PDA

View Full Version : ASF, ASL, and more ASF



Pages : [1] 2

Lord Dan
04-02-2014, 23:09
The thread is regarding whether a model with ASF special rule attacking another model with ASF (and ASL) would attack simultaneously without rerolls.



Let's take a unit of Executioners. They have ASF and ASL, meaning they they strike in Initiative order against normal units.

A unit of HE spearmen charges them. While the ASF and ASL on the Executioners are interacting under a special caveat, there is nothing that technically removes the ASF rule from the model. As a result the HE spearmen and Executioners fight simultaneously, per the rules for ASF vs. ASF.

Is this interpretation correct?

Mr_Rose
04-02-2014, 23:19
No. ASF+ASL = null effect. That is, none of the effects of having either rule apply. Striking simultaneously with models that have ASF themselves is an effect.

Francis
04-02-2014, 23:45
It's debatable, but I do think that what Mr_Rose said is the rule as intended.

Blkc57
05-02-2014, 00:20
Odd, doesn't seem that debatable. When it says it no longer has any effects, that would include the loss of the effect that two models with ASF go at the same time.

Lord Dan
05-02-2014, 00:36
When it says it no longer has any effects, that would include the loss of the effect that two models with ASF go at the same time.

Under the ASF vs. ASF section it says: "If a model with [Always Strikes First] is fighting an enemy with the same ability..." not "If a model with this rule is fighting another model which is able to strike first..." While the ASF and ASL interaction cancels the effects of both, the model still technically has the ASF rule on its profile.

For the record I agree with you guys, this just came up in a recent game and we weren't completely sure of how to resolve it.

Blkc57
05-02-2014, 03:05
Under the ASF vs. ASF section it says: "If a model with [Always Strikes First] is fighting an enemy with the same ability..." not "If a model with this rule is fighting another model which is able to strike first..." While the ASF and ASL interaction cancels the effects of both, the model still technically has the ASF rule on its profile.

For the record I agree with you guys, this just came up in a recent game and we weren't completely sure of how to resolve it.

But doing that Dan to me would be an effect, something which ASF doesn't do anymore.

Lord Dan
05-02-2014, 03:22
No, I see your point. Rules as Intended is incredibly clear. Rules as Written is less so, if only because the model still has both special rules and the ruling for ASF vs. ASF doesn't specify that both versions of ASF be "active".

For instance, if the Executioners were to lose ASF through a spell of some kind I imagine most would agree that they would then ASL, as the two rules don't interact anymore. Likewise, if their great weapons were rendered inactive by a special item and no longer give them the ASL rule, they would ASF as normal.

I bring this up only to point out that while the rules cancel each others effects out, the rules are still on the model's profile whether we run into them or not. If they're still there, they're technically meeting the qualifications of the ASF vs. ASF caveat.

Blkc57
05-02-2014, 03:44
I bring this up only to point out that while the rules cancel each others effects out, the rules are still on the model's profile whether we run into them or not. If they're still there, they're technically meeting the qualifications of the ASF vs. ASF caveat.

I see what you are saying now, that because it has an ASF rule (even if the ASF rule is inactive), and no one will argue that it doesn't possess the rule so you can't give it a second ASF another source, that it is in fact the other person's ASF that triggers that section of the ASF rule. Interesting way to look at it, but it does dance into the a bizarre realm of one person has a rule that is active but another has a rule that is not, do effects that trigger off the the active rule still interact with the inactive one on the other model? I'm forced to say no, just because that would be giving an active effect to a rule that should really not be doing anything.

Lord Dan
05-02-2014, 06:01
I see what you are saying now, that because it has an ASF rule (even if the ASF rule is inactive), and no one will argue that it doesn't possess the rule so you can't give it a second ASF another source, that it is in fact the other person's ASF that triggers that section of the ASF rule.
Correct.


Interesting way to look at it, but it does dance into the a bizarre realm of one person has a rule that is active but another has a rule that is not, do effects that trigger off the the active rule still interact with the inactive one on the other model? I'm forced to say no, just because that would be giving an active effect to a rule that should really not be doing anything.
It's true, any time you start meandering away from what was probably intended you tend to wander away from what makes sense, which is why I generally dislike RaI arguments (you know, the like the one I'm putting forth in this thread :p).

SteveW
05-02-2014, 06:02
Rules as written is pretty clear, "neither count" seems to mean neither count.

Lord Dan
05-02-2014, 06:04
Rules as written is pretty clear, "neither count" seems to mean neither count.

The ASF vs. ASF rule doesn't care if they "count", it cares if they exist. Even though the Executioner's ASF doesn't "count", it still exists.

SteveW
05-02-2014, 06:11
The ASF vs. ASF rule doesn't care if they "count", it cares if they exist. Even though the Executioner's ASF doesn't "count", it still exists.

It's existence does not count.

Squishy1979
05-02-2014, 13:13
I don't have the book in front of me, but doesn't it say that if you have ASF and ASL, the effects cancel each other out and then you strike at initiative? Whereas the ASF grants you to strike before initiative attacks are considered? If so (and I'm finding that this game can have two rules written that will contradict each other), in the spirit of the game, I would say that the ASL would not affect your opponent to strike at the same time as your guys with both ASF and ASL....my two cents.

thesoundofmusica
05-02-2014, 13:31
Game would be quite silly playing like that Lord Dan. I think most rules dont have a "need to be active" clause. Simply they work or they do not.

Lord Dan
05-02-2014, 14:39
It's existence does not count.
Sure it does. What happens if you give the Executioners ASF with a spell like "Speed of Light"? Nothing, of course, because they already have it.



I don't have the book in front of me, but doesn't it say that if you have ASF and ASL, the effects cancel each other out and then you strike at initiative? Whereas the ASF grants you to strike before initiative attacks are considered? If so (and I'm finding that this game can have two rules written that will contradict each other), in the spirit of the game, I would say that the ASL would not affect your opponent to strike at the same time as your guys with both ASF and ASL....my two cents.
All of this is correct, except for the fact that there is a whole paragraph specifically dealing with how to resolve ASF against ASF.



Game would be quite silly playing like that Lord Dan. I think most rules dont have a "need to be active" clause. Simply they work or they do not.
It was SteveW who brought up the "needs to be active". Again, it's not so simple as "they work or they do not", per my example of giving the Executioners ASF with Speed of Light. The Executioners have ASF (which is why you can't give them more ASF), and while it doesn't "work" the clause regarding ASF vs. ASF interaction only stipulates that participants have ASF.

Wesser
05-02-2014, 14:56
While on topic... White Lions get "ASL" from say Nightshroud.

Do they strike last or are they already as "strike-lasty" as they can become due to greatweapons?

Lord Solar Plexus
05-02-2014, 15:21
Again, it's not so simple as "they work or they do not", per my example of giving the Executioners ASF with Speed of Light. The Executioners have ASF (which is why you can't give them more ASF), and while it doesn't "work" the clause regarding ASF vs. ASF interaction only stipulates that participants have ASF.

That is not correct. Both rules cancel each other out. If a model has multiples of both or either rule, they still cancel out. The second ASF (or same special rule) doesn't come later. Whenever there could be an effect, you look at the model and see if it has (x times) ASF/ASL and then they cancel out.

A model with both rules uses its initiative. It cannot be any clearer than that.

thesoundofmusica
05-02-2014, 15:41
It was SteveW who brought up the "needs to be active". Again, it's not so simple as "they work or they do not", per my example of giving the Executioners ASF with Speed of Light. The Executioners have ASF (which is why you can't give them more ASF), and while it doesn't "work" the clause regarding ASF vs. ASF interaction only stipulates that participants have ASF.

Cancelled out. I dont see how its not clear enough.

"If a model with this rule fights another model with this ability"

Well the ability was just cancelled out.

SteveW
05-02-2014, 16:18
That is not correct. Both rules cancel each other out. If a model has multiples of both or either rule, they still cancel out. The second ASF (or same special rule) doesn't come later. Whenever there could be an effect, you look at the model and see if it has (x times) ASF/ASL and then they cancel out.

A model with both rules uses its initiative. It cannot be any clearer than that.

The book states that all special rules are cumulative unless otherwise stated. So ASF + ASL + ASF = ASF. I know that's not the popular way to play it but it is the rules as written.

Mr_Rose
05-02-2014, 17:34
The book states that all special rules are cumulative unless otherwise stated. So ASF + ASL + ASF = ASF. I know that's not the popular way to play it but it is the rules as written.

No, the book says that multiples of the same special rule are never cumulative unless otherwise stated. See the errata.

FatTrucker
05-02-2014, 17:41
Circular argument though.

I have ASF
But your axe gives you ASL
But I've recast ASF
But you're still using the axe which gives you ASL
But I've got 2 lots of ASF
But your axe makes you ASL

And round, and round and round.

ASF and ASL cancel one another out meaning neither rule or any of its benefits/detriments apply and attacks are made in Initiative order.

Recasting ASF does indeed give you ASF again, but its then immediately cancelled again by the fact you're still using an axe that has ASL and when you attack you have the ASF and ASL rules in effect.

If the rules cancel each other out then a character with ASF+ASL doesn't have ASF or ASL and will attack after a character with just ASF.

SteveW
05-02-2014, 17:43
No, the book says that multiples of the same special rule are never cumulative unless otherwise stated. See the errata.
No it does not say that. It says they confer no additional benefit of having the same special rule multiple times. Having ASF + ASL= Initiative and those rules don't count. When something doesn't count, you don't count it. It isn't a trick, you count the next rule that would apply. Like if Executioners find themselves ina frost aura the get ASL, if they come upon a river of light they can get timewarp and have ASF. That's rules as written and rules as I believe they were intended.

Lord Solar Plexus
05-02-2014, 17:54
Then they would get an additional benefit. They start out with ASF and get it through a River of Light, so they have ASF - they don't have 2x ASF because it would lead to an additional benefit.

SteveW
05-02-2014, 18:03
No, they don't have ASF. It says that rule does not count. So don't count it, the river would then be giving a model with no counted rule ASF.

kirkus
05-02-2014, 19:17
Models with great weapons only have ASL when they are striking with the great weapon. Don't forget that all models are assumed to also be carrying hand weapons. Therefore they always have ASF except when in combat where they are forced to use the great weapons and therefore get ASL. Only in combat will the ASL and ASF cancel each other out and so attack in initiative order. Not at the same time as the other ASF unit as they no longer would have this rule granted to them

Lord Dan
05-02-2014, 19:20
Models with great weapons only have ASL when they are striking with the great weapon. Don't forget that all models are assumed to also be carrying hand weapons. Therefore they always have ASF except when in combat where they are forced to use the great weapons and therefore get ASL. Only in combat will the ASL and ASF cancel each other out and so attack in initiative order. Not at the same time as the other ASF unit as they no longer would have this rule granted to them

Good point, which further strengthens the argument of "You can't have ASF twice".

TinTip
05-02-2014, 19:21
You can have ASF from multiple sources, however you only ever apply it once, if at the same time you have ASL it cancels out ASF from all sources, and you strike at initiative, but most important, you have both rules on the models.

its the same as if you had the ability +1 to hit and i had a unit of nurgle warriors, both rules cancel out but the models keep the rules.

SteveW
05-02-2014, 19:35
You can have ASF from multiple sources, however you only ever apply it once, if at the same time you have ASL it cancels out ASF from all sources, and you strike at initiative, but most important, you have both rules on the models. Where is that in the rules?


its the same as if you had the ability +1 to hit and i had a unit of nurgle warriors, both rules cancel out but the models keep the rules. If you have +1 to hit and are fighting nurgle with a -1, do you then ignore a further +/- 1? Nope. If Curse of Anraheir were to be cast upon you, you would have -1 to hit.

dementian
05-02-2014, 21:00
RAW you don't lose ASF when you gain ASL the special rules are just not applied. The special rule for ASF states "If the model with this rule is fighting an enemy with the same ability, the Attacks are made simultaneously"

In your example Lord Dan the Spearmen are attacking with ASF. Now we check to see if the enemy has ASF...oh yes it does have the special rule Always Strikes first. Oh darn now we must attack simultaneously even though the executioners also have Always Strikes Last...

kirkus
05-02-2014, 21:28
Now we check to see if the enemy has ASF...oh yes it does have the special rule Always Strikes first...

