PDA

View Full Version : ASF vs ASF .... mmmm



GravlinG
30-05-2008, 09:51
Iv been asking, but Most people have different answers.

The ASF (always strike first) rule has become more common amongst the races. (in my opinion, Games Workshop seems to be running out of ideas in making almost everything either have or able to get the ASF rule)
BUT what happens when unit 'A' with ASF charges unit 'B' with ASF, what happens then.....
Do both units cancel eachother out and then gets resolved as a normal charge. charger gets to go 1st.
OR
Does the unit with the higher Initiative go 1st even if its unit 'B' (lets say that unit 'B' has the higher Initiative) that was charged.

Rubicon
30-05-2008, 09:53
The recent dire wolf *spit* inspired FAQs suggested that you fight in initiative order unless you have great weapons, in which case you strike after non-gw armed troops.

Which means than zombies with miasma of deathly vigour strike before swordmasters...go figure.

The Red Scourge
30-05-2008, 10:01
The recent dire wolf *spit* inspired FAQs

Oh come on. You're just sad cause GW never mentioned you in their products. DW just asked the questions, GW on the other hand made the rules, so you would be better off quitting the game and throwing out your minis. This would be a much better protest.

Ruleswise on the other hand, you're quite right :)

Condottiere
30-05-2008, 10:18
The recent dire wolf *spit* inspired FAQs suggested that you fight in initiative order unless you have great weapons, in which case you strike after non-gw armed troops.

Which means than zombies with miasma of deathly vigour strike before swordmasters...go figure.

I think if you have ASF and the charge, GW might strike first.

Gazak Blacktoof
30-05-2008, 10:20
The high elf FAQ suggests you ignore ASF when both units have it and resolve the fight in the order you normally would. Therefore charing units strike first, etc.

Belerophon709
30-05-2008, 10:53
Yup, the recent HE FAQ, does indeed say that ASF vs ASF effectively cancel eachother out, which means that chargers will strike first, even if armed with GWs. If there is no charge, then GWs strike last, even after zombies (since they don't automatically strike last anymore).

EvC
30-05-2008, 11:27
I don't actually think that's the case: they say it is effectively cancelled out in the situation of ASF vs ASF with great weapon, in which case charging still has nowt to do with it. Or maybe they do mean it cancels out so chargers go first. Of course, it's worded so badly there's no real way to know and you're just back to guessing and having to agree what precisely it means before every game...

theunwantedbeing
30-05-2008, 11:59
The easiest explanation is to simply go off initituive order and have anyone using a great weapon go last (comparing initiutive and then rolling off if equal in the event of both having great weapons).

Ignore who charged and who didn't.

Although if it is indeed...the 2 rules cancel each other out and you fight as normal then the charger goes first, even if he has a great weapon.
This will at least get the HE player's be a bit more willing to get into combat with the enemy.
Although it does mean that you'll almost never strike before a high elf.....(a mounted high elf at any rate at least).

Atrahasis
30-05-2008, 12:29
The recent dire wolf *spit* inspired FAQsSigh.

The HE FAQ tells us to ignore ASF when ASF troops are fighting each other. It could have been made clearer, but the correspondence with Allessio confirms it.

GravlinG
30-05-2008, 12:52
Although if it is indeed...the 2 rules cancel each other out and you fight as normal then the charger goes first, even if he has a great weapon.
This will at least get the HE player's be a bit more willing to get into combat with the enemy.
Although it does mean that you'll almost never strike before a high elf.....(a mounted high elf at any rate at least).

I agree, BUT thats why i think if ASF is truly canceled out when both units have the ASF rule, then the charger would go 1st like "normal" and that includes using GW.

gaiaterra
30-05-2008, 20:44
From the rulebook.

If fighting another model with the same special rule (ASF), use the models' initiative to determine who stikes first (roll a dice in case of same initiative)

So if intiative are different the highest goes first, if they are the same dice off.

xragg
30-05-2008, 21:05
From the rulebook.

If fighting another model with the same special rule (ASF), use the models' initiative to determine who stikes first (roll a dice in case of same initiative)

So if intiative are different the highest goes first, if they are the same dice off.

Chargers go first, great weapons go last (except on the charge), and so on. The ASF's effectively cancel each other out. Regardless of the quality of the recent DW submissions, FAQ trumps BRB.

DarthBinky
31-05-2008, 04:05
Chargers go first, great weapons go last (except on the charge), and so on. The ASF's effectively cancel each other out. Regardless of the quality of the recent DW submissions, FAQ trumps BRB.
Except it's not saying that at all. The FAQ says "in this case...", that "case" being one or more units involved in the combat have great weapons. It's not a catch-all that trumps the rulebook. In the event of two (or more) units without any great weapons anywhere, you would refer back to the rulebook.

Atrahasis
31-05-2008, 04:20
There are two separate sentences, one specific, the other general.

As I have said, it could be a lot clearer (and I'd rather it was in a general rulebook FAQ than the HE FAQ) but correspondence with Allessio confirms it.

Condottiere
31-05-2008, 04:41
If you don't mind me saying it, I find that this FAQ could have really have been better made. Not that I doubt the sincerity involved.

Why didn't anyone ask about the Talisman of Loec?

Atrahasis
31-05-2008, 11:41
I don't mind you saying at all - we didn't make the FAQ after all ;)

We did ask about the Talisman, but for whatever reason it was omitted from the answers, along with several others.

Grimgormx
31-05-2008, 19:30
This is Idi...c

HE FAQ clarifies it all, if you cant understand, and you are still trying to jump this clarification....

ASF Vs ASF just get cancelled, so all the other things count (charging, initiative in the second round of a fight, GW ASL)

isidril93
31-05-2008, 19:36
what about the talisman of loec?

and asf cancels each other out

Prophet of Quetzl
31-05-2008, 21:34
Right, this has gone on for long enough since the FAQ's were updated.

Always Strikes First (BRB p94):

Models with this rule always strike first in close combat, even before models that have charged that turn and regardless of Initiative. If fighting another model with the same special rule, use the models' Initiative to determine whoe strikes first (roll a dice in the case of same Initiative).

Great Weapons (Infantry) (BRB p56):

Rules: +2 Strength Bonus; requires two hands; strikes last

Strikes Last (BRB p55)

Troops armed with a weapon that strikes last will always strike last during close combat where they would otherwise strike in Initiative order. If fighting troops who also suffer the same penalty, they would use the respectibe Initiative to decide who is going to strike first.

So before the new HE FAQ the interperatation would be:

Non-GW ASF vs Non-GW ASF: apply the ASF rule which tells you (regardless of who charged) to revert to Initiative order
GW ASF vs non-GW ASF: first apply the ASF rule which tells you (regardless of who charged) to revert to Initiative order, then apply the GW rule which tells you that when striking in initiative order GWs strikes last - the GW troops strike last
GW ASF vs GW ASF: first apply the ASF rule which tells you (regardless of who charged) to revert to Initiative order, then apply the GW rule which tells you that when striking in initiative order GWs strikes last and that if both are GWs then revert to initiative order.

High Elf FAQ:

Q. When two models with the Always Strikes First (ASF) rule are in combat, and one is armed with a great weapon, does the model with the great weapon strike last? For example... [snip]

A. In this case the model with the great weapon strikes last. Effectively the two always strikes first rules would cancel each other out.

So now the interperetation is... wait, nothing has changed!?! What are people so worked up about here?

Note: the ASF FAQ answer says in this case the two effectively cancel each other out not "in every case of ASF vs ASF, the rules actually cancel each other out"

Atrahasis
31-05-2008, 22:39
Two separate sentences. One specific, one general.

knightwire
31-05-2008, 23:37
Unit A = ASF with GWs

Unit B = ASF
Unit C = non-ASF


Unit A is charged by both units B and C. What's the striking order and why?

Condottiere
31-05-2008, 23:53
Unit A = ASF with GWs

Unit B = ASF
Unit C = non-ASF


Unit A is charged by both units B and C. What's the striking order and why?

Unit B strikes first - ASF, charge and non-GW
Unit A strikes second - ASF and GW (strikes last)
Unit C strikes third - non-ASF

What do I win?:D

Prophet of Quetzl
01-06-2008, 06:29
Yep, Condottieri is right.

1. B (ASF strikes before non-ASF because it is the ASF rule; before ASF with GW because both A and B have ASF so you compare Initiatives however, the strikes last rule means the GW automatically strikes last if A and B compare Initiatives)

2. A (ASF with GW strikes before non-ASF because it is the ASF rule regardless of weapon)

3. C (non-ASF strikes last because it has no special shiny rules)

decker_cky
29-06-2008, 21:25
Two separate sentences. One specific, one general.

Two sentences, both focusing on the case referred to. You're calling it general, but it works equally well being another sentence for the specific case. However, in the single paragraph, the language is referring still to a situation.

Gobbo Lord
29-06-2008, 22:02
Why does this keep cropping up it is worse than casting that dammed undead spell into combat...

If a unit with asf charges a unit with asf then they cancel each other out and the fight proceeds as if niether unit had the rule.

