhino.
No it isn't. Hungry for Blood applies to one specific unit in one specific formation with only one option for the composition of that formation. And they can't start in a rhino so this point is irrelevant.
Both are pointless rules as written, how is it NOT a decent comparison? And no, IF they could start in rhinos, the rule would be fine, which is why I said IF, but seeing as they can only deepstrike, the rule is worthless as it stands.
Well I've already explained twice but third time lucky and all that. Battle Focus was written as an army special rule applying to multiple units. Given GWs record it doesn't surprise me that there are oversights resulting in cases where the rule is effectively pointless.
But the Hungry for Blood rule was written for one specific unit in one specific formation. I find it much less likely in those circumstances that they would go ahead and publish it with it being effectively pointless.
Then you still have too much faith in GW. Still a valid comparison though, in both cases you have a rule telling you, you can do something (run and shoot/shoot and run or assault after disembarking), but another restriction that prevents it (unit type jetbike or being unable to assault from reserve).
What does it matter if one is a codex wide rule (that's placed in each unit's entry...) vs a formation rule? None, it doesn't matter and saying it does is just grasping at straws to ignore that:
1. GW rules writing team is human, and might not have worked on EVERY set of rules in the game thus making a mistake here and
2. Have written plenty of unclear/terrible rules before (i.e. blasts, re-rolls, and preferred enemy before the FAQ draft, genestealer cult patty + psychic shriek and BS0, and as Charistoph pointed out, gravity pulse)
1. Obviously the writers of Hungry for Blood didn't work on EVERY rule in the game but i think you've missed the point yet again. I still find it hard to believe that the writers weren't aware of the Assault Vehicle rule and that the unit/formation specific rule that they were writing would be pointless if the intention was to essentially allow the same thing.
2. The instances you have mentioned weren't actually all that unclear if you just read the rules with common sense. The PE re-roll blasts one in particular was just clutching at straws by a vocal minority for some reason. The logic behind that argument was ridiculous and trying to play it that way would be borderline cheating imo. Thankfully the FAQs appear to be clarifying matters with the common sense explanations though. And since you have invoked the name of Christoph I believe he was wrong about both of those instances iirc. I'm not familiar with gravity pulse so can't comment at the moment.
1. Again, it doesn't matter what you THINK of the writers, the proof is there. They messed up. Otherwise answer this: if the disembark, can they run and assault too? There's just as much permission given for that as there is for assaulting from reserves/deepstrike.
2. Blasts resolving scatter simply required the ability to reroll to hit, PE grants rerolls to hit, nothing is mentioned of how good the reroll needs to be. Therefore RAW, PE would grant rerolls to blasts, but this was apparently not RAI however, so it was fixed with the upcoming FAQ.
3. You missed the point. Again. I pointed out examples of bad rules writing and you're just hand waving them away. Believe it or not, the proof is there RAI or not (hopefully not), Hungry for Blood IS a useless rule currently. Also, what's Charistoph's previous thoughts on RAW got to do with this? I was literally just adding what he mentioned to the list of poorly written rules.
4. Play it how you want, but any way you play it other than RAW is a house rule, which only matters if you're planning on using it in a tourney.
I think I'll play it according to the FAQ which allows a Turn 1 charge by the bezerkers.
It doesn't seem worth refuting any of your points above now.
And yet, nothing allows assaulting from reserves/deepstrike BOTH of which prevent assaulting.
Again, congrats, you STILL only have permission to assault after disembarking... which does not include assaulting after you run, deepstrike/enter from reserve, etc.
edit: Oh, and will you answer the "run + assault" question already? Or do you know the answer to the question makes your argument fall apart?
I appreciate that you're probably a little upset that the FAQ has rendered your entire argument irrelevant but is it really worth continuing to argue the point?
The FAQ gives the berzerkers explicit permission to charge on Turn 1, when they also must have arrived via deep strike in that turn. Remember if there's a conflict it's codex>BRB.
Just accept it and move on. Or don't, I really don't care.
It gives them permission to charge... after disembarking, nothing about deepstrike, reserves, or running.
Or are you trying to say that yes, they can charge after running.
My problem with the FAQ is that it didn't clear anything up. They already could charge turn 1 if it wasn't for the restriction on assaulting from reserves/deepstrike.
DQ:90S++G++M----B--I+Pw40k07+D+++A+++/areWD-R+DM+
bittersashes wrote:One guy down at my gaming club swore he saw an objective flag take out a full unit of Bane Thralls.
2016/06/01 18:30:00
Subject: Deep Striking an Assault Vehicle, Can the Unit inside Disembark/Charge?
It's also quite a stretch to say this now covers deep strike. Like your opinion on PE and blasts.
.. the faq explicitly says you can charge turn 1, which can only be the turn you arrive via deep strike? This is not a stretch, it is a direct statement from the rules writers.
The rule was badly written- Agreed. The FAQ hasn't quite grasped the problem- Agreed.
It is still explicitly clear that you can charge T1 after arriving from deep strike. Lets move on.
And no, it wouldn't give permission after running, as that has nothing to do with the turn you disembark.
DFTT
2016/06/01 18:43:08
Subject: Deep Striking an Assault Vehicle, Can the Unit inside Disembark/Charge?
The turn you disembark has nothing to do with the restriction on assaulting after arriving from reserves, either. Yet the claim is that, despite at best being implicit I, this is saying you can assault having arrived from reserves.
Running has as much to do with disembarking as arriving from reserves. This faq still states, explicitly, they can charge turn one. Under the contention that Reserves fails to prevent this, it cannot also prevent someone running and charging, as long as they disembarked. They are utterly equivalent.
2016/06/01 18:46:37
Subject: Deep Striking an Assault Vehicle, Can the Unit inside Disembark/Charge?
Sorry for the naysayers, the FAQ is very clear. Perhaps not as clear as you'd want the answer to be for your own satisfaction, but (as before) the berzerkers can charge on the same turn they arrive from reserve.
It's over now. I will leave the miserable lot to debate it further, but neener neener neener. You lose.