No it doesn't have ASF, it is not being applied at the moment as it's been cancelled for the time being.

Meaning of cancel from Dictionary.com


to make void; revoke; annul

ASF is revoked. It does not have it any longer. It'll regain the ASF effect after combat.

Squishy1979
05-02-2014, 22:56
I think it's pretty clear in this scenario that the ASL and ASF would cancel each other out...however, just to be that Jerk, what would happen if the High Elves spearmen were playing against ogres, and the ogres used their banner's breath weapon to give the unit ASL. The HE's would have ASF from their profile and ASL from magic...which would "cancel" each other even before the combat phase... Now let's say that on the HE turn, they cast a spell on themselves to give themselves ASF...now what?

They have ASF again?
They already have it on their profile, and can't gain it again, so will strike at initiative?
When fighting someone with ASF, they strike a the same time, because they have both ASL and ASF that are currently affecting the unit putting it in dementian's category...

Again I see here that there is a way that it is MEANT to be played, but where ambiguity is left to let people argue about it

Figment187
06-02-2014, 01:18
Ok all this is in the errata from games workshop.

Special Rules, What Special Rules Does It Have.
Change “[...]the effects of multiple special rules[...]” to
“[...]the effects of different special rules[...]”Add “However,
unless otherwise stated, a model gains no additional benefit
from having the same special rule multiple times.” to the end of
the first paragraph.

As you can see it can only be affected once by ASF no matter if it gets it from 10 sources, same as ASL.


So in conclusion you do not get to reroll misses if you have ASF and ASL, you go on the models initiative.Period. End of discussion.

You can't ignore that you have ASL Lord Dan. So you can't argue that since they both have ASF that one or both models would ignore that they have ASL. Makes no sense.

Lord Dan
06-02-2014, 01:36
So in conclusion you do not get to reroll misses if you have ASF and ASL, you go on the models initiative.Period. End of discussion.
Wait, what? Did you read the opening post? My argument was that enemy models which also have ASF would not get their re-rolls against a unit which has both ASF and ASL. In other words despite having ASF and ASL and therefore striking in initiative order, a unit like Executioners would still force enemies with ASF to strike with them "simultaneously" because, while their ASF is "canceled", they still technically have the rule and therefore they still meet the qualifications under the ASF vs. ASF paragraph.



You can't ignore that you have ASL Lord Dan. So you can't argue that since they both have ASF that one or both models would ignore that they have ASL. Makes no sense.
Sure you can. The ASF vs. ASF rule doesn't care about the state of your ASF rule, they just care if it's on your profile.

Figment187
06-02-2014, 01:57
Obviously you didn't read the rules for ASL.

This is under the ASL rule from the rulebook page 66.

"If a model has both this rule and Always Strikes First, the two cancel out."

Like I said you can't ignore the ASL rule because both units have ASF. If ASF is cancelled out, the the other model with ASF would stirke first and reroll misses. With the errata and the two rules as written it's impossible to get this wrong.

Lord Dan
06-02-2014, 02:04
"If a model has both this rule and Always Strikes First, the two cancel out."

Like I said you can't ignore the ASL rule because both units have ASF. If ASF is cancelled out, the the other model with ASF would stirke first and reroll misses. With the errata and the two rules as written it's impossible to get this wrong.

You're late to the party. You're ignoring the ruling for ASF vs. ASF found on the same page:

"If a model is fighting an enemy with the same ability, attacks are made simultaneously..."

There is nothing in there that stipulates that ASF be unmodified or not interacting with anything else, nor is there anything in the ASF/ASL section you quoted which would conflict with the quote above. In fact the only thing which could be argued is that the word "canceled" actually means "removed", and that ASF is no longer present on the model if it also has ASL. This isn't the case, as has been explained by numerous examples over the last two pages regarding why additional versions of ASF on a model with ASF and ASL would have no effect (in short, because they still have the ASF rule, "canceled" though it may be).

SteveW
06-02-2014, 02:22
Sure you can. The ASF vs. ASF rule doesn't care about the state of your ASF rule, they just care if it's on your profile.
It doesn't need to care, it's been canceled out.

Figment187
06-02-2014, 02:28
Look I am just explaining how this works, rules as written are crystal clear on this. If you go to a tournament or a local game and try and argue this they will either laugh at you or tell you to pack up and go home.

Again you are quoting the ASF rules but ignoring the ASL rule. If a model has both they cancel each other out. It doesn't get any simpler than that. Arguing for the sake of arguing won't change the facts. ASF and ASL cancel each other out. You aren't sure if "cancel" means to "remove". Fantastic. Cancel your car payments and see if they don't remove your car.

Lord Dan
06-02-2014, 02:29
It doesn't need to care, it's been canceled out.

What does that mean, though? If it means it's "ignored", then it still meets to qualifications of the ASF vs. ASF ruling because it still exists. If it means that the rule is literally being removed from the model, then you'd be right that the ASF vs. ASF ruling would no longer apply, however several other issues arise:

1. How does it magically come back?
2. Does this mean casting ASF or ASL on the unit would actually have those effects?

I'm more inclined to believe that the effects are simply ignored, however that would mean that a unit with ASF and ASL would still cancel out the re-rolls for a unit with ASF.

Lord Dan
06-02-2014, 02:36
Look I am just explaining how this works, rules as written are crystal clear on this.
No, it's not remotely clear.



If you go to a tournament or a local game and try and argue this they will either laugh at you or tell you to pack up and go home.
Except that this has been the ruling for every tournament I've gone to, which is why this thread was created in the first place.



Again you are quoting the ASF rules but ignoring the ASL rule. If a model has both they cancel each other out.
Great. Show me where that has anything to do with the ASF vs. ASF rule. If that rule said something like: ""If a model is fighting an enemy with the same ability, and that ability is currently being applied, attacks are made simultaneously..." then great.

That's just not what it says. Put another way, here are all of the conditions for ASF vs. ASF:

1. Your unit has ASF. Even if it also has ASL and the rules are "canceling out", it still has ASF.
2. Your opponent's unit has ASF.

That's it.



You aren't sure if "cancel" means to "remove". Fantastic. Cancel your car payments and see if they don't remove your car.
You're hilarious. Per my post directed to SteveW, above, if the rule is being removed as you're apparently suggesting, what does that means for subsequent castings of spells which grant ASF/ASL? Do they have an effect?

Blkc57
06-02-2014, 02:37
What does that mean, though? If it means it's "ignored", then it still meets to qualifications of the ASF vs. ASF ruling because it still exists. If it means that the rule is literally being removed from the model, then you'd be right that the ASF vs. ASF ruling would no longer apply, however several other issues arise:

1. How does it magically come back?
2. Does this mean casting ASF or ASL on the unit would actually have those effects?

I'm more inclined to believe that the effects are simply ignored, however that would mean that a unit with ASF and ASL would still cancel out the re-rolls for a unit with ASF.

In my opinion that would still be applying an effect of the models ASF when it should do nothing but cancel out ASL, Dan.

You said it yourself Dan that RAW doesn't work in this case, everytime you try to apply an effect from the other models ASF I can just say that it doesn't apply. Lets say there is a fight between a White Lion and a Witch elf. It doesn't matter, Dan, that the White lion has the ASF rule on its profile, by the fact that it has ASL its rule can have no effect other than to allow the white lion to go at init, and that includes interacting with the Witch Elf's ASF by either canceling out its rerolls or making it go at a different time other than first.

EDIT: You are better Dan, just rolling with RAI on this. Unless you want a circular argument like this each time you want to apply RAW, it just won't work. RAI is simpler since you really can't argue against it, unless you believe that some how great weapons alter the laws of physics. That a great weapon in the hands of an ASF model suddenly gains a greater coefficient of gravity, allowing it to bend the time space continuum. That this great weapon can now reach out with its dark tendrils of mass ensnaring the very movements of an enemy ASF model whispering into its ear "I DEFY TIME ITSELF!". Yes my friend, that would be a GREAT weapon. :)

Figment187
06-02-2014, 02:47
Your a bit late on the affects of multiples of the same special rules.


Special Rules, What Special Rules Does It Have.
Change “[...]the effects of multiple special rules[...]” to
“[...]the effects of different special rules[...]”Add “However,
unless otherwise stated, a model gains no additional benefit
from having the same special rule multiple times.” to the end of
the first paragraph


The ASL rule directly ties into the ASF rule so it doesn't have to be under the ASF rule. Read it and tell me I am wrong.

Always Stikes Last

"A model with this special rule(or who is attacking with a weapon that grants this special rule)always strikes last in close combat,regardless of initiative.

If the model with this rule is fighting an enemy with the same ability, the Atttacks are made simultaneously. IF THE MODEL HAS THIS RULE AND ALWAYS STRIKES FIRST,THE TWO CANCEL OUT AND NEITHER APPLIES SO USE THE MODEL'S INITIATIVE."

How much clearer can the rules state it Lord Dan, if you have both THEY DO NOT APPLY. Not sure about anyone else but do not apply and cancel out are pretty straight foward.

And I absolutely refuse to believe that you play at tournaments that don't play this right.

Lord Dan
06-02-2014, 03:03
In my opinion that would still be applying an effect of the models ASF when it should do nothing but cancel out ASL, Dan.

You said it yourself Dan that RAW doesn't work in this case, everytime you try to apply an effect from the other models ASF I can just say that it doesn't apply. Lets say there is a fight between a White Lion and a Witch elf. It doesn't matter, Dan, that the White lion has the ASF rule on its profile, by the fact that it has ASL its rule can have no effect other than to allow the white lion to go at init, and that includes interacting with the Witch Elf's ASF by either canceling out its rerolls or making it go at a different time other than first.
I think people are misunderstanding me. I'm not saying that an opponent with ASF will have any effect on a unit with both ASF and ASL. Rather, I'm saying a unit with ASF will have an effect on another unit with ASF even if it also has ASL.

So, in your combat between White Lions and Witch Elves:

1. White Lions strike at initiative 5 (?) per the ruling between ASF and ASL.
2. Witch Elves strike simultaneously with them, and cannot re-roll against them because they both technically have ASF on their profile.

Does that make more sense?

Xthos
06-02-2014, 03:17
I agree Lord Dan, just because Figment wants to 'cancel' something, doesn't mean it never existed. Also your Army book will override the rules book. So quoting the rule book does not always give you the correct answer. Just like with Regen and flaming attacks, it is very obvious what happens there.

Figment187
06-02-2014, 03:18
I see the point you are trying to get across. But if you use the above scenario what negatives are the White Lions taking for using wepaons that give them the +2 Strength? Against units that have the ASF rules they take absolutely no penalties at all. Honestly I hate the ASF rule because I don't play armies that get it. But in the above scenario if the witch elves are not getting the rerolls to their misses then they are being cheated.

Lord Dan
06-02-2014, 03:21
I see the point you are trying to get across. But if you use the above scenario what negatives are the White Lions taking for using wepaons that give them the +2 Strength? Against units that have the ASF rules they take absolutely no penalties at all. Honestly I hate the ASF rule because I don't play armies that get it. But in the above scenario if the witch elves are not getting the rerolls to their misses then they are being cheated.

There is no penalty, except that they themselves won't get re-rolls against non-ASF opponents. I think it's a terrible ruling, as most RaW interpretations are, and could be easily fixed with the simple addition of "unless ASF is being cancelled by ASL" in the ASF vs. ASF section.

Figment187
06-02-2014, 03:26
But i just showed you that it is in the ASL that it does just that. It cancels the ASF rule. Even after it says that ASF does not apply and is cancelled out by ASL you really still don't think the witch elves get their rerolls on misses? If I were playing HE's or DE's and someone tried the above scenario on me I would be a bit agitated.

Figment187
06-02-2014, 03:28
I also understand you want it written under the ASF ruling, but it IS written under the ASL ruling and White Lions have BOTH rulings to them. You have to use them both not just one for one scenario and one for another.