If a unit with asf and hand weapons fights a unit with asf and great weapons the unit with hand weapons strikes first (just as if asf wasnt there)

If a unit with asf and great weapons charges a unit with asf and hand weapons the chargers strike first in round one and last in subsequent rounds (just as if asf wasnt there)

If a unit of zombies with asf charges a unit of elves with asf the zombies strike first in round one no matter how badly you think they shouldnt (just as if asf wasnt there)

If a unit of elves with great weapons and asf charges a unit with hand weapons and asf, the elves strike first in round one and last in subsequent rounds (just as if asf wasnt there)

If two units have asf and engage the rule cancels itself out (just as if asf wasnt there)

ITS JUST AS IF ASF WASNT THERE stop saying it goes to initive order and says nothing of great weapons so elf greatswords should go first still as they have higher iniitive. the rule cancels itself out so normal combat applies. JUST AS IF ASF WASNT THERE.

decker_cky
29-06-2008, 22:12
Well....it keeps cropping up because people confuse the wording of the FAQ. One interpretation, which you seem to favour, leads to direct contradictions between RAW in two different places. You have the un-errata'd ASF rule vs a ruling possibly only talking about one situation. The other, which says that the "effectively cancel" line is referring to a situation, does not create any conflicts in RAW. So...problematic solution, or solution which is fully supported by RAW?

Azmazi
29-06-2008, 22:19
Why does this keep cropping up it is worse than casting that dammed undead spell into combat...

If a unit with asf charges a unit with asf then they cancel each other out and the fight proceeds as if niether unit had the rule.

If a unit with asf and hand weapons fights a unit with asf and great weapons the unit with hand weapons strikes first (just as if asf wasnt there)

If a unit with asf and great weapons charges a unit with asf and hand weapons the chargers strike first in round one and last in subsequent rounds (just as if asf wasnt there)

If a unit of zombies with asf charges a unit of elves with asf the zombies strike first in round one no matter how badly you think they shouldnt (just as if asf wasnt there)

If a unit of elves with great weapons and asf charges a unit with hand weapons and asf, the elves strike first in round one and last in subsequent rounds (just as if asf wasnt there)

If two units have asf and engage the rule cancels itself out (just as if asf wasnt there)

ITS JUST AS IF ASF WASNT THERE stop saying it goes to initive order and says nothing of great weapons so elf greatswords should go first still as they have higher iniitive. the rule cancels itself out so normal combat applies. JUST AS IF ASF WASNT THERE.

He just worded it perfectly. If both have ASF, resolve the combat as if it never existed based on charging or if continued combat off Int.

theunwantedbeing
29-06-2008, 23:16
Although that's not what the rulebook says you do....

minionboy
29-06-2008, 23:22
I made an easy flow chart in my signature. Anyone who applies the ASF cancels ASF to all situations is taking it out of context.

Condottiere
30-06-2008, 07:29
I made an easy flow chart in my signature. Anyone who applies the ASF cancels ASF to all situations is taking it out of context.Interesting, but that's not how I interpret it.

Atrahasis
30-06-2008, 08:28
I made an easy flow chart in my signature. Anyone who applies the ASF cancels ASF to all situations is taking it out of context.

No, we are viewing it in the context of the commentary supplied by Allessio, wherein he tells us that the second sentence is general and applies to all situations.

As an aside, 4 weeks is probably long enough to qualify as thread necromancy :(

Gobbo Lord
30-06-2008, 09:27
I play the way i said (although with orcs and goblins ASF is limited to Grimgor Iornhide so its not much of a problem). This seems to me to be the intention of the FAQ. It also allows for a smooth fun game. It makes sense from a logical point of view (both units are lightning fast for some reason and so it comes down to normal rules of engagement as both are operating at the same speed). And i find applying that rule, read as intended, to be the most satisfactory and easy to use solution.

I wish GW would put out FAQs that are simple and obvious (like my post, yes its my interpretation but thats the problem) It shouldnt be able to be interpretated several ways it should just be blunt. Ie either

ASF cancels itself out and so all normal combat rules apply as if it wasnt there

or

ASF cancels itself out and so it goes to initive order regardless of chargers, Great weapons etc.

Is it so hard to say one or the other? Especially since from now on it seems everyone and their aunite is getting ASF in their armies (poor Orcs and Goblins and Empire, you were made before the desision was made to make armies have silly rules and over the top powerfull things.). Come on GW if there is a problem and you manage to FAQ it then make it clear with no room for interpretation....

(I still go with my original post though, its the way i find best)

neXus6
30-06-2008, 09:34
It would just be easier to have them cancel out and revert to normal rules. :p

Atleast stuff like a Keeper of Secrets deserves ASF, 1/3 of the elven race getting it "because they are quite old" was always a rubbish move. Sure it doesn't really matter cause its a elf, whats it going to do polish a bit of your armour? :D

As for dire wolf...gotta say I don't agree with how they run either. They tend to ask questions that noone with any common sense or intelligence at all would need to ask, and it tends to be THOSE questions that GW give totaly random and farther problem causing answers to. I know theres a lot of support for them on the forums, but sod it I don't have to like their lack of common sense and producing questions that seem to total ignore the "frequently asked" part. :p

Condottiere
30-06-2008, 09:56
As for dire wolf...gotta say I don't agree with how they run either. They tend to ask questions that noone with any common sense or intelligence at all would need to ask, and it tends to be THOSE questions that GW give totaly random and farther problem causing answers to. I know theres a lot of support for them on the forums, but sod it I don't have to like their lack of common sense and producing questions that seem to total ignore the "frequently asked" part. :pI have no knowledge how Direwolf are run, and I find the end product causes problems. However, they do ask the right questions, it's just the answers suck, are incomplete, contradictory and sometimes, remain unanswered.

After 25 years, you'd think GW would know better.

neXus6
30-06-2008, 10:07
Oh I'll give you that, the main problems are GWs tendancy to give answers that are totaly random. (resists going on yet another rant about the Beasts FAQ)

But really someone in direwolf needs to notice what GW tends to do and realise that some questions are better left unasked and that when someone asked said question they should be told to buy some sense. :p

Atrahasis
30-06-2008, 10:50
We do filter out questions that are beyond silly, and really only ask those that are unclear in the rules. We're not about to stop asking just because we might not like the answers.

Given that the questions we submit are taken from online fora and real-world discussions with players, the claim that we ask questions that no-one would ask is baseless (yes, I'm deliberately ignoring the pretentious and condescending "intelligence" and "common sense" remarks).

neXus6
30-06-2008, 11:05
(yes, I'm deliberately ignoring the pretentious and condescending "intelligence" and "common sense" remarks).

Well doesn't that just make you the bigger man. :rolleyes:

I'm sorry but I have seen numerous questions asked by Direwolf which I have never seen asked by anyone in real life or on the net, and that can simply be answered by reading the rules and having common sense. Then when asked to GW it all changes and results in a stupid answer. Take as a prime example the Marks on Beastmen Chariots incident. :eyebrows:

Atrahasis
30-06-2008, 11:37
You'll have to explain I'm afraid; whether or not Beastmen Chariots could take marks was a valid question given that the book was (at the time of publishing) contradictory, and the answer given was consistent with one side of the contradiction.

At the time that that change was effected, Direwolf was not in the same position as it is now with regards to submission of questions. If you're referring to the recent BoC FAQ, then you'll really need to explain, because that was a rules change that didn't result from any sort of question, and actually made sense given that Beasts were isolated from marked unit choices (making mixed-god lists impossible without marked chariots being legalised).

Any more of those mythical examples to hand?

TheDarkDaff
30-06-2008, 12:28
At the time that that change was effected, Direwolf was not in the same position as it is now with regards to submission of questions. If you're referring to the recent BoC FAQ, then you'll really need to explain, because that was a rules change that didn't result from any sort of question, and actually made sense given that Beasts were isolated from marked unit choices (making mixed-god lists impossible without marked chariots being legalised).

Any more of those mythical examples to hand?

I greatly disagree with that particular one. If it was going to be changed they should have put out an errata (like they did directly above the FAQ) and changed the wording to allow chariots to have marks(BTW i agree the change was needed i just dislike the mechanism GW have used to get it).

FAQ's are only to clarify a rule, not change them.

This has gotten way off topic (unless the discussion on changing rules via FAQ rather than Errata counts). My personal view is they should have made a Rulebook Errata to change the ASF rules to accomodate Allessio's commentary on how he has decided they should work. Fix the rule rather than giving half arsed statements to a minority of people (like his discussions with Direwolf that we joe schmoe's don't get to see) with no follow through. I can already see how this crap attitude has lead to mistakes being repeated in new editions because they just don't fix the wording of the rules and instead we have to rely on outdated FAQ's. Characters on Montrous Mounts in units is a great example of this. It got FAQ'ed and then they didn't bother/forgot to fix the damned rule in the BRB. It's either laziness or stupidity and i will leave it up to other to speculate which it is.

Atrahasis
30-06-2008, 12:39
Well yes, the mechanism of change was wrong.

That still doesn't explain what it has to do with Direwolf or our supposed asking of stupid questions.

Gobbo Lord
30-06-2008, 12:54
Q. In situations where both players have units with the Always Strikes
First (ASF) rule, what impact does charging and “Strikes Last” weapons
have on determining who strikes first?

A. Effectively the ASF rules cancel each other out, so that everything
reverts to normal.
S. Official High Elves FAQ / Alessio Cavatore – Warhammer Design Team

This is by a member of the design team himself and on an official games workshop document. Seriously people still argue about this. It superseeds the brb as it was published afterwards and is the most sensible answer that im sure most common sense players would have come to before hand anyway

As i said JUST AS IF ASF WASNT THERE. EVERYTHING REVERTS TO NORMAL. Theres no room for interpretation unless you are trying to gain some kind of edge through confusion of your opponent.

Gaftra
30-06-2008, 12:58
Right, this has gone on for long enough since the FAQ's were updated.