SteveW
06-02-2014, 04:02
But i just showed you that it is in the ASL that it does just that. It cancels the ASF rule. Even after it says that ASF does not apply and is cancelled out by ASL you really still don't think the witch elves get their rerolls on misses? If I were playing HE's or DE's and someone tried the above scenario on me I would be a bit agitated.

There's no getting through to them. If they cannot grasp what "cancels" means the rest is right over their heads.

Blkc57
06-02-2014, 04:05
I think people are misunderstanding me. I'm not saying that an opponent with ASF will have any effect on a unit with both ASF and ASL. Rather, I'm saying a unit with ASF will have an effect on another unit with ASF even if it also has ASL.

So, in your combat between White Lions and Witch Elves:

1. White Lions strike at initiative 5 (?) per the ruling between ASF and ASL.
2. Witch Elves strike simultaneously with them, and cannot re-roll against them because they both technically have ASF on their profile.

Does that make more sense?

I understand what you are saying, Dan, but do you see my point? The White lions can not have an effect on the Witch Elf even it it still has the ASF rule, because its ASF rule is blocked from interacting with anything while it cancels out the ASL. You are allowing the White lion to have an effect outside of canceling ASL by making the Witch Elf go simu and lose it rerolls, which it should not be doing. And vice versa, the Witch Elf's ASF cannot interact with a rule on the White Lion that by RAW can only work to cancel out ASL. So in other words the White Lions while still having ASF, can only do one thing and it is cancel out ASL, and not interact with other rules. Adding a second ASF to the White Lion would do nothing, because both ASFs would still be working to cancel out the ASL and not interacting with any other model's rules (You gain no benefit from having multiples of a rule unless it says so specifically).

Lets look at it from another way. Does it make sense to you that a unit with supernatural speed and agility suddenly has to move slower just because its opponent is carrying a great sword? No, so obviously such a position make no sense by RAI and looks stupid. Now lets go by RAW, you try to argue that because you have two models with ASF they go at the same time and do not reroll, I say that is granting an effect to one model's rule which it states can do nothing but allow that model to go at init order. Neither of us can really make head way as every time you try to describe a point of the rule, I say its granting an effect that shouldn't happen. We go round and round in circle.

Wouldn't it be better to just go with what makes sense? Instead of trying to argue for an interpretation that puts the game on its head with its pants down?

Lord Dan
06-02-2014, 04:26
But i just showed you that it is in the ASL that it does just that. It cancels the ASF rule. Even after it says that ASF does not apply and is cancelled out by ASL you really still don't think the witch elves get their rerolls on misses? If I were playing HE's or DE's and someone tried the above scenario on me I would be a bit agitated.
I could understand your agitation, and in fact the reason I brought this up is because my Skaven assassin ran into a block of Executioners and this very issue came up. When I brought up my concerns - your concerns, I might add - they rightly pointed out that "it's not fair" isn't a valid rules argument.



I also understand you want it written under the ASF ruling, but it IS written under the ASL ruling and White Lions have BOTH rulings to them. You have to use them both not just one for one scenario and one for another.
It's not, though, unless we all want to agree that "canceled" means "permanently removed" and that things which grant ASF would actually grant ASF to a unit which has had its ASF and ASL remove each other.



There's no getting through to them. If they cannot grasp what "cancels" means the rest is right over their heads.
Before you get too sure of yourself, let me remind you of your contributions to this thread:

1. Repeating "it doesn't count" and "it's canceled", without any in-game explanation of how that works.
2. Arguing that casting a spell which grants ASF actually gives renewed ASF to a unit like Executioners, something proven wrong by the FAQ linked by the very person you're counting yourself on the same team as.

Am I missing anything?



I understand what you are saying, Dan, but do you see my point? The White lions can not have an effect on the Witch Elf even it it still has the ASF rule, because its ASF rule is blocked from interacting with anything while it cancels out the ASL.
Except that's an extrapolation. The ASL rule doesn't say that ASF "is blocked from interacting with any other rule" or anything to that effect; it says "canceled", which is something we're now trying to work through the in-game meaning of. Does that mean "suspended but still on the profile", or "removed from the profile"? Either ruling leads to problems that need to be sorted out.



Lets look at it from another way. Does it make sense to you that a unit with supernatural speed and agility suddenly has to move slower just because its opponent is carrying a great sword? No, so obviously such a position make no sense by RAI and looks stupid. Now lets go by RAW, you try to argue that because you have two models with ASF they go at the same time and do not reroll, I say that is granting an effect to one model's rule which it states can do nothing but allow that model to go at init order. Neither of us can really make head way as every time you try to describe a point of the rule, I say its granting an effect that shouldn't happen. We go round and round in circle.
Which goes back to Figment's point about it not making sense. I agree that it doesn't make sense, and that - assuming my argument is correct - it's something which needs to be changed. It becomes a RaW versus RaI debate, however so far I have to stand by my initial understanding of RaW.



Wouldn't it be better to just go with what makes sense? Instead of trying to argue for an interpretation that puts the game on its head with its pants down?
Of course. The initial point of this thread was to try to find a rules-based justification for the RaI interpretation, and has since devolved into me defending why the question was worth asking in the first place. :p

dementian
06-02-2014, 04:28
It doesn't put the game on its head with its pants down. It is simply a poorly worded rule.

There really should be no discussion at this point as Lord Dan and I have laid out the effects for a model with ASF fighting against an opponent that also has the ASF special rule REGARDLESS OF IF IT HAS ASL AS WELL IT STILL HAS THE SPECIAL RULE ASF.

If I have a special rule granting me +1 to hit and have an effect applied that gives me -1 to hit. The net change is that I roll to hit with no modifiers but that does NOT change the fact that I have the rule granting me +1 to hit.

Similarly it works for ASF and ASL. I have ASF and ASL. I still have the special rule ASF even though it says its effects do not apply. When your opponent is using HIS special rule of ASF it requires them to see if their opponent has ASF. Oh hey look I do have ASF special rule, there is no stipulation like Lord Dan said that requries my ASF to be active or not, simply that I have the special rule.

SteveW
06-02-2014, 04:44
Lord Dan, please explain who goes first in a three way combat between White Lions, Witch Elves, and Chaos warriors with halberds.

By your posts, you think the ASF canceled by ASL has the White lions striking at the same time as the Chaos warriors.

By your reasoning the Witch elves strike at the same time as the White lions because they both have ASF

By the rules The witch elves go before the chaos warriors with rerolls due to ASF and equal or higher init.

So if the WL and WE are tied, and the WL and CW are also tied, but the WE go before the CW. Who strikes in what order in a three way combat? Your take on the rules is so flawed there's no answer to this problem. By the rules as written, the WE's strike with rr's, then the WL's and CW strike.

dementian
06-02-2014, 04:49
Lord Dan, please explain who goes first in a three way combat between White Lions, Witch Elves, and Chaos warriors with halberds.

By your posts, you think the ASF canceled by ASL has the White lions striking at the same time as the Chaos warriors.

By your reasoning the Witch elves strike at the same time as the White lions because they both have ASF

By the rules The witch elves go before the chaos warriors with rerolls due to ASF and equal or higher init.

So if the WL and WE are tied, and the WL and CW are also tied, but the WE go before the CW. Who strikes in what order in a three way combat? Your take on the rules is so flawed there's no answer to this problem. By the rules as written, the WE's strike with rr's, then the WL's and CW strike.

The Witch Elves attacking Chaos Warriors attack at ASF with Rerolls. The ones attack White Lions attack simultaneously with the White Lions. Combat between the White Lions and Chaos Warriors is irrelevant.

SteveW
06-02-2014, 04:53
The Witch Elves attacking Chaos Warriors attack at ASF with Rerolls. The ones attack White Lions attack simultaneously with the White Lions. Combat between the White Lions and Chaos Warriors is irrelevant.
No, it isn't irrelevant. You have to know when casualties are caused and by your flawed reading of the rules you have to ignore them. You cause a paradox, you have A equaling A and not A at the same time. You're wrong on every level.

Lord Dan
06-02-2014, 04:54
Lord Dan, please explain who goes first in a three way combat between White Lions, Witch Elves, and Chaos warriors with halberds.

By your posts, you think the ASF canceled by ASL has the White lions striking at the same time as the Chaos warriors.

By your reasoning the Witch elves strike at the same time as the White lions because they both have ASF

By the rules The witch elves go before the chaos warriors with rerolls due to ASF and equal or higher init.

So if the WL and WE are tied, and the WL and CW are also tied, but the WE go before the CW. Who strikes in what order in a three way combat? Your take on the rules is so flawed there's no answer to this problem. By the rules as written, the WE's strike with rr's, then the WL's and CW strike.

Yeah I'm not sure what's tripping you up, here. Dementian's explanation of what would happen is spot-on. Somehow you seem to be under the impression that the WE are fighting both the CW and the WL with all of their attacks, so once you step back from that and break the fight down into constituent parts you'll see it's not confusing at all.

EDIT:
EDIT EDIT: Corrected "Executioners" to "White Lions"

Since you apparently didn't pick up what he was saying:

Witch Elves vs. Warriors: Strike first and re-rolls.
Witch Elves vs. White Lions: Strike simultaneously at I5 (ASF and ASL means the White Lions would strike at I5, however as they both have ASF on their profiles they instead strike simultaneously).
White Lions vs. Warriors: Strike simultaneously at I5 (ASF and ASL means White Lions strike at I5, which is the same as the Warriors).

So, if you somehow had a mass combat where everyone was dividing up attacks against everyone else, and at least one model was attacking a model from each unit:

The Witch Elves striking against the Warriors would go first.
Everything else would then strike simultaneously.

SteveW
06-02-2014, 04:56
Yeah I'm not sure what's tripping you up, here. Dementian's explanation of what would happen is spot-on. Somehow you seem to be under the impression that the WE are fighting both the CW and the WL with all of their attacks, so once you step back from that and break the fight down into constituent parts you'll see it's not confusing at all.
I'm not confused, you still cannot explain who goes in what order. You have the WL's tied with both the WE's and the Warriors but the WE's and Warriors have separate orders of attacks.

Lord Dan
06-02-2014, 05:03
My apologies, SteveW, I edited my post after you responded and I believe you missed my follow up:

Witch Elves vs. Warriors: Strike first and re-rolls.
Witch Elves vs. White Lions: Strike simultaneously at I5 (ASF and ASL means the White Lions would strike at I5, however as they both have ASF on their profiles they instead strike simultaneously).
White Lions vs. Warriors: Strike simultaneously at I5 (ASF and ASL means White Lions strike at I5, which is the same as the Warriors).

So, if you somehow had a mass combat where everyone was dividing up attacks against everyone else, and at least one model was attacking a model from each unit:

The Witch Elves striking against the Warriors would go first.
Everything else would then strike simultaneously.

Blkc57
06-02-2014, 05:06
It doesn't put the game on its head with its pants down. It is simply a poorly worded rule.

There really should be no discussion at this point as Lord Dan and I have laid out the effects for a model with ASF fighting against an opponent that also has the ASF special rule REGARDLESS OF IF IT HAS ASL AS WELL IT STILL HAS THE SPECIAL RULE ASF.

If I have a special rule granting me +1 to hit and have an effect applied that gives me -1 to hit. The net change is that I roll to hit with no modifiers but that does NOT change the fact that I have the rule granting me +1 to hit.

Similarly it works for ASF and ASL. I have ASF and ASL. I still have the special rule ASF even though it says its effects do not apply. When your opponent is using HIS special rule of ASF it requires them to see if their opponent has ASF. Oh hey look I do have ASF special rule, there is no stipulation like Lord Dan said that requries my ASF to be active or not, simply that I have the special rule.

Dementian, you can't just say "there is no discussion." Thats as silly as everyone that is telling Dan the exact same thing from the other side. Because we are still here saying the same thing.


"REGARDLESS OF IF IT HAS ASL AS WELL IT STILL HAS THE SPECIAL RULE ASF." And I am trying to point out that by my understanding of "cancels out" translates into that ASF rule "regardless of the the fact that it is on the model" is doing nothing but the singular job of canceling ASL.


When your opponent is using HIS special rule of ASF it requires them to see if their opponent has ASF.
And as I have pointed out that is granting an effect to a rule that should not be doing so, HIS ASF should not interact with the canceled version.

dementian
06-02-2014, 05:11
It cancels the effect of the rule but does not remove the rule from the model's profile. Therefore the model still has ASF even though he does not gain the benefits.

By RAW it doesn't matter if ASF is doing anything, it is on the profile and therefore another Model that has ASF must attack it simultaneously without benefiting from rerolls.

Blkc57
06-02-2014, 05:17
Now to you my good fellow, Dan because I do wish to continue this debate, because at its core I feel this is healthy in showing my point that RAW in this case is a failure and should be abandoned in favor of the much more clear and concise RAI. I'm not 100% sure if this is your intention, but its what I intend to do with an argument that I can see from some people (and I admit many of them are on my side) is getting a little testy.


Except that's an extrapolation. The ASL rule doesn't say that ASF "is blocked from interacting with any other rule" or anything to that effect; it says "canceled", which is something we're now trying to work through the in-game meaning of.

If the rule is canceled, Dan, then that would mean to me at least that it should not be having any in game effects on other models. I would take that to mean that it should not interact with other rules of a similar nature other than to fulfill its one listed job in the description of allowing the model to go at initiative order.

Lord Solar Plexus
06-02-2014, 05:18
No, they don't have ASF. It says that rule does not count.

That's what I'm saying: They don't have ASF. :) You are saying they have it twice (one that goes away and one that doesn't). That's not the case. They have ASF. If they get ASF from a second source, they have ASF. If they get it from a third, they have ASF. Nothing changes.



If you have +1 to hit and are fighting nurgle with a -1, do you then ignore a further +/- 1? Nope.

Which special rule would that be, Steve?

Blkc57
06-02-2014, 05:20
By RAW it doesn't matter if ASF is doing anything, it is on the profile and therefore another Model that has ASF must attack it simultaneously without benefiting from rerolls.

But that is having an effect, Dementian. Even if by proxy of altering another rule it is still causing an effect. Something it should not do if it is "canceled". If a model must change its rule because of another rule that is an effect. As much as a giant boulder will have an effect on a stream of water by making it go around. The rock while just sitting there still has an effect. ASF+ASL should be as a "ghostly" rock, that effects nothing even the stream of other ASF that passes harmless through it.

Lord Solar Plexus
06-02-2014, 05:24
1. White Lions strike at initiative 5 (?) per the ruling between ASF and ASL.
2. Witch Elves strike simultaneously with them, and cannot re-roll against them because they both technically have ASF on their profile.

Does that make more sense?

Yes, but that's not how it works. ASF and ASL cancel out, Witch Elves strike first and re-roll. Which probably doesn't matter at all; I think they hate HE.

Lord Dan
06-02-2014, 05:25
Now to you my good fellow, Dan because I do wish to continue this debate, because at its core I feel this is healthy in showing my point that RAW in this case is a failure and should be abandoned in favor of the much more clear and concise RAI.
Please do, sir!



If the rule is canceled, Dan, then that would mean to me at least that it should not be having any in game effects on other models. I would take that to mean that it should not interact with other rules of a similar nature other than to fulfill its one listed job in the description of allowing the model to go at initiative order.
A fair point, and I can accept that definition. This, however, begs a question: Does "ASF" remain on the model's profile? If so, would a subsequent casting of something which grants ASF, such as "Speed of Light" have any effect? If it does, why is it an exception to the FAQ ruling you quoted previously?

Lord Dan
06-02-2014, 05:27
ASF and ASL cancel out, Witch Elves strike first and re-roll.
Again, though, we're trying to get to the root of what "cancel" means as it pertains to the ASF vs. ASF interaction. Is ASF still on the profile?


Which probably doesn't matter at all; I think they hate HE.
They do, and so would be getting re-rolls against both units either way.

Figment187
06-02-2014, 05:33
Lord Dan your Assassin was cheated and you should beat about the head and shoulders the person who cheated you. When a special rule does not apply or canceled then no it doesn't count for your model. I see what Dement and you are saying, but you two would be the only two in the world to play this way. Like I said, never in any Tournament or local gameshop game have I ever seen it played this way.

Blkc57
06-02-2014, 05:38
Please do, sir!



A fair point, and I can accept that definition. This, however, begs a question: Does "ASF" remain on the model's profile? If so, would a subsequent casting of something which grants ASF, such as "Speed of Light" have any effect? If it does, why is it an exception to the FAQ ruling you quoted previously?

Ahhh, now you get down into the insanity of it, Dan. :) There is as far as I can tell only one instance in the entire game of a rule like ASL or ASF being removed entirely from a profile. And that is when a zombie has its ASL straight up removed and replaced by ASF in the presence of a Corpse Cart. In that case the exchange is very very clearly written. So I would say yes, in fact the ASF does remain up on the models profile. But I would say that in fact it remains upon the model profile in such a manner that it serves only to do one thing and that is cancel out ASL, and have no other effects (since its effects are being "canceled"), which includes not having any effect upon the ASF of another model fighting it. I understand that my interpretation is a vague. But by RAW you can not tell me that my interpretation is wrong as the words "canceled out" does not explicitly say what exactly is canceled out.


They do, and so would be getting re-rolls against both units either way. Unless it was the second round of fighting in which case the example does apply. :)

Lord Dan
06-02-2014, 05:39
I see what Dement and you are saying
At this point, honestly, that's all I care about. ;)

Lord Solar Plexus
06-02-2014, 05:42
Again, though, we're trying to get to the root of what "cancel" means as it pertains to the ASF vs. ASF interaction. Is ASF still on the profile?


The rule and its explanation are on p. 66. It has already been quoted what that means.

Lord Dan
06-02-2014, 05:44
Ahhh, now you get down into the insanity of it, Dan. :) There is as far as I can tell only one instance in the entire game of a rule like ASL or ASF being removed entirely from a profile. And that is when a zombie has its ASL straight up removed and replaced by ASF in the presence of a Corpse Cart. In that case the exchange is very very clearly written.
I'd actually completely forgotten about that interaction. The precedent is important, because it implies that a model can have something removed completely from his profile, even if temporarily (such as a model with ASF at the moment it attacks with an ASL weapon, for instance).


So I would say yes, in fact the ASF does remain up on the models profile. But I would say that in fact it remains upon the model profile in such a manner that it serves only to do one thing and that is cancel out ASL, and have no other effects (since its effects are being "canceled"), which includes not having any effect upon the ASF of another model fighting it. I understand that my interpretation is a vague. But by RAW you can not tell me that my interpretation is wrong as the words "canceled out" does not explicitly say what exactly is canceled out.
Oh, I agree, RaW is extremely vague in this case, primarily because "canceled" is not an established term in Warhammer.

I think I'm going to have to simply accept that majority opinion on this one, if only because I want it to be the case. ;)

Lord Dan
06-02-2014, 05:45
The rule and its explanation are on p. 66. It has already been quoted what that means.

You didn't read any of this thread, did you?

Figment187
06-02-2014, 05:45
At this point, honestly, that's all I care about. ;)


Lol, btw if the Dwarfs get a model that looks like the picture of the bad guy from Sonic the Hedgehog you posted, I will hunt you down sir.

I can't unsee it either.

dementian
06-02-2014, 05:48
Haha I'm glad we got something through! Maybe if the Errata/FAQ was updated more than once in the last 10 months it wouldn't be required for us to try to decode intention behind rules and wording. I still believe that RAW doesn't permit a model with ASF attacking a model with both ASF and ASL to gain rerolls and must attack simultaneously. As annoying or counter intuitive as it may seem that is the RAW.

Blkc57
06-02-2014, 05:59
Oh, I agree, RaW is extremely vague in this case, primarily because "canceled" is not an established term in Warhammer.

I think I'm going to have to simply accept that majority opinion on this one, if only because I want it to be the case. ;)

Do not feel any way other than as an excellent forum poster, my good man. You do not have to bend to majority opinion. My point is to show that the arguments of RAW in this case creates a circular round of reasoning that prevents two people from reaching common ground due to the vagues of the the RAW passage. Even if you were simply playing the devil's advocate it was important. For me it allowed me to show how long it takes us to go around this before we simply say "Screw it whats the easiest conclusion?" "RAI".

Lord Dan
06-02-2014, 06:04
For me it allowed me to show how long it takes us to go around this before we simply say "Screw it whats the easiest conclusion?" "RAI".

Isn't that always the case? :D

Blkc57
06-02-2014, 06:10
Isn't that always the case? :D

Yes it is, my fine gentleman. *tips his hat to an excellent fellow*

Lord Solar Plexus
06-02-2014, 06:15
Oh, I agree, RaW is extremely vague in this case, primarily because "canceled" is not an established term in Warhammer.


Neither is "enemy", "all", "use" and about 60k other words.

The rule very clearly and explicitly tells you what "cancel" means in this context. Don't overcomplicate it.

Squishy1979
06-02-2014, 06:56
LOL, I love this thread.....especially because about 5% of the posters actually understand the argument that Dan is making (and he is right, even if it doesn't make sense, or wasn't intended that way).

There are really two scenarios in this question:

1) ASF with ASL will force models with ASF to attack simultaneously, as Dan/Dementian very eloquently argued (and that nobody understood)
or
2) ASF with ASL cancelling each other out means that those "keywords" are removed from the profile. Meaning that a model with ASF will strike before the model with both. This also means that the model with ASF and ASL, could also regain ASF through the casting of a spell (or some other means), which again makes sense but goes against the FAQ that was posted indicating there would be no benefit from recasting ASF on a unit that already has it.

Most people here seem to be using a mix of the two, which is that a model of ASF/ASL will not strike at the same time as a model with ASF, but that you cannot also "re-grant" ASF. The rules do not support this argument, they could only support either example 1 OR example 2, and that is simply what Dan is trying to point out.

I secretly hope that a fight breaks out, and some name calling happens here ;)
But this is a very good post, and I think the intention of the rules is apparent (they example in which everyone seems to be siding with, and yelling at Dan about), even if the rules technically state something else. Kudos specifically to Dan, Dementian, and Blkc for a well though out disucssion, and for understanding each others point!

Blkc57
06-02-2014, 07:15
LOL, I love this thread.....especially because about 5% of the posters actually understand the argument that Dan is making (and he is right, even if it doesn't make sense, or wasn't intended that way).

There are really two scenarios in this question:

1) ASF with ASL will force models with ASF to attack simultaneously, as Dan/Dementian very eloquently argued (and that nobody understood)
or
2) ASF with ASL cancelling each other out means that those "keywords" are removed from the profile. Meaning that a model with ASF will strike before the model with both. This also means that the model with ASF and ASL, could also regain ASF through the casting of a spell (or some other means), which again makes sense but goes against the FAQ that was posted indicating there would be no benefit from recasting ASF on a unit that already has it.

Most people here seem to be using a mix of the two, which is that a model of ASF/ASL will not strike at the same time as a model with ASF, but that you cannot also "re-grant" ASF. The rules do not support this argument, they could only support either example 1 OR example 2, and that is simply what Dan is trying to point out.

I secretly hope that a fight breaks out, and some name calling happens here ;)
But this is a very good post, and I think the intention of the rules is apparent (they example in which everyone seems to be siding with, and yelling at Dan about), even if the rules technically state something else. Kudos specifically to Dan, Dementian, and Blkc for a well though out disucssion, and for understanding each others point!

LOL, well thats how the Rules forum rolls. We need a good heated argument to get our blood going.

And I suppose the point I am trying to make is that in fact there is a Third choice, that technically is supported by RAW:

3) That ASF and ASL remain on the model's profile. But even as they remain they do nothing but sit there and cancel each other out, and that excludes them from interacting with other model's rules including another model with ASF. Now giving a second ASF to this model is answered by the FAQ, that any multiples of a rule add no benefit. I'm not saying that ASF is removed from the model's profile, Squishy, only that it ceases to have any effect in the game other than to allow the model to fight at initiative, and that includes ceasing to have an effect on another ASF model.

Figment187
06-02-2014, 07:20
LOL, well thats how the Rules forum rolls. We need a good heated argument to get our blood going.