Always Strikes First (BRB p94):


Great Weapons (Infantry) (BRB p56):


Strikes Last (BRB p55)


So before the new HE FAQ the interperatation would be:

Non-GW ASF vs Non-GW ASF: apply the ASF rule which tells you (regardless of who charged) to revert to Initiative order
GW ASF vs non-GW ASF: first apply the ASF rule which tells you (regardless of who charged) to revert to Initiative order, then apply the GW rule which tells you that when striking in initiative order GWs strikes last - the GW troops strike last
GW ASF vs GW ASF: first apply the ASF rule which tells you (regardless of who charged) to revert to Initiative order, then apply the GW rule which tells you that when striking in initiative order GWs strikes last and that if both are GWs then revert to initiative order.

High Elf FAQ:


So now the interperetation is... wait, nothing has changed!?! What are people so worked up about here?

Note: the ASF FAQ answer says in this case the two effectively cancel each other out not "in every case of ASF vs ASF, the rules actually cancel each other out"

this was exactly how i interpreted it as well. i think the key here is "effectively", meaning that in this specific situation it is as though they canceled each other out. the faq does not however say that this is the rule.

EvC
30-06-2008, 13:00
Yes, head-on-desk inducingly so. Oh well, only another few weeks until the main rulebook FAQ is updated, right?

DarthBinky
30-06-2008, 16:40
This is by a member of the design team himself and on an official games workshop document. Seriously people still argue about this.
I for one still haven't seen this "Alessio clarification". Where can us non-enlightened folk see it?

minionboy
30-06-2008, 16:50
Q. In situations where both players have units with the Always Strikes
First (ASF) rule, what impact does charging and “Strikes Last” weapons
have on determining who strikes first?

A. Effectively the ASF rules cancel each other out, so that everything
reverts to normal.
S. Official High Elves FAQ / Alessio Cavatore – Warhammer Design Team
This is by a member of the design team himself and on an official games workshop document. Seriously people still argue about this. It superseeds the brb as it was published afterwards and is the most sensible answer that im sure most common sense players would have come to before hand anyway

As i said JUST AS IF ASF WASNT THERE. EVERYTHING REVERTS TO NORMAL. Theres no room for interpretation unless you are trying to gain some kind of edge through confusion of your opponent.

Funny that nobody has seen this document but you. Of the official, published FAQ's by GW, the only question is asked in regards to Great Weapons. If you want to quote an obscure document, then more power to you, I can make obscure documents too.

I'll gladly change my stance on how ASF works once someone provides a well sourced argument.

EvC
30-06-2008, 16:56
I found the thread on warhammer.org.uk and here's the relevant passage:

"Alessio,

With all of the recent army books having Always Strikes First (ASF) capabilities, a couple of very significant questions have cropped up in regards to how to resolve combats where the ASF rule is possessed by both sides.

If you would please provide me with guidance on how to handle these situations, I would greatly appreciate it.

The governing rules clause under Always Strikes First in this discussion is:

"Models with this special rule always strike first in close combat, even before models that have charged that turn and regardless of Initiative. If fighting another model with the same special rule, use the models' Initiative to determine who strikes first (roll a dice in case of same Initiative)." - (Warhammer Rulebook page 94)

In cases where Initiative is used (e.g. the second round of a combat between a Dwarf Lord with the Master Rune of Swiftness and High Elf Phoenix Guard), the answer on how to resolve who strikes first between ASF models is clear and players are in agreement on how to resolve it.

What is not clear / not agreed upon is how to resolve ASF vs. ASF cases where Initiative is not usually in play such as in the case of charging and models equipped with "Strikes Last" weapons in the second and subsequent rounds of combat.

Questions:

#1) In a situation where an ASF model charges another ASF model, does the charger automatically strike first? Or is charging ignored in ASF vs. ASF combats entirely and the determination of who strikes first based on Initiative?

#2) In a situation where an ASF model with a "Strikes Last" weapon is charged by another ASF model with a hand weapon (or engaged in the second or subsequent round of combat with another ASF model with a hand weapon), does the model with the "Strikes Last" weapon automatically strike last? Or is the "Strikes Last" penalty ignored in ASF vs. ASF engagements and the determination of who strikes first based on Initiative?

+++++

There’s an answer on the (upcoming) High Elf FAQs saying that effectively the ASF rules cancel each other out, so that everything reverts to normal.

Alessio"

For all you direwolf haters out there, note the fantastic detail and directness of the question put forwards, and the simplistic response they received (which basically confirms what it says in the FAQ). That is how much effort they put in for you guys, and get so much venom in return.

Seems that the ASFs should be treated as being cancelled out and chargers go first etc. (Sorry Dark Elf Assassins- you suck when it comes to killing your High Elf cousins now!)...

minionboy
30-06-2008, 17:21
I found the thread on warhammer.org.uk and here's the relevant passage

So what you're saying is that you found someone on a forum that gave you a rules clarification. Damn. Sounds like an official GW publication to me!

EDIT: I decided to look into this myself. The forum is referring to a private e-mail that was (supposedly) sent to Alessio, which is by no means any official, published document. You can find the thread here:

http://warhammer.org.uk/PhP/viewtopic.php?t=39787&highlight=asf

It still surprises me that so many people can take a question answered specifically in the context of great weapons and suddenly apply it as a universal rule for all situations. The rules seem very clear when you apply some basic logic.

ASF clearly states that if both sides have ASF, you revert to Initiative. The FAQ clearly states that "In [the] case" of Great Weapons with ASF vs ASF, the Great Weapons go last.

Please read the FAQ clearly, it starts with "In this case..." You may glance over that and just go to the last sentence saying "Effectively the two ASF rules would cancel each other out." But that is very misleading if you ignore the first sentence.

Please show me where either of these official rulings mention chargers.

neXus6
30-06-2008, 17:31
You say that as if you've never had seen someone produce piles of paper with printed crap from the net claiming it to be rules before? :p

I know it's not an answer but other cases in the rules when things like this occur it's a "effects nullify carry on as normal" answer thats given and usually results in the fairest and fastest way to carry on with playing the game...much more fun than playing a 2000pt argument. :D

Atrahasis
30-06-2008, 17:39
Yeah the book was SOOO contradictory that every player in my area saw that the army list entry for chariots they had no option for marks, and the marks section had no section for chariots. The line "BoC characters can only ride chariots with the same mark" quite clearly was a small line error, or they only wanted undivided characters on chariots. If they had missed out a WHOLE section on marks for chariots they would have changed it within 1 reprint as that would be like leaving out options for a command group.
The majority of the wargaming community saw this until GW created the option which to me it seems they only did to try and distract from an FAQ that generally solved none of the problems they caused, and infact created more.

Oh OK, you just have no understanding of the history of marks and Tuskgor chariots. I thought you actually had a point.

When the BoC book was published, the Marks section included "chariots" in the paragraph detailing who could buy what. This was the contradiction (no option to take it, but listed on that page). The question was asked, and the book corrected in later print runs.

In the latest FAQ, they created the option for Tuskgor chariots to take marks for two reasons:

1) The cited reason for them not being allowed to take marks, that they would be too cheap compared to the a choice alongside mortal chariots if they could fulfill all the same roles, no longer exists, since the two cannot be in the same army any longer.

2) Without a markable unit choice, the Beasts would be limited to 1 god since they can only take one marked unit (Bestigors) that would allow a marked character.


To be honest there are multiple reasons for me not likeing direwolf, the thing about the pointless questions which can be answered with "read you bloody book" is a big part

If the answers were so obvious, the questions would not be asked. We do a LOT of work weeding out the questions that have valid answers within the rules. The rest really are ambiguous.


but the fact that every member of direwolf I have had the displeasure to converse with has been an arrogant prick like you plays a part too.Wait, aren't You the one claiming that everyone else is an idiot?

minionboy
30-06-2008, 17:41
You say that as if you've never had seen someone produce piles of paper with printed crap from the net claiming it to be rules before? :p

Visions of Stand and Shoot for 40k come to mind... Glad they got rid of Chapter Approved.

theunwantedbeing
30-06-2008, 17:46
Q....yadda yadda...
A.. effectively yadda yadda...

Effectively?
That's not a useful answer.
It either is or isnt....not "effectively is".

Atrahasis
30-06-2008, 17:53
"Effectively is" means the same thing as "is". Seriously, what's the difference? At most it's an unnecessary adverb.

DarthBinky
30-06-2008, 18:00
OK, so this "Alessio clarification" is just some email he sent to some guy on the internet?

Well until it's in something slightly more official than that, in my opinion it doesn't exist. I'll continue playing with the rules as written (in books/official FAQ's), thank you very much.

The whole thing reeks of the Pete Haines "unofficial FAQ's" mess on the GW boards.

Llew
30-06-2008, 18:13
Just to be clear...

Rather than go with a simple and elegant solution (ASF cancels out, proceed with the combat as normal) the official ruling is to break the traditional charge rules by dropping to a poorly-thought-out rule based on the ASF rules?

I believe that would be GW's official position. It's always better to break logic than break a badly-written rule.

Gaftra
30-06-2008, 18:15
"effectively" is not a definitive ruling. there are many ways to "effectively" reach a result. the problem with that example is that the question is not answered. though if ive followed this thread correctly i think the question boils down to:
If I charge with ASF does that mean I strike first no matter what, or do you simply revert to initiative order and nothing else?