And I suppose the point I am trying to make is that in fact there is a Third choice, that technically is supported by RAW:

3) That ASF and ASL remain on the model's profile. But even as they remain they do nothing but sit there and cancel each other out, and that excludes them from interacting with other model's rules including another model with ASF. Now giving a second ASF to this model is answered by the FAQ, that any multiples of a rule add no benefit. I'm not saying that ASF is removed from the model's profile, Squishy, only that it ceases to have any effect in the game other than to allow the model to fight at initiative, and that includes having an effect on another ASF model.


I love this thread as well but it seems some posters (only three actually) don't seem to grasp what "neither applies and cancels out" means.

The third scenario above is the correct one.

It's the same as regeneration and flaming attacks except that under regeneration it actually explains about flaming attacks, and ASF it waits until you get to the ASL rules. Not written the greatest but with those two special rules and the FAQ this hasn't been a problem for any tournaments or games I have been to.

Lord Solar Plexus
06-02-2014, 10:05
1) ASF with ASL will force models with ASF to attack simultaneously, as Dan/Dementian very eloquently argued (and that nobody understood)


The argument is incorrect. How eloquent it is is besides the point. ASF + ASL means that they cancel out, none of them has an effect and the model in question strikes at its initiative. This is very clearly spelled out. It does not matter whether ASF is still "on the profile" - is that a rule term now? - or not.

Yes, two opposing models both with ASF strike simultaneously. However, a White Lion is not a model with ASF. It is a model with ASF + ASL, which is what nobody understands (see what I did there?).



2) ASF with ASL cancelling each other out means that those "keywords" are removed from the profile. Meaning that a model with ASF will strike before the model with both. This also means that the model with ASF and ASL, could also regain ASF through the casting of a spell (or some other means), which again makes sense but goes against the FAQ that was posted indicating there would be no benefit from recasting ASF on a unit that already has it.


And with that we can lay this question to rest. How are you going to argue with the FAQ?



Most people here seem to be using a mix of the two, which is that a model of ASF/ASL will not strike at the same time as a model with ASF, but that you cannot also "re-grant" ASF. The rules do not support this argument, they could only support either example 1 OR example 2, and that is simply what Dan is trying to point out.


That's just a repeated claim. The rules self-evidently support this interpretation. :) A White Lion is an ASF + ASL model. Granting it ASF turns it into an ASF + ASL model. There is no 2x ASF and there is no "more ASF" according to the FAQ. There's also no 2x AP or more AP. This model strikes after an ASF model according to p. 66.



I secretly hope that a fight breaks out, and some name calling happens here ;)


You have an ugly nose.

dementian
06-02-2014, 12:33
No one is arguing whether or not the White Lions/Executioners/Any model with both ASF and ASL does not attack in initiative order.

According to p. 66 which you love to reference:

"If the model with this rule is fighting an enemy with the same ability, the Attacks are made simultaneously, and neither model benefits from the re-rolls normally granted by this rule."

Does the White Lion/Executioner/Anyone with ASF and ASL have the special rule ASF? Yes.

Therefore according to the above rule a new model that has ASF that is attacking the White Lion/Executioner/Any model with ASF and ASL would be forced to attack simultaneously with the White Lion/Executioner/Any model with ASF and ASL. Which according to the rules you keep suggesting would be at Initiative of the White Lion/Executioner/Any model with ASF and ASL.

TinTip
06-02-2014, 13:21
If a model with ASF+ASL attacks a model with ASF, the model with ASF will strike first, but with no reroll, assuming it has a higher I

yes if you have ASF+ASL the effects cancel out, but that does not remove ASF from the models profile

Squishy1979
06-02-2014, 14:07
LOL, well thats how the Rules forum rolls. We need a good heated argument to get our blood going.

And I suppose the point I am trying to make is that in fact there is a Third choice, that technically is supported by RAW:

3) That ASF and ASL remain on the model's profile. But even as they remain they do nothing but sit there and cancel each other out, and that excludes them from interacting with other model's rules including another model with ASF. Now giving a second ASF to this model is answered by the FAQ, that any multiples of a rule add no benefit. I'm not saying that ASF is removed from the model's profile, Squishy, only that it ceases to have any effect in the game other than to allow the model to fight at initiative, and that includes ceasing to have an effect on another ASF model.

This is the option that everyone wants to argure is the correct option, except that it cannot be an option. The point here is that either the cancel out effect leaves ASF on the profile, or removes it (whether temporary or not) from the profile. If it leaves it ASF on the profile (which everyone wants to argue), then according to the RAW, Dan is right, and strikes would be simultaneous. If it removes it from the profile (even temporarily), then it would be left open to allow them to gain ASF again (through a spell or some other means), which nobody thinks is the case. This is why the 3rd option (which everyone wants it to be), is how it seems to be played and intended, but is not as the rules are written.

This is what people are not understanding from Dan's argument. Dan is well aware of the cancelling effects of having ASF and ASL, but pointing out that if the ASF stays on the profile when being cancelled, then attacks are simultaneous. If it is removed from the profile, then it's not there, so the FAQ of additional benefits does not apply, and you could reapply ASF on the profile.


I love this thread as well but it seems some posters (only three actually) don't seem to grasp what "neither applies and cancels out" means.
Um, obviously nobody understands the effects of the "neither applies and cancels out", otherwise this wouldn't even be a thread...as I've explained twice now. If you would like to explain what "neither applies and cancels out" I would be happy to explain the answer to the OP. The argument here is that the cancel out is ambiguous.

kirkus
06-02-2014, 14:38
Cancel: to make void; revoke; annul
Annul: to reduce to nothing; obliterate;

RAW a model with ASF + ASL no longer has either of those. Albeit only for the duration that both effects apply. Just like an armour save being cancelled by a high strength attack. Or a character riding a monster has a monster troop type that is reverted back to infantry if the monster dies.

Casting ASF on a White Lion has no effect except when the White Lion is in combat because while out of combat, the ASL is not applying. ASL last only applies when it is in combat. Therefore if you were able to grant it ASF while it is in combat, it would actually gain ASF since it's inherent ASF was cancelled (removed) by the ASL weapon (which effect has also been removed).

In the case of a spell or breath weapon that grants ASL to an ASF unit, you could then recast ASF on that unit and have it's effect applied (because as soon as ASF + ASL effect a model both rules are cancelled/removed). This does not break the FAQ ruling either since you aren't stacking ASF on ASF since the original ASF was removed.

Does this argument work for you?

Blkc57
06-02-2014, 15:46
This is the option that everyone wants to argure is the correct option, except that it cannot be an option.

Why is it not an option Squishy? There is nothing preventing it from being an option.

The point here is that either the cancel out effect leaves ASF on the profile, or removes it (whether temporary or not) from the profile.
Nothing can remove something from the profile unless specifically stated, however it can leave the rule in such a state that it cannot function even if it is on the profile. A sort of quasi dead state for a rule.


If it leaves it ASF on the profile (which everyone wants to argue), then according to the RAW, Dan is right, and strikes would be simultaneous.
Except for that would be an effect that would be allowing the ASF part of the ASF+ASL to function, which it cannot do. As it should be canceling out its function.


The is why the 3rd option (which everyone wants it to be), is how it seems to be played and intended, but is not as the rules are written.
Aaahh, but it is held within the rules Squishy. If several other people can read the words canceled like that, then obviously it is capable of being read in such a manner.


This is what people are not understanding from Dan's argument. Dan is well aware of the cancelling effects of having ASF and ASL, but pointing out that if the ASF stays on the profile when being cancelled, then attacks are simultaneous. If it is removed from the profile, then it's not there, so the FAQ of additional benefits does not apply, and you could reapply ASF on the profile.
We understand what Dan is saying Squishy, but the point is that "Canceling" out doesn't mean the Rule disappears it means its effects cease to be with anything other than the one effect it should have which is to make the model go at initiative order.



Um, obviously nobody understands the effects of the "neither applies and cancels out", otherwise this wouldn't even be a thread...as I've explained twice now. If you would like to explain what "neither applies and cancels out" I would be happy to explain the answer to the OP. The argument here is that the cancel out is ambiguous.
And this Squishy is my main point, that RAW fails to be clear, it actually fails to be so much less clear than even RAI, thats it is simply more prudent to go by "Rules As Intended" in this case. RAI is so clear in this case no one has really argued about it in this thread, in fact we all seem to agree on it.

dementian
06-02-2014, 16:13
Cancel: to make void; revoke; annul
Annul: to reduce to nothing; obliterate;

RAW a model with ASF + ASL no longer has either of those. Albeit only for the duration that both effects apply. Just like an armour save being cancelled by a high strength attack. Or a character riding a monster has a monster troop type that is reverted back to infantry if the monster dies.

Casting ASF on a White Lion has no effect except when the White Lion is in combat because while out of combat, the ASL is not applying. ASL last only applies when it is in combat. Therefore if you were able to grant it ASF while it is in combat, it would actually gain ASF since it's inherent ASF was cancelled (removed) by the ASL weapon (which effect has also been removed).

In the case of a spell or breath weapon that grants ASL to an ASF unit, you could then recast ASF on that unit and have it's effect applied (because as soon as ASF + ASL effect a model both rules are cancelled/removed). This does not break the FAQ ruling either since you aren't stacking ASF on ASF since the original ASF was removed.

Does this argument work for you?

No. That interpretation is not supported by any rules.

dementian
06-02-2014, 16:17
Imagine this scenario as a way to potentially cope with the poor RAW.

I imagine ASF to be akin to a Ninja. Incredibly fast, acrobatic, skilled, and fast. Fast enough that he can cope with an opponents slower actions and adjust to ensure he strikes his foe.

Imagine giving that Ninja a big heavy weapon. Surely, this would affect his striking speed but does it limit his ninja reflexes to dodge?

Now we have another ninja going to strike our ninja with a big weapon. Ninja with big weapon cannot strike as quickly anymore but he still has the skills to cancel out his opponents quick striking skills using his innate reflexes and speed.

kirkus
06-02-2014, 16:21
Imagine this scenario as a way to potentially cope with the poor RAW.

I imagine ASF to be akin to a Ninja. Incredibly fast, acrobatic, skilled, and fast. Fast enough that he can cope with an opponents slower actions and adjust to ensure he strikes his foe.

Imagine giving that Ninja a big heavy weapon. Surely, this would affect his striking speed but does it limit his ninja reflexes to dodge?

Now we have another ninja going to strike our ninja with a big weapon. Ninja with big weapon cannot strike as quickly anymore but he still has the skills to cancel out his opponents quick striking skills using his innate reflexes and speed.

No. That interpretation is not supported by any rules.

dementian
06-02-2014, 16:25
No. That interpretation is not supported by any rules.

It was an analogy...I never once quoted or suggested that it was rules.

Your post saying that the models lose the Special Rules from their profile is not supported. It says the ability does not take effect not that they lose the special rule. Or do you suggest that if a model with a Great Weapon and ASF will lose their always strikes first special rule in the first round of combat and then be striking at ASL since they are still using the Great weapon in the second round of combat?

Blkc57
06-02-2014, 16:35
Ninja with big weapon cannot strike as quickly anymore but he still has the skills to cancel out his opponents quick striking skills using his innate reflexes and speed.
So you're saying Dementian, that another model's skill can reach out meta-physically and slow his opponent down, that his opponent no longer has supernatural speed just because that Helf is waving a great weapon around? :) Remember, in you're gentlemen's explanation not only are you taking away the rerolls but you are also slowing the model down to go at the enemies initiative. Don't you see how silly that is Dementian? You now have a situation like a Witch elf who is suppose to move with incredible speed going at initiative 5 because she is fighting a White Lion and thus she is moving slower than a model such as a Demon Prince at initiative 9 is moving even though that demon prince doesn't have ASF. That Demon Prince does not suffer any detriments against the White Lion. Your example is only punishing a model for possessing a rule which should be a benefit.

The problem is that ASF is designed to symbolize the superhuman human speed of some models, but then 8th edition came along and the initiative stat became king in this area. This whole rerolling to hits nonsense came about because GW realized they done goofed with High Elves and Characters in that paradigm, since those models already had a really high initiative they were already going first in 90% of cases out there, thus rendering their ASF useless. So they invented this nonsense that a model can move so fast with ASF, that he can strike his foes with heightened accuracy.

Lord Dan
06-02-2014, 16:38
The walls are lost, men! Fall back! FALL BACK!!!

kirkus
06-02-2014, 16:40
It was an analogy...I never once quoted or suggested that it was rules.

Your post saying that the models lose the Special Rules from their profile is not supported. It says the ability does not take effect not that they lose the special rule. Or do you suggest that if a model with a Great Weapon and ASF will lose their always strikes first special rule in the first round of combat and then be striking at ASL since they are still using the Great weapon in the second round of combat?

In my post I stated that while a model has both ASL and ASF then it has neither since they've been cancelled (supported by the dictionary definition of cancelled which means revoke/annul/obliterate/reduced to nothing). As soon as 1 effect is removed, the other is regained (which I used armour saves and troop types as an anology that supports the fact that a profile does indeed change).

So to answer your question. No it would not always have ASL after the first round of combat. Outside of combat it would regain ASF and while in combat it has neither rule.

dementian
06-02-2014, 16:41
So you're saying Dementian, that another model's skill can reach out meta-physically and slow his opponent down, that his opponent no longer has supernatural speed just because that Helf is waving a great weapon around? :) Remember, in you're gentlemen's explanation not only are you taking away the rerolls but you are also slowing the model down to go at the enemies initiative.

The problem is that ASF is designed to symbolize the superhuman human speed of some models, but then 8th edition came along and the initiative stat became king in this area. This whole rerolling to hits nonsense came about because GW realized they done goofed with High Elves and Characters in that paradigm, since those models already had a really high initiative they were already going first in 90% of cases out there, thus rendering their ASF useless. So they invented this nonsense that a model can move so fast with ASF, that he can strike his foes with heightened accuracy.

I am just trying to wrap my head around the RAW with a silly analogy. So yes. The ninja with the great weapon causes other ninjas around him to slow down. Just like in the RAW :P

dementian
06-02-2014, 16:43
In my post I stated that while a model has both ASL and ASF then it has neither since they've been cancelled (supported by the dictionary definition of cancelled which means revoke/annul/obliterate/reduced to nothing). As soon as 1 effect is removed, the other is regained (which I used armour saves and troop types as an anology that supports the fact that a profile does indeed change).

So to answer your question. No it would not always have ASL after the first round of combat. Outside of combat it would regain ASF and while in combat it has neither rule.

So imagine a Thundertusk is within range with its ASL aura. When your model with ASF and ASL starts to strike (starting at its initiative value but then OH NO, AT THIS EXACT MOMENT ASF AND ASL HAVE CANCELLED TO NOTHINGNESS now there is a new application of ASL from the aura and the model must now strike at ASL?

Blkc57
06-02-2014, 16:45
The walls are lost, men! Fall back! FALL BACK!!!

Waaaaaaggghhhhhhh!

Squishy1979
06-02-2014, 16:46
My point is that this thread is actually about what cancelling does RAW. Once that is decided, the rules fall into place. I stand by my argument that the "3rd option" which everyone WANTS it to be, and is RAI, is NOT supported by the rules being stated here.


Nothing can remove something from the profile unless specifically stated, however it can leave the rule in such a state that it cannot function even if it is on the profile. A sort of quasi dead state for a rule.

If this is your argument, then the model will retain ASF (even if it's void), and as such Dan's original interpretation is correct...as both models have ASF, and therefore strike simultaneously, regardless of ASL also being on a profile.


Aaahh, but it is held within the rules Squishy. If several other people can read the words canceled like that, then obviously it is capable of being read in such a manner.

Actually, this believe is not supported by the rules. Either cancelling the effect leaves ASF on the profile (thereby proving Dan's point), or it removes ASF from the profile (even if temporarily) and allows you to potentially re-apply ASF...depending on timing.


And this Squishy is my main point, that RAW fails to be clear, it actually fails to be so much less clear than even RAI, thats it is simply more prudent to go by "Rules As Intended" in this case. RAI is so clear in this case no one has really argued about it in this thread, in fact we all seem to agree on it.

I completely agree that RAI is very clear on this, and imagine that it is played this way everywhere. My point is that cancelling can only have 1 of two effects, and which way the RAW will affect the combat is determined by the actual effect of the word "cancel".

Maybe it's helpful to think of it from the other side...if player A has a model with ASF, when determining when it strikes, it will have to look at the model of player B and ask "Does player B's model have ASF?". If so, then we strike simultaneously, if not then I strike first. It does not look to see if Player B has ASL last or not, only looks for Player B to have ASF. SOOOOoooo....does cancel mean that player B has ASF or not? If it has ASF, but is ineffective, then when Player A makes his check, it will find out that it does have ASF (regardless of effectiveness). If Player A checks Player B's model and the cancelling has removed ASF and ASL (even if temporary), then it will strike first...which also means that Player B may have an opportunity to re-apply ASF.

Blkc57
06-02-2014, 16:50
I am just trying to wrap my head around the RAW with a silly analogy. So yes. The ninja with the great weapon causes other ninjas around him to slow down. Just like in the RAW :P

And that is my point on RAW, my fellow! That in this case is RAW not only debatable (since has you can see we are able to argue this for almost two days straight, I continue to maintain that my argument is backed up by RAW), but not only that if read in a certain way is completely illogical and silly in game terms. Thus I maintain that RAI is superior, since it is clear, logical, and fun for all involved.

Squishy1979
06-02-2014, 16:51
So imagine a Thundertusk is within range with its ASL aura. When your model with ASF and ASL starts to strike (starting at its initiative value but then OH NO, AT THIS EXACT MOMENT ASF AND ASL HAVE CANCELLED TO NOTHINGNESS now there is a new application of ASL from the aura and the model must now strike at ASL?

If the cancel means to remove (even temporarily) ASF and ASL from the profile, then yes, this would be correct...at the start of combat the HE would ASL

kirkus
06-02-2014, 16:51
So imagine a Thundertusk is within range with its ASL aura. When your model with ASF and ASL starts to strike (starting at its initiative value but then OH NO, AT THIS EXACT MOMENT ASF AND ASL HAVE CANCELLED TO NOTHINGNESS now there is a new application of ASL from the aura and the model must now strike at ASL?

RAW, yes this is what would happen. Your model will strike at ASL.

Blkc57
06-02-2014, 17:00
Actually, this believe is not supported by the rules. Either cancelling the effect leaves ASF on the profile (thereby proving Dan's point), or it removes ASF from the profile (even if temporarily) and allows you to potentially re-apply ASF...depending on timing.


And I believe it is backed up by the rules, we have shown Squishy that the rules state that it must "cancel out", also we have shown that since ASF is busy "canceling out" that secondary additions of either ASF or ASL do nothing as per the FAQ. We maintain that canceling out includes removing all effects (other than the specific effect listed) and preventing any further rule effects from happening. A case in point where it is possible to have a special rule upon a model that does not function, a Flier has now been affected by the Skaven Spell Howling Warpgale. The Spell has not removed the Fly rule from the model but it has removed any effect for that turn that the fly rule can do, thus the model must use ground movement etc etc.

dementian
06-02-2014, 17:06
And I believe it is backed up by the rules, we have shown Squishy that the rules state that it must "cancel out", also we have shown that since ASF is busy "canceling out" that secondary additions of either ASF or ASL do nothing as per the FAQ. We maintain that canceling out includes removing all effects (other than the specific effect listed) and preventing any further rule effects from happening. A case in point where it is possible to have a special rule upon a model that does not function, a Flier has now been affected by the Skaven Spell Howling Warpgale. The Spell has not removed the Fly rule from the model but it has removed any effect for that turn that the fly rule can do, thus the model must use ground movement etc etc.

But arguing that model retains the ASF special rule means that an opponent using HIS ASF RULE as per p.66 would have to check to see if his opponent has ASF. The rule does not ask about an active ASF or not being cancelled ASF. It says if you opponent also has the ability then you strike simultaneously without reroll. And simultaneously with an opponent with ASF + ASL would be at initiative.

Just because you don't like it or it doesn't make sense. This is the letter of the rule and RAW.

By all means house rule it otherwise or have a tournament ruling do it different but that is the RAW.

Squishy1979
06-02-2014, 17:07
And I believe it is backed up by the rules, we have shown Squishy that the rules state that it must "cancel out", also we have shown that since ASF is busy "canceling out" that secondary additions of either ASF or ASL do nothing as per the FAQ. We maintain that canceling out includes removing all effects (other than the specific effect listed) and preventing any further rule effects from happening. A case in point where it is possible to have a special rule upon a model that does not function, a Flier has now been affected by the Skaven Spell Howling Warpgale. The Spell has not removed the Fly rule from the model but it has removed any effect for that turn that the fly rule can do, thus the model must use ground movement etc etc.

That's fine Blkc, but if that's the case, then the result is as Dan originally explained it, and they would strike simul...even if it doesn't make sense. Like I said in my last post, the model fighting against the model with ASF/ASL would see the ASF of it's opponent and be forced to strike at the same time, as it does not look to see if it is "active" or not, just that it exists. I can see both sides on this. All I am saying is this:

1) Models strike simul is possible (cancelling still retains ASF on the profile and a check against this will see it)
2) Model will strike at initiative is possible (but then there is potential for ASL or ASF to be reapplied) (cancelling removes ASF and ASL, even if temporary, from the model)
3) Model will strike at initiatve, and ASL nor ASF cannot be reapplied to the model is not a possible RAW interpretation...which everyone wants to argue it, as it make sense RAI

Blkc57
06-02-2014, 17:10
If the cancel means to remove (even temporarily) ASF and ASL from the profile, then yes, this would be correct...at the start of combat the HE would ASL

No, this is incorrect. For the model if it gains a second version of ASL then it too must also work to "cancel" ASF, as per the FAQ multiples of a rule do nothing, so the model technically still only has one ASL.

Squishy1979
06-02-2014, 17:11
No, this is incorrect. For the model if it gains a second version of ASL then it too must also work to "cancel" ASF, as per the FAQ multiples of a rule do nothing, so the model technically still only has one ASL.

not if cancelling means to remove it...as removing it means there is no ASF to cancel it out anymore, as it was already removed from the first ASL

Blkc57
06-02-2014, 17:12
But arguing that model retains the ASF special rule means that an opponent using HIS ASF RULE as per p.66 would have to check to see if his opponent has ASF. .
No, Dementian, because that would be an effect of the ASF rule. It would be a rule function of his ASF when it should not be functioning for anything other than to "cancel out" ASL.

Blkc57
06-02-2014, 17:13
not if cancelling means to remove it...as removing it means there is no ASF to cancel it out anymore, as it was already removed from the first ASL

It does not mean to "remove" entirely Squishy, only to remove its effects. To cancel its ability to influence the game or other rules in the game.

Blkc57
06-02-2014, 17:15
That's fine Blkc, but if that's the case, then the result is as Dan originally explained it, and they would strike simul...even if it doesn't make sense.

No, Squishy. That is having an effect. It should do nothing but cancel out and make the model go at initiative.

Squishy1979
06-02-2014, 17:21
No, Squishy. That is having an effect. It should do nothing but cancel out and make the model go at initiative.

except that if it's on the profile, then the modes who also has ASF will see it

...this argument is going no where, and I stand by the fact that there is only 2 possibilities, even if everyone else is arguing for a 3rd. At this point there is no new information being added, and if people can't understand each other's argument, or can't get their point across by now, then it's not going to happen.

As you said Blkc, better to just play it by RAI if there should be any disputes...or by whatever house rules are in play

Lord Solar Plexus
06-02-2014, 17:22
Does the White Lion/Executioner/Anyone with ASF and ASL have the special rule ASF? Yes.


No, they do not. They have ASF + ASL, not only ASF. You cannot use just one of these and completely ignore the other.

Squishy1979
06-02-2014, 17:25
No, they do not. They have ASF + ASL, not only ASF. You cannot use just one of these and completely ignore the other.