DarthBinky
30-06-2008, 18:16
I don't think it's a poorly thought out rule at all... and oh yes, reverting to initiative is far more complicated than pretending ASF isn't there- and that doesn't address the situation when my opponent has never even heard of this Alessio email, that conversation would go well, I'm sure ("but this guy on the internet, he swears that Alessio wrote the email!"). But whatever, everyone's entitled to their opinion, no?

minionboy
30-06-2008, 18:30
"Effectively is" means the same thing as "is". Seriously, what's the difference? At most it's an unnecessary adverb.

I was hoping that of all people you'd respond to my post.

I'm pretty sure that starting an answer with "In this case..." that the FAQ would specifically be answering the situation for ASF vs ASF w/GW.

I would love to see a new version of the 7th ed. FAQ to come out specifically addressing this issue. Unfortunately however as the rules are written, it gives very specific instructions as to what happens when two ASF units fight, and that's to go in initiative order.

Great Weapons say that "Troops armed with a weapon that strikes last will always strike last during close combat where they would otherwise strike in Initiative order." Which is why it is totally logical that would make them go last because ASF says, "If fighting another model with the same special rule, use the models' Initiative to determine who strikes first (roll a dice in the case of same Initiative."

Still nowhere does it say that charging has any effect on ASF combat.

Llew
30-06-2008, 18:34
Well, here's why I say it's poorly thought out: You change a basic combat rule due to a special ability. (Please bear with me...I'm on break at work so this isn't the most coherent explanation, but I hope you can puzzle it out.)

By rule, every combat *starts* with some sort of charge. Charging is, apparently, supposed to give the aggressive side an advantage.

If neither side is charging, you go to Initiative. Initiative is supposed to give the more nimble side an advantage after the charge.

ASF is a special rule designed to always give the side that has it an advantage.

In an elegant system, there would be some sort of priority for rules. And, there is normally a pretty simple test to decide who strikes first in a combat. ASF is set up as a trump. (Similarly ASL is set up as a trump...kind of. Except when charging.)

In a combat without ASF or ASL, you have the following tests.
Test: Did one side charge? If yes, they go first.
Test: Does one side have higher initiative? If yes, they go first.

Add in ASF or ASL and you get two different rules for resolving the situations.

With ASF.
Test: Do both sides have ASF? Yes. Skip to Initiative.
Test: Does one side have ASF? Yes. They go first.
Test: Did one unit charge? They go first.
Test: Does one unit have higher Init? They go first.

With ASL.
Test: Do both sides have ASL? Yes. Skip to charging.
Test: Does one side have ASL? They go last.
Test: Did one side charge? They go first.
Test: Does one side have higher Init? They go first.

Both are resolved differently, making a not-very-productive distinction. Good, well-thought-out rules have as few exceptions as possible.

A clean rule would be that double ASF/ASL cancel out and you proceed as normal through the rest of the sequence, not change the sequence based on the different rule. Even handling ASL exactly like ASF isn't clean or elegant, since you're still breaking the standard flow where you check to see if Charging is an issue first.

Therefore, in my opinion, the ASF and how it is handled in cases of multiple ASF's is not well thought out.

DarthBinky
30-06-2008, 18:58
Ok, but the thing is, when going by the Alessio email, you're not really changing anything (also bear in mind that in your ASL flowchart, "charging" should be placed above "does one side have ASL?"). You've already done the rules as they work with the rulebook. Here's how they work using the Alessio email:

With ASF.
Test: Do both sides have ASF? Yes. Skip to charging.
Test: Does one side have ASF? Yes. They go first.
Test: Did one unit charge? They go first.
Test: Does one unit have higher Init? They go first.

With ASL.
Test: Do both sides have ASL? Yes. Skip to charging.
Test: Did one side charge? They go first.
Test: Does one side have ASL? They go last.
Test: Does one side have higher Init? They go first.

So how is that really more advantageous than the rulebook version? Nothing's really changed. You've just changed one thing slightly so that it can possibly end one step earlier. The difference is the rulebook version is already established, it's there for everyone to read, whereas, you have to hunt to find the Alessio email, and even then, it's just some email (who knows if he even actually wrote it)..

minionboy
30-06-2008, 18:58
I'm bored so lets break down combat logically:

Definitions:
ASF = Always Strike First (p. 94)
I+ = Higher Initiative (p. 34)
I- = Lower Initiative (p. 34)
SL = Strikes Last (p. 54, Great Weapons have this rule)
WLR = Won Last Round (p. 34)
D6 = D6 to determine order (p. 34)
IH = Impact Hits (p. 63)

Rules:
ASF says it always goes first in combat, so we can express that as (ASF > Combat).

Rules for Combat say (Chargers > I+ > I- > WLR > D6). Rules for SL say goes last when I is used, so we can expand that further and say: (Chargers > I+ > I- > SL I+ > SL I- > WLR > D6).

Now lets look at the rules for ASF. ASF says that ASF always goes first, even before chargers (ASF > Combat), but if both sides have ASF, to go in Initiative order (ASF I=I D6), so we can express that has: (ASF I+ > ASF I=I D6 > ASF I- > Combat). Now SL says that they go last when I is used, so we can expand that to (ASF I+ > ASF I=I D6 > ASF I- > ASF SL I+ > ASF SL I- > Combat).

So now lets connect them where they overlap:
ASF I+ > ASF I=I D6 > ASF I- > ASF SL I+ > ASF SL I- > Chargers > I+ > I- > SL I+ > SL I- > WLR > D6

Just for the sake of completeness, lets add in Chariots. It says that Chariots do their IH at the "very beginning of the combat, even before challenges are declared and before any model gets to attack."

IH > ASF I+ > ASF I=I D6 > ASF I- > ASF SL I+ > ASF SL I- > Chargers > I+ > I- > SL I+ > SL I- > WLR > D6


All of the rules I've used are cited at the top, as far as I can tell with even just the big book, there are no gaps written into the rules and the High Elf FAQ just helped illustrate something most people didn't read into for themselves.

I hope I never have to do this again...

decker_cky
30-06-2008, 19:03
Well thought out or not, ignoring charging is exactly how ASF still is described. Always Strikes Last only exists on 1 gift for 1 army doesn't it? It's an army specific special rule (and a badly explained one), not something general. Heck, you could make a good case that ASL vs ASL ignores initiative and merely is decided based on a 4+, since there are no general rules for ASL.

Condottiere
30-06-2008, 19:06
I'll say this for your equation, it looks pretty comprehensive, though until I see something more conclusive, I'll stick with ASF neutralization and chargers go first (Yay San Diego Chargers).:)

decker_cky
30-06-2008, 19:09
I'm bored so lets break down combat logically:

Definitions:
ASF = Always Strike First (p. 94)
I+ = Higher Initiative (p. 34)
I- = Lower Initiative (p. 34)
SL = Strikes Last (p. 54, Great Weapons have this rule)
WLR = Won Last Round (p. 34)
D6 = D6 to determine order (p. 34)
IH = Impact Hits (p. 63)

Rules:
ASF says it always goes first in combat, so we can express that as (ASF > Combat).

Rules for Combat say (Chargers > I+ > I- > WLR > D6). Rules for SL say goes last when I is used, so we can expand that further and say: (Chargers > I+ > I- > SL I+ > SL I- > WLR > D6).

Now lets look at the rules for ASF. ASF says that ASF always goes first, even before chargers (ASF > Combat), but if both sides have ASF, to go in Initiative order (ASF I=I D6), so we can express that has: (ASF I+ > ASF I=I D6 > ASF I- > Combat). Now SL says that they go last when I is used, so we can expand that to (ASF I+ > ASF I=I D6 > ASF I- > ASF SL I+ > ASF SL I- > Combat).

So now lets connect them where they overlap:
ASF I+ > ASF I=I D6 > ASF I- > ASF SL I+ > ASF SL I- > Chargers > I+ > I- > SL I+ > SL I- > WLR > D6

Just for the sake of completeness, lets add in Chariots. It says that Chariots do their IH at the "very beginning of the combat, even before challenges are declared and before any model gets to attack."

IH > ASF I+ > ASF I=I D6 > ASF I- > ASF SL I+ > ASF SL I- > Chargers > I+ > I- > SL I+ > SL I- > WLR > D6


All of the rules I've used are cited at the top, as far as I can tell with even just the big book, there are no gaps written into the rules and the High Elf FAQ just helped illustrate something most people didn't read into for themselves.

I hope I never have to do this again...

Geeze...why doesn't GW just make their rules nice and clear like that. :P

minionboy
30-06-2008, 19:12
I'll say this for your equation, it looks pretty comprehensive, though until I see something more conclusive, I'll stick with ASF neutralization and chargers go first (Yay San Diego Chargers).:)

Coincidentally, my equation is using nothing but the rules clearly written in the big book. Even on the GW Shrine of Knowledge, it says to only even go to FAQ's if you've "read the rules thoroughly again" and did not find an answer. I read it quite thoroughly and found an answer that works in every situation. :D

As much as it would work to my benefit with ASF Charging > ASF, it is simply not written that way and I would not hold my HE opponents to it.

Loopstah
30-06-2008, 19:13
IH > ASF I+ > ASF I=I D6 > ASF I- > ASF SL I+ > ASF SL I- > Chargers > I+ > I- > SL I+ > SL I- > WLR > D6

I like turnips as well! Flurblewop! :confused:

Did I understand this right?
Impact Hits happen before everything.
ASFvsASF with one side having higher initiative, the higher initiative goes first.
ASFvsASF with identical initiatives roll a D6.
ASFvsASF with one side having SL, the ones without SL go first.
ASFvsASF with both sides having SL, the ones with higher initiative go first.
Models with ASF go before chargers even if they also have SL.
Chargers go before all models without ASF.
Higher Initiative goes before lower initiative.
SL always go after everyone else unless they also have ASF.
Both sides with equal initiative, the ones who won last round go first.
Both sides with equal intiative and nobody won last round, roll a D6.