It is not being ignored...ASF only looks for ASF, it does not look for ASL

TinTip
06-02-2014, 17:31
the closest the rules ever discuss effects being canceled out is this ruling in the FAQ
"Q: If a model is granted a re-roll To Hit from a special rule such as
Hatred but the model they are attacking has a special rule, magic
item etc. that forces successful To Hit rolls to be re-rolled, how is this
dealt with? (p7)
A: They cancel each other out and no re-rolls are made for as
long as both special rules are in effect."

the important part is that it states the effects are cancelled while the Special rules are STILL IN EFFECT

Blkc57
06-02-2014, 17:32
except that if it's on the profile, then the modes who also has ASF will see it

...this argument is going no where, and I stand by the fact that there is only 2 possibilities, even if everyone else is arguing for a 3rd. At this point there is no new information being added, and if people can't understand each other's argument, or can't get their point across by now, then it's not going to happen.

As you said Blkc, better to just play it by RAI if there should be any disputes...or by whatever house rules are in play

I hope no one is holding any grudges like a dwarf in here. This was all just an exercise in my opinion to allow every one to put their arguments on display. Again my point was never to directly frustrate Squishy, simply to show how superior RAI is in this case. You and Dementian are excellent opponents.

If you guys ever want to dance down a real doozy of an argument, you should try unraveling what the hell GW's intention is with unmodified leadership. That one is a serious brain burster. Another is the ever popular "pivoting of the warmachine and 360 LOS"

dementian
06-02-2014, 17:34
No, they do not. They have ASF + ASL, not only ASF. You cannot use just one of these and completely ignore the other.

See now you have me confused because here I am looking at the 8th Edition High Elf army book page 46 and I am looking at the profile for White Lions of Chrace and I see under Special Rules: Always Strikes First, Forest Strider, Martial Prowess, Stubborn, Valour of Ages...

So tell me. How does that model not have the ASF special rule when it is clearly written there that it does...

dementian
06-02-2014, 17:35
I hope no one is holding any grudges like a dwarf in here. This was all just an exercise in my opinion to allow every one to put their arguments on display. Again my point was never to directly frustrate Squishy, simply to show how superior RAI is in this case. You and Dementian are excellent opponents.

If you guys ever want to dance down a real doozy of an argument, you should try unraveling what the hell GW's intention is with unmodified leadership. That one is a serious brain burster. Another is the ever popular "pivoting of the warmachine and 360 LOS"

Ugh unmodified...Spirit Leech and Inspiring presence...So I can use my General's Leadership? Yeah apparently...can that Leadership be modified?...ARGH

Squishy1979
06-02-2014, 17:38
I hope no one is holding any grudges like a dwarf in here. This was all just an exercise in my opinion to allow every one to put their arguments on display. Again my point was never to directly frustrate Squishy, simply to show how superior RAI is in this case. You and Dementian are excellent opponents.

If you guys ever want to dance down a real doozy of an argument, you should try unraveling what the hell GW's intention is with unmodified leadership. That one is a serious brain burster. Another is the ever popular "pivoting of the warmachine and 360 LOS"

Your post made me laugh for more than 1 reason:

1) I'm so offended by everyone on this thread, from now on I am just going to start calling people names when they post anything referencing me! ;)
2) I guess I shouldn't post a thread about unmodified leadership...my brother and I were having this discussion when casting a Lore of Shadow (I think) spell that reduces leadership, then casting a spell that does a leadership roll-off (from the same lore) against a SKAVEN opponent. Needless to say, this discussion lasted a while, and I don't think we got an answer on it...I was supposed to start a thread here about it, but I forgot...

Blkc57
06-02-2014, 17:40
the closest the rules ever discuss effects being canceled out is this ruling in the FAQ
"Q: If a model is granted a re-roll To Hit from a special rule such as
Hatred but the model they are attacking has a special rule, magic
item etc. that forces successful To Hit rolls to be re-rolled, how is this
dealt with? (p7)
A: They cancel each other out and no re-rolls are made for as
long as both special rules are in effect."

the important part is that it states the effects are cancelled while the Special rules are STILL IN EFFECT

That FAQ , Tintip, is pointing to something entirely different. Its claryfing an old gaming habit that we all did. You see according to the Book you can never reroll a reroll. So when you had to reroll failures and to reroll success these would interact with each other and all that would happen is that you were picking up the dice, rolling them, then ingoring everything in that roll, and rolling a second time and keeping everything in that roll. The FAQ is there to explain to people that it is ok to just roll once and be done with it (as many of us were doing) . In the case of the rerolls you quoted, it backs up my point all of their in game effects are basically canceled (they have no other effects than to reoll dice), but you still possess the rules.

Lord Solar Plexus
06-02-2014, 17:48
It is not being ignored...ASF only looks for ASF, it does not look for ASL

How is not looking for it different from ignoring it? You must look for both because the rules stipulate an effect when both are present.


See now you have me confused because here I am looking at the 8th Edition High Elf army book page 46 and I am looking at the profile for White Lions of Chrace and I see under Special Rules: Always Strikes First, Forest Strider, Martial Prowess, Stubborn, Valour of Ages...

So tell me. How does that model not have the ASF special rule when it is clearly written there that it does...

It's the weapon. Great weapons add ASL. Ergo that model has ASF and ASL. This is a different case as the one you're thinking of: The rule you rely upon for your interpretation says ASF vs. ASF.

I try to illustrate it in an example. Please bear with me, it might appear silly, but I don't think it is since the argument follows the same structure, and that is all that matters for a logically correct argument: Replace ASF with green. Now the rule says: If green model fights green model, then x. Replace ASL with red. The White Lion is not a green model, it's a green-red model. All rules for green models do not apply to it.

Blkc57
06-02-2014, 17:52
Your post made me laugh for more than 1 reason:

1) I'm so offended by everyone on this thread, from now on I am just going to start calling people names when they post anything referencing me! ;)
2) I guess I shouldn't post a thread about unmodified leadership...my brother and I were having this discussion when casting a Lore of Shadow (I think) spell that reduces leadership, then casting a spell that does a leadership roll-off (from the same lore) against a SKAVEN opponent. Needless to say, this discussion lasted a while, and I don't think we got an answer on it...I was supposed to start a thread here about it, but I forgot...

No by all means, Squishy I didn't mean to frustrate you with my argument here and dissuade you from asking questions in the rules forum. If that has happened then I sincerely apologize, and will no longer do such. The only issue with Unmodified leadership is that we have two FAQs in the errata that directly contradict each other. And many people are always finding new ways that these two FAQs can constantly annoy us in this forum. I play Skaven as well and frankly Spirit leech is a nightmare for that army.

kirkus
06-02-2014, 17:55
But arguing that model retains the ASF special rule means that an opponent using HIS ASF RULE as per p.66 would have to check to see if his opponent has ASF. The rule does not ask about an active ASF or not being cancelled ASF. It says if you opponent also has the ability then you strike simultaneously without reroll. And simultaneously with an opponent with ASF + ASL would be at initiative.

Just because you don't like it or it doesn't make sense. This is the letter of the rule and RAW.

By all means house rule it otherwise or have a tournament ruling do it different but that is the RAW.

RAW the model does not have ASF as it's been cancelled. Cancelled meaning removed; strike it from the profile temporarily. No where in the rulebook does it say "The effect is cancelled" it says the 2 cancel each other out and so neither rule applies to the model. You are now allowed to cast ASF or ASL on the target and it'll retain that rule since it is no longer a recast (it doesn't have ASF or ASL on it anymore).

Squishy1979
06-02-2014, 17:56
How is not looking for it different from ignoring it? You must look for both because the rules stipulate an effect when both are present.



It's the weapon. Great weapons add ASL. Ergo that model has ASF and ASL. This is a different case as the one you're thinking of: The rule you rely upon for your interpretation says ASF vs. ASF.

I try to illustrate it in an example. Please bear with me, it might appear silly, but I don't think it is since the argument follows the same structure, and that is all that matters for a logically correct argument: Replace ASF with green. Now the rule says: If green model fights green model, then x. Replace ASL with red. The White Lion is not a green model, it's a green-red model. All rules for green models do not apply to it.

You SON OF A MOTHERLESS GOAT (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M2FmDysvDr8)

Also, where in the rules does it say that ASF looks for ASL on an opponent's model. It doesn't, it says to look for ASF, no where does it say that it has to look for both ASF and ASL...if it did, this thread would be moot.

Squishy1979
06-02-2014, 17:59
No by all means, Squishy I didn't mean to frustrate you with my argument here and dissuade you from asking questions in the rules forum. If that has happened then I sincerely apologize, and will no longer do such. The only issue with Unmodified leadership is that we have two FAQs in the errata that directly contradict each other. And many people are always finding new ways that these two FAQs can constantly annoy us in this forum. I play Skaven as well and frankly Spirit leech is a nightmare for that army.

YOUR MOTHER WAS A HAMSTER AND YOUR FATHER SMELLS OF ELDEBERRIES (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S3I5XcsReT0)

Also, you have not dissuaded me at all...I'm all about friendly discussion on these things...not to worry I have taken nothing personally, this has all been in good taste...until I started name-calling.

If I remember I shall have to post a thread on our situation (evil grin)

Squishy1979
06-02-2014, 18:05
HAHAHAHAH...uh oh...is my tone not getting across properly in this thread? As there is a disagreement between Blkc57 and I, here's a conversation with my brother through skype:


Him: Do you still like Blkc57?
Me: I still like Blkc57...he's wrong, but I like him

Blkc57, I hope you're not getting the wrong impression....nor anyone else for that matter...I'm just showing you all why I am always right and everyone else is always wrong (unless they agree with me) :P

Lord Solar Plexus
06-02-2014, 18:05
YOUR HOVERCRAFT IS FULL OF EELS!

With that out of the way, I do not see your point at all! Keep ignoring all the rules, and you will be left with a small leaflet! See where this all leads?

dementian
06-02-2014, 18:18
Ok Green and Red being ASF and ASL.

Green + Red = Green + Red

Look for Green. Model has Green (model also has Red, and Blue (stubborn) and white (forest strider), doesn't ask about if model has Red. It asks if it has Green. Which it does.

Also to who keeps saying that cancel means removed from profile. No. With that logic and magically regrowing the special rule after attacking...come on...

Lord Dan
06-02-2014, 18:19
ASF: "Hey, Witch Elf, do you have ASF?"
Witch Elf: "Sure do!"
ASF: "How about you, White Lion?"
White Lion: "Well, yes, kind of. It's being canceled by ASL."
ASF: "Okay, I don't care. Is ASF on your profile?"
White Lion: "Yeah, but again, it's not normal ASF because it's being mod-"
ASF: "I DO NOT CARE ABOUT THE STATE OF YOUR ASF, WHITE LION. Is the term "ASF" on your $^&%$(Q@ profile??!"
White Lion: "Yes."
ASF: "Witch Elf, you strike simultaneously with White Lion."
Witch Elf: "OH, COME ON!"

Blkc57
06-02-2014, 18:21
HAHAHAHAH...uh oh...is my tone not getting across properly in this thread? As there is a disagreement between Blkc57 and I, here's a conversation with my brother through skype:



Blkc57, I hope you're not getting the wrong impression....nor anyone else for that matter...I'm just showing you all why I am always right and everyone else is always wrong (unless they agree with me) :P

I live for such arguments, my good man, so long as some Dwarf out there isn't furiously scratching my name into his book.


ASF: "Hey, Witch Elf, do you have ASF?"
Witch Elf: "Sure do!"
ASF: "How about you, White Lion?"
White Lion: "Well, yes, kind of. It's being canceled by ASL."
ASF: "Okay, I don't care. Is ASF on your profile?"
White Lion: "Yeah, but again, it's not normal ASF because it's being mod-"
ASF: "I DO NOT CARE ABOUT THE STATE OF YOUR ASF, WHITE LION. Is the term "ASF" on your $^&%$(Q@ profile??!"
White Lion: "Yes."
ASF: "Witch Elf, you strike simultaneously with White Lion."
Witch Elf: "OH, COME ON!"