Grimgormx
30-06-2008, 19:15
The easiest explanation is to simply go off initituive order and have anyone using a great weapon go last (comparing initiutive and then rolling off if equal in the event of both having great weapons).

Ignore who charged and who didn't.

Although if it is indeed...the 2 rules cancel each other out and you fight as normal then the charger goes first, even if he has a great weapon.
This will at least get the HE player's be a bit more willing to get into combat with the enemy.
Although it does mean that you'll almost never strike before a high elf.....(a mounted high elf at any rate at least).

Are you nut, attack first when you charge is the best reason to get your troops in combat, if you remove that then why shoud lizzards, orcs and other races charge.

ASF vs ASF get cancelled, so the one that charged goes first, if they just fought a combat and they got stuck then the guy with higer I goes first.

Llew
30-06-2008, 19:23
@Darth... Without a verifiable, published version of the Allesio e-mail, I can only take it as a rumor and not authoritative. Therefore, it wouldn't overrule a FAQ or RAW text. If it makes it into a FAQ with clear wording, then we'd be there. (Incidentally, ASF cancelling out would be the clearer, simpler, more consistent ruling IMO.)

@Minionboy
I would argue that a well-written rule set uses core rules (options theoretically open to every unit) as the primary flow of the system and then let's special rules interrupt that chain at one point and leave the rest intact, not change the order. Actual core rules would be Charging, Initiative, WLR and D6. Impact Hit, ASF, ASL and Great Weapons would all be Special Rule checks which would have to happen before the Core Rules, but should interrupt them as little as possible.

In other words, while I agree that you've mapped out the current rules as they exist, those are not the cleanest, tightest or easiest-managed ruleset.

I'm also approaching it more as a flow-chart of decision making, cutting down the decision steps instead of a strict hierarchy as you've laid out. Sadly, flow-charts in HTML are difficult to lay out quickly.

minionboy
30-06-2008, 19:47
In other words, while I agree that you've mapped out the current rules as they exist, those are not the cleanest, tightest or easiest-managed ruleset.

Thank you, I think. I just see it as combat is done in a linear order, so you must use the exact word of the rules to push everything into a line. When you start branching out, you start asking which branch is more important and the rules do not accommodate that sort of prioritization.

I rarely like relying on FAQs as they require that both parties have read it and understand it. If you can find a solid, logical answer in the core rules, then the FAQ is redundant. Sometimes though, it takes a little bit of problem solving to get an answer, which is when the FAQ is useful, but still not requisite.

Llew
30-06-2008, 20:09
Thank you, I think. I just see it as combat is done in a linear order, so you must use the exact word of the rules to push everything into a line. When you start branching out, you start asking which branch is more important and the rules do not accommodate that sort of prioritization.


I agree. Which is why I say they're not very elegant. Plus, much of GW's ruleset, if rules are rigidly applied, lead to inconsistencies or illogical consequences. They are not nearly so good at parsing their text as M:tG or Warmachine.

And a linear structure is what you end up with RAW, where a flow chart of decisions would actually serve better.

I guess I'll try to make a flow chart on a graphics program later to illustrate. But basically, the hierarchy works best and quickest for the most unusual circumstances and changes the flow of determining order in two ways. The special rule doesn't just insert itself once in the process as a quick check...if it conflicts with itself, it just undermines the regular flow for no good reason.

Add to that the fact that it actually costs the Swordsmasters of Hoeth more than other units to apply the RAW and it's kind of silly. (And don't think I'm a big HE fan...I own an army that I've played maybe twice.)

Again...your interpretation is incredibly accurate, and a perfect example of why GW gets so many questions about it's rules.

minionboy
30-06-2008, 20:29
@Loopstah
You are correct, although after reading your analysis, I left out a small part of the SL rules in the ASF category.

IH > ASF I+ > ASF I=I D6 > ASF I- > ASF SL I+ > ASF SL I- > ASF SL WLR> ASF SL D6 > Chargers > I+ > I- > SL I+ > SL I- > WLR > D6

edit: This further addition is kind of unnecessary as ASF w/SL cancels the ASF (as per the FAQ) and would have reverted to the "SL I+ > SL I- > WLR > D6" part of the flow chart. I still felt that this should be added in to my long string for the sake of being complete, to illustrate that it can be solved without the FAQ.

Combat can easily be broken down to:
IH > ASF Combat > Normal Combat

ASF Combat= I+ > I=I D6 > I- > SL I+ > SL I- > SL WLR> SL D6
Normal Combat= Chargers > I+ > I- > SL I+ > SL I- > WLR > D6

They're similar, but not the same.

minionboy
30-06-2008, 20:46
I just realized I can make this with a bet less verbiage:

IH > ASF[(I+ > I=I d6 > I-) > SL(I+ > I- > WLR > D6)] > Combat[Chargers > I+ > I- > SL(I+ > I- > WLR > D6) > WLR > D6]

edit: i think i got it right this time! >.<

TheDarkDaff
30-06-2008, 22:35
Well yes, the mechanism of change was wrong.

That still doesn't explain what it has to do with Direwolf or our supposed asking of stupid questions.

Almost nothing. The "thanks to the Direwolf Team" attached to the bottom of the FAQ's is unfortunately a poison chalice that you guys have been lumped with. Rightly or wrongly Direwolf has been made a scape goat for GW's problems. I'm sure you guys asks lots of other legitimate questions that are ignored or half answered. It is not Direwolf's problem that GW either half answer a question or just ignore them.

PS. i always refered new gamers to the Direwolf FAQ's because i thought they did a better job than the GW ones. Keep up the good work

neXus6
01-07-2008, 00:34
If the answers were so obvious, the questions would not be asked. We do a LOT of work weeding out the questions that have valid answers within the rules. The rest really are ambiguous.

Staff of Damnation question in the Vampire FAQ.
Answer "It clearly says in the spells description" i.e. read your book properly.
:rolleyes:

As for the history of the chariot marks, that doesn't explain the asking of the question recently, with there being no rules for chariot marks it was obvious that forgetting to remove the line about Characters was an accident.
Also Bestigor were not the only unit that could be marked, Minotaurs and any unit from the Hordes of Chaos book could take marks in a Beasts army.
Beasts of Chaos being heavily undivided was no different to Marauders being totaly unmarked.

But it is nice to see that members of the direwolf team can only comment on criticisms by freaking out and name calling.
Keep up the good work, having such a friendly group playing an active part in the GW rules is great.

decker_cky
01-07-2008, 01:12
Minotaurs have to take the same mark as the general, and only a single unit of bestigors can be marked, so beast armies would've all been mono-mark along with undivided without the chariot marking.

neXus6
01-07-2008, 01:45
Yes, and I saw no problem with that what so ever. They are not an army of chaos warriors why should they have had marks all over the place.


ASF canceling and revert to normal combat. To be honest ASF vs ASF doesn't occur THAT often though it is getting more common. I've got no problem with Swordsmasters getting a bit of a kick in the teeth from other ASF units considering how nasty they are against non ASF units. :p

decker_cky
01-07-2008, 02:39
Yes, and I saw no problem with that what so ever. They are not an army of chaos warriors why should they have had marks all over the place.

That's nice...but why shouldn't the true children of chaos worship freely. Not to mention the players that had 2/3 of their options removed, and had mixed armies before the split.

But to go back on topic...if using only official rules sources, and all of the official rules sources, you should come to the conclusion that ASF doesn't cancel out. That an e-mail from Alessio is circulating does not affect the rules. There needs to be an official errata for that to become the rules. An email from Alessio is no more official than the answer a red shirt gives you.

EvilMinion
01-07-2008, 02:48
The charger would strike first and if they are both the same initative each player rolls a die to determine which unit strikes first.

minionboy
01-07-2008, 03:31
IH > ASF[(I+ > I=I d6 > I-) > SL(I+ > I- > WLR > D6)] > Combat[Chargers > I+ > I- > SL(I+ > I- > WLR > D6) > WLR > D6]

$5 USD to whoever can make an easy jingle to remember this! Kinda like Please Excuse My Dear Aunt Sally, only Warhammerish!

The USD is going down every second, so do it fast while it's still worth 0.635324015 Euros!

EvilMinion
01-07-2008, 03:48
Like that is ever going to happen - but I'm curious; how did you figure this out??

minionboy
01-07-2008, 04:08
Like that is ever going to happen - but I'm curious; how did you figure this out??

By using my vast intellect found in post #60:
http://warseer.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2741375&postcount=60

DarthBinky
01-07-2008, 04:39
@Darth... Without a verifiable, published version of the Allesio e-mail, I can only take it as a rumor and not authoritative. Therefore, it wouldn't overrule a FAQ or RAW text. If it makes it into a FAQ with clear wording, then we'd be there. (Incidentally, ASF cancelling out would be the clearer, simpler, more consistent ruling IMO.)

Well thanks for agreeing with me on the "legality" of the Alessio email.

Secondly, I already showed you that ASF canceling out is neither clearer nor simpler. All it does is change one word in the flowcharts you like so much ;)- "Skip to initiative" turns into "Skip to charging" on one of the two charts involved. That's it. It actually technically adds a step- if there are no ASF chargers, then you revert to initiative, which is what the rulebook says you should have done in the first place.

Gobbo Lord
01-07-2008, 10:23
That an e-mail from Alessio is circulating does not affect the rules. There needs to be an official errata for that to become the rules. An email from Alessio is no more official than the answer a red shirt gives you.

Ok, im not syaing that the email is 100% legitimate as it may not be but what you are effectivly saying (note effectivly used as an unnessesary abverb). Is that if someone wrote to Alessio asking if ASF cancels itself out and combat returns to normal in all cases of ASF vs ASF because it kept cropping up in their games group and there were people on each side, and he replied in writing that yes in fact it cancels itself out just like he said in the High Elf FAQ. That that is clearly the intention, you would not play that way! Because he affirmed it in a personal response rather than publishing it on the GW website?

Sorry im just trying to clarify that this is what you are saying here, a designer makes the intention of the rule clear but you wont play that way because its not in print.

Atrahasis
01-07-2008, 11:35
Staff of Damnation question in the Vampire FAQ.
Answer "It clearly says in the spells description" i.e. read your book properly.
:rolleyes:Oh, you're complaining about the actual Direwolf FAQ. In that document we answer questions that come up a lot (ie are FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS). I thought you were talking about us asking the Studio stupid questions. If you have any examples of that then please, point them out.


As for the history of the chariot marks, that doesn't explain the asking of the question recently,Who asked it recently? The decision to allow chariots to be marked was made wholly within the Studio without us asking anything, and makes a lot of sense given the changes to army interaction.


But it is nice to see that members of the direwolf team can only comment on criticisms by freaking out and name calling. I haven't freaked out, and the only person who has flung insults and names around is you. Perhaps you should review the thread.

I think that you seriously misunderstand the purpose of the Direwolf FAQ, and also the mechanisms that are in place for submission of questions to the design team. I'm happy to answer any questions you have, if you're prepared to be civil.

Atrahasis
01-07-2008, 11:44
Secondly, I already showed you that ASF canceling out is neither clearer nor simpler. All it does is change one word in the flowcharts you like so much ;)- "Skip to initiative" turns into "Skip to charging" on one of the two charts involved. That's it. It actually technically adds a step- if there are no ASF chargers, then you revert to initiative, which is what the rulebook says you should have done in the first place.

Reverting to normal order makes a huge difference over simply skipping to initiative. Perhaps "clearer" and "simpler" are the wrong words, but it is certainly more intuitive.

For example - 2 units of Elven Spearmen, one of which has just charged. Reverting to Initiative means that charging was of no benefit.
In the next round of combat, if ASF does not cancel, we go to Initiative, which means ANOTHER dice off. Reverting to normal order means the winners of the previous round go first.

There are many other examples of oddball situations that reverting to "Who strikes First"/cancelling ASF avoids when compared to simple I comparison.

kroq'gar
01-07-2008, 12:14
In regards to an Alession Email thats like taking a presidents/prime ministers word as law. Not law, unless it passess the parliments. Remember, apparently the steam tank could be dismantled as it was a war machine.

Anyway, @ Atrahasis in my mind yes it comes down to a 50/50 chance, just like its a 100/0 chance against a non ASF opponent.

Under the lizardman item, sword of the hornet- the sword always strikes first and if an opponent has the abiliy to always strike first as well then attacks are resolved in normal initiative order.

Thats ASF vs ASF as well. However, the FAQ addresses where a Great weapon fits into the equation. There was once the silly event whereby an ASF character would charge and be outstruck by a swordmaster due to higher initiative. By stating the ASF rule is simply removed this then handicapped the great weapon armed models once more into proportion.

ASF vs non ASF- ASF fights first. Always. The rules on grt weapons say they strike first when they charge, but this is OVERWRITTEN by ASF.

Any normal model fighting ASF loses out. Any ASF with great weapon fighting ASF loses out.

ASF has always overridden charging, so why should it stop now?

Atrahasis
01-07-2008, 13:49
ASF has always overridden charging, so why should it stop now?Because the FAQ, and Allessio, say so.

DarthBinky
01-07-2008, 14:06
Reverting to normal order makes a huge difference over simply skipping to initiative. Perhaps "clearer" and "simpler" are the wrong words, but it is certainly more intuitive.

For example - 2 units of Elven Spearmen, one of which has just charged. Reverting to Initiative means that charging was of no benefit.
In the next round of combat, if ASF does not cancel, we go to Initiative, which means ANOTHER dice off. Reverting to normal order means the winners of the previous round go first.

There are many other examples of oddball situations that reverting to "Who strikes First"/cancelling ASF avoids when compared to simple I comparison.
No, it really doesn't make much of a difference. Look at the modified charts I made up to compare. All that changes is that charging suddenly makes a difference (which it normally doesn't when ASF is involved). The difference is in your mind- like when people insist that rolling the dice for 2d6 separately is somehow better than rolling them together (or vice versa).

And in your spearelf example, the next round of combat is how it works anyway, both using the dubious Alessio email or when using the rulebook. ASF canceling or not makes no difference whatsoever in subsequent rounds of combat- only in the charge round. And as kroqgar so eloquently stated- "ASF has always overridden charging, so why should it stop now?"

I can't think of any other "oddball situations" where ASF canceling makes a big difference. Please, indulge.


Because the FAQ, and Allessio, say so.
You mean because Alessio (supposedly) says so. The FAQ does not. The language used in the High Elf FAQ simply does not support your argument at this time. Until it's in something official, the content of that email simply does not exist for rules purposes.

Atrahasis
01-07-2008, 14:15
And in your spearelf example, the next round of combat is how it works anyway, both using the dubious Alessio email or when using the rulebook. ASF canceling or not makes no difference whatsoever in subsequent rounds of combat- only in the charge round.

Two spearelf units fighting each other in an ongoing combat. They both have ASF and equal initiative. If ASF does not cancel, it is a roll off.
If it does cancel, the winner of the previous round of combat goes first.

How is that in my head?


I can't think of any other "oddball situations" where ASF canceling makes a big difference. Please, indulge.

GW-armed, high-initiative ASFers (Swordmasters) charging low-initiative ASFers (zombies under influence of Corpse Cart or Van Hels).
If ASF cancels, the chargers (Swordmasters) go first. If it doesn't, the zombies go first. Zombies being charged going first seems pretty oddball to me.

DarthBinky
01-07-2008, 14:22
Two spearelf units fighting each other in an ongoing combat. They both have ASF and equal initiative. If ASF does not cancel, it is a roll off.
If it does cancel, the winner of the previous round of combat goes first.

How is that in my head?

Ok, point. And what's so wrong with going by what the rules say instead of what some email says?

As for the zombie one, it couldn't happen. VDM and Corpse Cart only happen during your own turn. If the Elves are charging, it's the Elves' turn. It could theoretically happen on a miscast 5-6, but gimme a break, that'd be incredibly rare, and I'd just chalk it up to the power of the miscast.

Loopstah
01-07-2008, 14:25
As for the zombie one, it couldn't happen. VDM and Corpse Cart only happen during your own turn. If the Elves are charging, it's the Elves' turn. It could theoretically happen on a miscast 5-6, but gimme a break, that'd be incredibly rare, and I'd just chalk it up to the power of the miscast.

The Corpse Cart effect lasts till the next friendly magic phase so the zombies would have ASF during the enemy turn.

EvilMinion
01-07-2008, 14:26
Who knows some person in the form of Alessio made it for the runiation of the Warhammer universe! But that would be a very rare situation..

DarthBinky
01-07-2008, 14:26
The Corpse Cart effect lasts till the next friendly magic phase so the zombies would have ASF during the enemy turn.
Of course. That means it's better than how I've been using it.:rolleyes:

(I hate it when I miss little minor things like that)

Atrahasis
01-07-2008, 14:29
Ok, point. And what's so wrong with going by what the rules say instead of what some email says?Because the FAQ (part of the rules) says the same thing as the e-mail.


As for the zombie one, it couldn't happen. VDM and Corpse Cart only happen during your own turn. If the Elves are charging, it's the Elves' turn. It could theoretically happen on a miscast 5-6, but gimme a break, that'd be incredibly rare, and I'd just chalk it up to the power of the miscast.

Firstly, the effects described do not only affect the VC turn.
Secondly, it is entirely plausible that the Elves could be "charging" in the first round of a combat fought in the VC turn. Have you never heard of pursuit or overrun?

EvilMinion
01-07-2008, 14:30
Yes i agree with you on that point, you should just play to the spirit of the game rather than one person confine you to a set of rules. This dose'nt allow you to cheat however.

Akuma
01-07-2008, 14:36
Especially if we dont have any physical prove that the said E-mail exists ...

DarthBinky
01-07-2008, 14:37
Because the FAQ (part of the rules) says the same thing as the e-mail.
Actually it doesn't. The FAQ says "In this instance, do X." Then it simplifies that with an "Effectively X.2". Ignoring that worthless email, I don't understand how one could turn that clarifying "effectively" into a blanket statement. As I said earlier, the language simply does not support your viewpoint, and going with it as it is (ie, email-less), it actually supports the rulebook's answer.


Firstly, the effects described do not only affect the VC turn.
Secondly, it is entirely plausible that the Elves could be "charging" in the first round of a combat fought in the VC turn. Have you never heard of pursuit or overrun?
Yeah I realized that after I posted, along with the Corpse Cart thing. But I still don't see a problem with it. So the High Elf guys who should be going last per the rulebook suddenly go first because some random email says so.... how is that better?

EvilMinion
01-07-2008, 14:41
I wouldnt say the email was worthless... but if the high elves charged wouldnt they go first regardless?

DarthBinky
01-07-2008, 14:44
I wouldnt say the email was worthless... but if the high elves charged wouldnt they go first regardless?
It is indeed worthless. Most of us still haven't seen it, we don't know who sent it, and it's from the intarwebs- do you trust everything you find on the intarwebs? I hope not! As much as I'd love to trust people on the intartubes who I've never met and probably never will... I'm not going to.

If it's not in a rulebook, army book or an errata/FAQ posted on the GW site, it's effectively worthless. The instant that email gets put into errata/FAQ form, I will totally accept it... until then, no thanks.

As for the elves, see Atra's example above.

DarthBinky
01-07-2008, 14:50
So what are you going to tell the people you game with who don't peruse these boards? Most of the people I game with don't- they're aware of the boards' existence, but just don't care enough to get into them.

"Well these guys on the intarwebs, they said that Alessio wrote this email that contradicts the rulebook. But they say to trust them, and the email's from Alessio, so it must be legit, right?"

I'm sure that conversation will end well. ;)

Atrahasis
01-07-2008, 17:43
The FAQ does support the "ASF vs ASF always cancel" position.

The first sentence deals solely with the example in the question (I6 GW ASF vs I4 HW ASF). The second sentence tells us WHY the first sentence is the solution to the example, thereby setting the precedent for all similar situations.

Gobbo Lord
01-07-2008, 23:22
The FAQ does support the "ASF vs ASF always cancel" position.

The first sentence deals solely with the example in the question (I6 GW ASF vs I4 HW ASF). The second sentence tells us WHY the first sentence is the solution to the example, thereby setting the precedent for all similar situations.

I agree 100%. if some one had asked...

"If a high elf model with asf initiative 6 and a great weapon charged a unit with initiative 2 and hand weapons with asf which unit would strike first"

The answer would have been

"In this case the Elves would strike first in the first round of combat as they charged and last in any subsequent rounds (Answering the question directly). Effectivley the two Always Strike First rules would cancel each other out (GIving the reasoning to the answer).

It is so obvious that this is the INTENT of the ruling. However some people will play as WRITTEN as it gives them a slight advantage somehow. They will argue that Asf cancels itself out only in the case of asf elves with great weapons and I6 vs asf with hand weapons and I4. Because that makes perfect sense. The asf rule only nullifies itself if the troops are armed with certain weapons and of a certain race, LOL, just as it is written. Go common sense.

The way i see it and will always see and play, is the way it is intended. Two units with asf engage each other. Treat the combat as if asf wasnt there. Simple, easy and the way the FAQ intends it...

theunwantedbeing
01-07-2008, 23:44
ASF vs ASF doesnt cancel out though....it only "effectively cancels out" in that example given.

There is a difference between effectively, and actually.
An ignore save weapon is "effectively" st8 for the purposes of armour modification against a 2+ save model.
Although for the roll to wound they arent st8....despite being "effectively st8"

The same is true for ASF vs ASF.
In the FAQ example ASF vs ASF does indeed "effectively" cancel out.

But the FAQ doesnt say that ASF vs ASF always cancels.

Atrahasis
02-07-2008, 09:12
It "effectively" cancels out because if a third unit (sans ASF) were involved in the combat, they'd still strike after both ASF units.

It doesn't "actually" cancel out, because that would remove an advantage that they're entitled to over non-ASF troops. It "effectively" cancels out when deciding which of those two fight first.

Gobbo Lord
02-07-2008, 09:45
It "effectively" cancels out because if a third unit (sans ASF) were involved in the combat, they'd still strike after both ASF units.

It doesn't "actually" cancel out, because that would remove an advantage that they're entitled to over non-ASF troops. It "effectively" cancels out when deciding which of those two fight first.

Again, agree 100%.

Why oh why would it cancel out in the example given in the faq and not in any other asf vs asf combats. Yes the effectivly means for the purpose of those two units battling, yet if another non asf unit charged one of them in the flanks, the asf unit would strike first against them. The rule only cancels out against other units with the same ability. Come on people its so obvious what is intended.

Condottiere
02-07-2008, 10:33
If this has been answered previously, I apologize, but any hope that GW will release an official flowchart for ASF, in the near future?

EvC
02-07-2008, 12:43
No hope whatsoever in the slightest. They can't even answer simple questions without causing mass confusion.

kroq'gar
08-07-2008, 03:00
No hope whatsoever in the slightest. They can't even answer simple questions without causing mass confusion.

Agreed.

FAQ's seem to be done by one individual without any collective objective thought.

sulla
08-07-2008, 08:03
Again, agree 100%.

Why oh why would it cancel out in the example given in the faq and not in any other asf vs asf combats.

Because the ASF rules already covered every other situation adequately. The only thing that needed answering was the technicality of how always strikes first interacted with the 'strikes last' rule.

Instead we got an answer which 'effectively' rewrote the always strikes first rule.

blueon462
08-07-2008, 12:33
I was amazed and distressed at the amount of rules that were ignored or just broken at the Games Day Tournament. FAQs like this are to blame!

knightwire
08-07-2008, 13:34
Because the ASF rules already covered every other situation adequately. The only thing that needed answering was the technicality of how always strikes first interacted with the 'strikes last' rule.

Instead we got an answer which 'effectively' rewrote the always strikes first rule.


Quoted for truth. Charging was never an element in this equation until this 'effectively cancels out' line that people are latching on to was given. The best result IMHO would be to have ASF always ignore SL and let the ASF rules stand as is for ASF vs ASF.

Also out there are the people that say that if it cancels out then the ASF troops go totally last in a mixed combat instead of just amongst the ASF troops, there by starting a half hour debate about it. Obviously that's not every game, but it's too often non-the-less.

decker_cky
08-07-2008, 15:25
Charging still isn't in the equation. :rolleyes:

knightwire
08-07-2008, 15:33
Charging still isn't in the equation. :rolleyes:

I'm glad you think so. I concur that it shouldn't. Unfortunately the guy that makes the decision and answers FAQs disagrees. Hence the comment above.

isidril93
08-07-2008, 15:35
it goes
asf
chargers
high I
low I
strike last

but
asf+charger+low I beats asf+high I
asf+charger+low/high I+strike Last beats asf+low/high I

there is some of the most common examples

minionboy
08-07-2008, 16:30
I'm glad you think so. I concur that it shouldn't. Unfortunately the guy that makes the decision and answers FAQs disagrees. Hence the comment above.

The FAQ guy didn't agree, he just clarified what happens with ASF with Great Weapons vs ASF. The whole FAQ is arbitrary however if you just read the rules provided in the book.

• ASF vs ASF goes to I.
• If you have "Strikes Last" you go last whenever you would use I to determine striking order.

All in all, you only even use the FAQ if the rules to the situation you are facing cannot be found in the rule book, there is a nice pretty flow chart in the Shrine of Knowledge on the GW site to illustrate that.

knightwire
08-07-2008, 23:34
The FAQ guy didn't agree, he just clarified what happens with ASF with Great Weapons vs ASF. The whole FAQ is arbitrary however if you just read the rules provided in the book.

• ASF vs ASF goes to I.
• If you have "Strikes Last" you go last whenever you would use I to determine striking order.

All in all, you only even use the FAQ if the rules to the situation you are facing cannot be found in the rule book, there is a nice pretty flow chart in the Shrine of Knowledge on the GW site to illustrate that.

I always have to laugh when an einstein like you says something like "just read the rules". Yes, obviously the rules are crystal clear on the matter as shown by this thread and the half dozen before it. As well as on warhammer.org and ulthuan.net where there are pages and pages of discussion. It was so clear it needed to be FAQed which in turn was so well worded that it's all settled. :rolleyes:

Stop being condescending and allow some discussion, you know, on this discussion forum for rules questions. (<--- look, I bolded words like you did... did my meaning sink-in super-duper special like?)

decker_cky
09-07-2008, 05:57
He actually made a very good point about the rules flow chart in the Shrine of Knowledge. Being that it's from a FAQ and not an errata, you don't arrive at that unless there's some issue with the rulebook rule, which there isn't, and therefore the charge is still ignored.

EvC
09-07-2008, 11:12
Hence why it is unclear, since the FAQ seems to want to apply itself everywhere but can't. We really need an FAQ for the FAQ!

Llew
09-07-2008, 11:19
I don't think that it's so much that the rules are unclear on the ASF vs ASF issue, but rather that the RAW is dumb and doesn't make sense. They've added a case where charging doesn't matter for no intelligible reason. Ergo, people read the rules, comprehend it and think, "I can see what they wrote, but there's no way that's what they *meant* to have happen."

minionboy
09-07-2008, 15:37
I always have to laugh when an einstein like you says something like "just read the rules". Yes, obviously the rules are crystal clear on the matter as shown by this thread and the half dozen before it. As well as on warhammer.org and ulthuan.net where there are pages and pages of discussion. It was so clear it needed to be FAQed which in turn was so well worded that it's all settled. :rolleyes:

Stop being condescending and allow some discussion, you know, on this discussion forum for rules questions. (<--- look, I bolded words like you did... did my meaning sink-in super-duper special like?)

Just a quick response, funny that you call me condescending after that first paragraph.

However, I do not feel that I'm being condescending, I'm just providing an alternate to even looking at the FAQ, which as I've shown (on page 3), is entirely redundant when you read the rules carefully and completely. People find a situation where they disagree with the RAW, then find an FAQ which explains a situation that is covered clearly in the RAW, then they try to apply that to all situations, which does not work.

If you want to allow for discussion, you should be open to the opposing arguments when they are valid. Unfortunately, the strongest current argument against what I've shown is that the FAQ intended something more than what it said. This is an argument from omniscience, and implies that you know what someone was thinking at the time they wrote the FAQ. Very easily they could have been thinking exactly what I've explained, but nobody allows room for that. ;)

I love a good discussion and I would love it even more if someone could present a case that is clearly written in the rules showing that charging with ASF goes before ASF.

edited: less condescending

decker_cky
09-07-2008, 16:47
Hence why it is unclear, since the FAQ seems to want to apply itself everywhere but can't. We really need an FAQ for the FAQ!

Well....that it 'wants to apply itself everywhere' is contentious, as shown by most of this thread. But clear rules in the rulebook on the situations involving charging, and a FAQ covering the great weapon situation (which is what that entire question is about) does cover all the requirements with the shrine of knowledge, meaning charging, as per the rulebook, doesn't matter with the great weapon, and you use the rulebooks rules (with the clarification on great weapons).

There'd need to be some very strong evidence to the opposite for a RAW interpretation to show the opposite.

minionboy
09-07-2008, 17:23
Hence why it is unclear, since the FAQ seems to want to apply itself everywhere but can't. We really need an FAQ for the FAQ!

The only reason people would need an FAQ for an FAQ is if the FAQ wasn't clear on the question. The question being what happens when ASF+SL fights ASF. The answer was that ASF > ASF+SL, in response to that question, ASF effectively cancels ASF.

If ASF always cancelled ASF then the whole section in ASF about striking order would be redundant. If you read the section in ASF about what happens when ASF fights ASF, it is different than how normal combat occurs. That in itself is proof that ASF does not cancel ASF.

The major difference I'm referring to is that in ASF vs ASF combat it goes to the highest Initiative, if the Initiative is the same then roll a D6.

With normal combat, if the Initiative is the same, then you go to whoever won the last combat, then if nobody won, roll a D6.

If ASF canceled ASF, then it would go to whoever won the last combat, but as stated in the ASF rules this is not the case.

TheDarkDaff
15-07-2008, 11:48
I just thought i would point out that the Canadian FAQ has now been changed and the UK FAQ link (updated on 11th July - presumably to be the same as the new Canadian version) is now broken.

The new ruling is that when ASF meets ASF it is straight down to Initiative regardless of any other factors (roll off for equal I). So "strikes last" and charging have absolutely no bearing on ASF vs ASF combats.

kroq'gar
15-07-2008, 11:50
from the duplicate thread running right now...


They've actually gone completely mad and re-done the High Elf FAQ to say the following:

"Q. When two models with the always strikes
first (ASF) rule are in combat, and one is
equipped with a great weapon, does the
model equipped with the great weapon strike
last? For example, if a High Elf model with an
Initiative value of 6 and equipped with a
Great Weapon is fighting against an enemy
model with the ASF rule, an Initiative of 4,
and a hand weapon, who strikes first in the
combat?
A. When two models with the ASF rule are
fighting, they will strike in descending
Initiative order, rolling a dice in case of same
Initiative. All other factors, such as charging,
great weapons, etc., are ignored, because they
have already been bypassed by the ASF rule."

ca.games-workshop.com/WhiteDwarf/download/2006Errata/Errata/WH/2008-high_elves_faq.pdf

Thereby making the guys in the WD Battle Report seem like they're idiots.

TheDarkDaff
15-07-2008, 11:55
from the duplicate thread running right now...

Thanks for that mate. I was just about to copy it over myself.

kroq'gar
15-07-2008, 12:01
Thanks for that mate. I was just about to copy it over myself.

Haha, no worries. you still can if you like!

Loopstah
15-07-2008, 15:23
Nice to see GW fixing something that was a great big mess.

Lets hope they do the same when they do the Daemon FAQ.

Gazak Blacktoof
15-07-2008, 15:37
I wrote the following in the thread in General Discussion titled ASF vs ASF in response to the new FAQ:




Vamps and greenskins both have access to spells that allow them to get ASF and they just wont work vs High Elves which sucks for my greesnkins.



Gobbo Lord replied:




Actually i was investigating this the other day. It is the one place where the Greenskins have an advantage in being the first book produced. Before all the special rules etc came into play. It would help if someone could clarify this for me. The Greenskin spells you talk of will Still work even with the new clear ASF ruling.



As the book was written not taking into account the slew of ASF appearing everywhere. The spell states that (the unit strikes first in the next round of combat and may reroll misses), is does not state that the unit gains ASF untill the next magic phase. The unit doesnt gain asf, they just strike first in the next round of combat.



Im not sure how the Vampire Counts spell is worded. If it mentions the unit gaining ASF then that is what happens, and in combat with elves then apply the new faq ruling meaning casting the spell was pointless. I imagine it is worded this way as ASF was/is all the rage. Hoever the greenskins have an advantage in that ASF was still limited to characters and Magic items, so the spell states they strike first next round of combat, not they gain ASF for the next round of combat.



Thoughts?



To which I replied:






@Gobbo Lord



I've checked my greenskin book and you're right, I hadn't noticed that before.



Now is this interpretation correct?

Will greenskins affected by the spells "Bash 'Em Ladz" or "Waaagh!" go before models with the always strikes first rule.

The pertinent pieces of text from the two spells are respectively, "The unit strikes first in the next close combat phase" and, "All friendly units strike first in the next phase of close combat".

minionboy
15-07-2008, 16:01
but but... my equation!!!!! Guess it's time to edit my signature... :(

RIP:
IH > ASF[(I+ > I=I d6 > I-) > SL(I+ > I- > WLR > D6)] > Combat[Chargers > I+ > I- > SL(I+ > I- > WLR > D6) > WLR > D6]

I'm glad that they finally cleared everything up though, although I'd still have rather had great weapons go after regular ASF troops. Overall though, doesn't affect me, I play Empire and Lizardmen! :P

Loopstah
15-07-2008, 16:27
Now is this interpretation correct?

Will greenskins affected by the spells "Bash 'Em Ladz" or "Waaagh!" go before models with the always strikes first rule.

The pertinent pieces of text from the two spells are respectively, "The unit strikes first in the next close combat phase" and, "All friendly units strike first in the next phase of close combat".

I would say yes they do, it says they strike first in the next round so they do. Unlike the VC Cart spell which gives units the rule "Always Strikes First".

knightwire
15-07-2008, 16:37
but but... my equation!!!!! Guess it's time to edit my signature... :(

RIP:
IH > ASF[(I+ > I=I d6 > I-) > SL(I+ > I- > WLR > D6)] > Combat[Chargers > I+ > I- > SL(I+ > I- > WLR > D6) > WLR > D6]


Lol. While your equation was inspired... it made my head hurt. ;):evilgrin:

<big exhale> No more stupid arguments over this. (For a while.)

505
16-07-2008, 21:26
<big exhale> No more stupid arguments over this. (For a while.)

don't count on that. I could make up a stupid question on this but I wont :D

Loopstah
16-07-2008, 21:34
don't count on that. I could make up a stupid question on this but I wont :D

Please do before we run out of things to argue over.:D

decker_cky
16-07-2008, 22:15
Please do before we run out of things to argue over.:D

If my monster who's a character is in combat with something with ASF, is ASF ignored because my monster is a character with the strength of will to ignore his opponent moving faster?

Loopstah
16-07-2008, 22:28
If my monster who's a character is in combat with something with ASF, is ASF ignored because my monster is a character with the strength of will to ignore his opponent moving faster?

Does it wear yellow?

If not, then only on a Friday.

Gazak Blacktoof
16-07-2008, 22:36
I would say yes they do, it says they strike first in the next round so they do. Unlike the VC Cart spell which gives units the rule "Always Strikes First".


Any body else with an opinion to add?

minionboy
16-07-2008, 23:18
Any body else with an opinion to add?

But, but... what if I have Slime Trail?

neXus6
17-07-2008, 00:59
Oh great...they've cleared it up...by changing it to be stupid. Brilliant.

What was wrong with ASF cancels ASF and it just becomes a normal combat?

It's things like this that drive me nuts about FAQs. :p

sulla
17-07-2008, 05:43
Oh great...they've cleared it up...by changing it to be stupid. Brilliant.

What was wrong with ASF cancels ASF and it just becomes a normal combat?

It's things like this that drive me nuts about FAQs. :p

Perhaps because ASF vs ASF negating each other screwed over DE and Skaven assassins? Or because ASF negating ASF was not what the rulebook said to do in such cases? I'd like to think we have gotten past the stage of FAQ's being used to introduce rulechanges. They should be for clarifications only, not sneaky rewrites.

EvC
17-07-2008, 09:49
Yeah, but it'd be pretty useful if they didn't tell us the complete opposite first.

sulla
17-07-2008, 20:01
Yeah, but it'd be pretty useful if they didn't tell us the complete opposite first.

Do you mean in the first FAQ? I totally agree with you there.

OldMaster
17-07-2008, 20:10
But, but... what if I have Slime Trail?

Then you are a filthy Nurgle Deamon : P
And you'd strike first.

lparigi34
17-07-2008, 23:01
Bwahahahahhahah

That was sooooo fun!

Grimgormx
22-07-2008, 02:13
Damn, know ASF got back to initiative, I liked it more when ASF vs ASF just got canceled.

Well HE players say goobay to my orcs and Hello to my fanatics, chariots, and bolt throwers, they have never lose a game againts HE

Grimgormx
22-07-2008, 02:15
And what happens when I use the Wagh spell? it saids that when it is cast, orcs strike first (it doesnt gives orcs the ASF rule, it only says that greenskins strike first)