ASL: "NAY! My naked elven lady, for I exist too upon this High Elf. And I shall cage his ASF like a raging lion. BE FREE! BE FREE TO STRIKE FIRST!"
Witch Elf: "YIPEEEEEEEEE!"

I have no idea why I find this stuff fun for. I really do love you guys.

Squishy1979
06-02-2014, 18:31
I live for such arguments, my good man, so long as some Dwarf out there isn't furiously scratching my name into his book.



ASL: "NAY! My naked elven lady, for I exist too upon this High Elf. And I shall cage his ASF like a raging lion. BE FREE! BE FREE TO STRIKE FIRST!"
Witch Elf: "YIPEEEEEEEEE!"

I have no idea why I find this stuff fun for. I really do love you guys.

You Cheese Eating Surrender Monkey (http://www.collegehumor.com/video/6830778/the-best-of-groundskeeper-willie)

I actually usually pick my games based on whether I can be a dwarf....so I guess technically I am a Dwarf, and technically you're in a heap of trouble...maybe even bolded on ye ol grudge book

dementian
06-02-2014, 18:34
I live for such arguments, my good man, so long as some Dwarf out there isn't furiously scratching my name into his book.



ASL: "NAY! My naked elven lady, for I exist too upon this High Elf. And I shall cage his ASF like a raging lion. BE FREE! BE FREE TO STRIKE FIRST!"
Witch Elf: "YIPEEEEEEEEE!"

I have no idea why I find this stuff fun for. I really do love you guys.

Unfortunately, everyone had already attacked by the time ASL spoke! ZING!

kirkus
06-02-2014, 18:35
I live for such arguments, my good man, so long as some Dwarf out there isn't furiously scratching my name into his book.



ASL: "NAY! My naked elven lady, for I exist too upon this High Elf. And I shall cage his ASF like a raging lion. BE FREE! BE FREE TO STRIKE FIRST!"
Witch Elf: "YIPEEEEEEEEE!"

I have no idea why I find this stuff fun for. I really do love you guys.

Clan rat: Hey Ogre what's your initiative? Mine is 4
Ogre: I'm at Initiative 10 because of the river of light.
Clan rat: No I mean what's on your profile, that's all that matters.
Ogre: Oh, 2..
Clan rat: Nice, I get to strike first than suckah!
Ogre: But...the river..of light...initiative..
Clan rat: Stop talking, all that matters is your profile.

vs

Witch Elf: I have alway strikes first, what about you white lion?
White Lion: I had it but no longer because of this heavy weapon of mine
Witch Elf: But what does it say on your profile?
White Lion: What does my profile matter? It's how I started the game, my profile is constantly changing.
Witch Elf: Screw you!
White Lion: I love you too

dementian
06-02-2014, 18:42
Clan rat: Hey Ogre what's your initiative? Mine is 4
Ogre: I'm at Initiative 10 because of the river of light.
Clan rat: No I mean what's on your profile, that's all that matters.
Ogre: Oh, 2..
Clan rat: Nice, I get to strike first than suckah!
Ogre: But...the river..of light...initiative..
Clan rat: Stop talking, all that matters is your profile.

vs

Witch Elf: I have alway strikes first, what about you white lion?
White Lion: I had it but no longer because of this heavy weapon of mine
Witch Elf: But what does it say on your profile?
White Lion: What does my profile matter? It's how I started the game, my profile is constantly changing.
Witch Elf: Screw you!
White Lion: I love you too

In this example The Lore of Light spell Speed of Light changes the Initiative of the Ogre to 10. So his initiative is 10. ASF and ASL would both appear on the profile for the White Lion.

kirkus
06-02-2014, 18:50
In this example The Lore of Light spell Speed of Light changes the Initiative of the Ogre to 10. So his initiative is 10. ASF and ASL would both appear on the profile for the White Lion.

You have a way of missing the point entirely. My point was that a profile is an ever evolving thing. Losing and gaining ASF is just 1 of many things that is changing. When something is cancelled, it is removed entirely. I'm going to cancel my mortgage payments but still pay them..

dementian
06-02-2014, 19:10
You have a way of missing the point entirely. My point was that a profile is an ever evolving thing. Losing and gaining ASF is just 1 of many things that is changing. When something is cancelled, it is removed entirely. I'm going to cancel my mortgage payments but still pay them..

It says that the rules cancel and neither applies. It does not say that the rule is removed. You are putting a spin on the word "cancel". To support that ASF cannot be LOST from a profile I will quote the Frenzy rule:

p. 70 under Losing Frenzy
"Unlike other special rules, Frenzy can be lost as the game goes on."

Always Strikes First is one of those other special rules. Which means that it cannot be lost. Not even temporarily due to ASL. That means that the model will retain the special rule even if it is forced to attack at initiative step due to ASL it does not lose the ASF special rule from its profile.

So as I have said, statistics can be modified. But other than Frenzy a special rule that a model brings to the battle cannot be removed.

Squishy1979
06-02-2014, 19:19
It says that the rules cancel and neither applies. It does not say that the rule is removed. You are putting a spin on the word "cancel". To support that ASF cannot be LOST from a profile I will quote the Frenzy rule:

p. 70 under Losing Frenzy
"Unlike other special rules, Frenzy can be lost as the game goes on."

Always Strikes First is one of those other special rules. Which means that it cannot be lost. Not even temporarily due to ASL. That means that the model will retain the special rule even if it is forced to attack at initiative step due to ASL it does not lose the ASF special rule from its profile.

So as I have said, statistics can be modified. But other than Frenzy a special rule that a model brings to the battle cannot be removed.

That's actually a very good point....up until now, I was not taking sides, merely stating that RAW meant that one of two scenarios could be true, but that GW had not sufficiently explained it. After seeing this post I would say that RAW Dan's OP is correct on striking simul...as dumb as that is.

RAI would mean that the model strikes at initiative, and ASF/ASL cannot be re-applied to a model.

kirkus
06-02-2014, 19:20
It says that the rules cancel and neither applies. It does not say that the rule is removed. You are putting a spin on the word "cancel". To support that ASF cannot be LOST from a profile I will quote the Frenzy rule:

p. 70 under Losing Frenzy
"Unlike other special rules, Frenzy can be lost as the game goes on."

Always Strikes First is one of those other special rules. Which means that it cannot be lost. Not even temporarily due to ASL. That means that the model will retain the special rule even if it is forced to attack at initiative step due to ASL it does not lose the ASF special rule from its profile.

So as I have said, statistics can be modified. But other than Frenzy a special rule that a model brings to the battle cannot be removed.

I gave dictionary definitions of cancel to support the fact that the rule is removed. Frenzy does not support your argument because ASF is never lost, it is cancelled. How long is it cancelled for? For as long as ASL is also in effect. While both these rules are in effect, neither of them will be present anymore due to the dictionary definition of cancel.

I could argue that you are putting a spin on the world cancel to mean NOT removed.

Squishy1979
06-02-2014, 19:26
At least this thread is arguing about the right things now... :P

dementian
06-02-2014, 19:32
As stated in the Frenzy special rule section. Frenzy is the only special rule explicitly stated of being removed from a model's profile.

Therefore if ASF cannot be removed from the profile it follows that it will be present all the time, and that cancelling the effect of ASF does not remove it from the profile, and as stated numerous times the wording of ASF does not ask if it is in effect on your opponent only that it has it.

kirkus
06-02-2014, 19:40
As stated in the Frenzy special rule section. Frenzy is the only special rule explicitly stated of being removed from a model's profile.

Therefore if ASF cannot be removed from the profile it follows that it will be present all the time, and that cancelling the effect of ASF does not remove it from the profile, and as stated numerous times the wording of ASF does not ask if it is in effect on your opponent only that it has it.

The rulebook does not state that Frenzy is removed, it states that it is lost. Also, the rulebook doesn't say that Frenzy is the only rule that cannot be lost. It says "unlike other special rules". This is not over-encompassing. It means this is an anomoly among rules, not that this is the ONLY anomoly.

So in conclusion:

Lost != Removed
Cancelled != Lost

My interpretation is supported by the dictionary and the rulebook. ASF + ASL cancel each other out (strike them from their profiles temporarily). Another model attacking a model with ASF + ASL will attack at ASF while the model with both rules will strike at initiative. If a model has both ASF + ASL at any given time, you would be allowed to cast ASF or ASL last on it as it is no longer stacking.

And they all lived happily ever after.

dementian
06-02-2014, 19:51
The rulebook does not state that Frenzy is removed, it states that it is lost. Also, the rulebook doesn't say that Frenzy is the only rule that cannot be lost. It says "unlike other special rules". This is not over-encompassing. It means this is an anomoly among rules, not that this is the ONLY anomoly.

So in conclusion:

Lost != Removed
Cancelled != Lost

My interpretation is supported by the dictionary and the rulebook. ASF + ASL cancel each other out (strike them from their profiles temporarily). Another model attacking a model with ASF + ASL will attack at ASF while the model with both rules will strike at initiative. If a model has both ASF + ASL at any given time, you would be allowed to cast ASF or ASL last on it as it is no longer stacking.

And they all lived happily ever after.

Cancel: (of a factor or circumstance) neutralize or negate the force or effect of (another).
"the electric fields may cancel each other out"

Electric fields cancelling eachother out. That means that they both fail to exist right...No they are both present. Similar to how this plays in Warhammer. The effect of the two special rules cancel eachother out. They do not just remove them from a models profile.

Weird how Frenzy states that "unlike other special rules" but it doesn't do something similar for ASF/ASL....hmmm interesting interesting.

Now I have supported myself through a definition of cancel AND have quoted several pages from the Rulebook to support that ASF is not removed from a model's profile and that is the factor that is required in order to make a model that has ASF strike simultaneously and without reroll when attacking another model with ASF (with or without ASL)


Edit:

As to lost != Removed look now I can quote another definition!

lost: denoting something that has been taken away or cannot be recovered.

kirkus
06-02-2014, 20:03
Cancel: (of a factor or circumstance) neutralize or negate the force or effect of (another).
"the electric fields may cancel each other out"

Electric fields cancelling eachother out. That means that they both fail to exist right...No they are both present. Similar to how this plays in Warhammer. The effect of the two special rules cancel eachother out. They do not just remove them from a models profile.

Weird how Frenzy states that "unlike other special rules" but it doesn't do something similar for ASF/ASL....hmmm interesting interesting.

Now I have supported myself through a definition of cancel AND have quoted several pages from the Rulebook to support that ASF is not removed from a model's profile and that is the factor that is required in order to make a model that has ASF strike simultaneously and without reroll when attacking another model with ASF (with or without ASL)


Edit:

As to lost != Removed look now I can quote another definition!

lost: denoting something that has been taken away or cannot be recovered.

I agree with everything you have said. Therefore, I think we can agree this boils down to the meaning of cancel and depending on which definition you use you have different results. Both results are supported by the rulebook and it'll be up to the playing group on which interpretation will be used.

Personally, I think it should go RAI and use neither of our suggestions.

Squishy1979
06-02-2014, 20:06
I agree with everything you have said. Therefore, I think we can agree this boils down to the meaning of cancel and depending on which definition you use you have different results. Both results are supported by the rulebook and it'll be up to the playing group on which interpretation will be used.

Personally, I think it should go RAI and use neither of our suggestions.

HAHAHAHA....which, as I stated 780 posts earlier, makes me RIGHT! Why do people doubt me...I seriously wonder...

dementian
06-02-2014, 20:11
I'm hesitant to open this up again but I don't think that the suggestion that ASF and ASL can be lost and subsequently regained as a special rule is actually supported by the rules.

And as much as I have been trying to clarify the RAW I don't LIKE the rule. So I hope no one thinks I am trying to gain something from this discussion.

SteveW
06-02-2014, 23:01
Cancel: (of a factor or circumstance) neutralize or negate the force or effect of (another).
"the electric fields may cancel each other out"

Electric fields cancelling eachother out. That means that they both fail to exist right...No they are both present. Similar to how this plays in Warhammer. The effect of the two special rules cancel eachother out. They do not just remove them from a models profile.

Weird how Frenzy states that "unlike other special rules" but it doesn't do something similar for ASF/ASL....hmmm interesting interesting.

Now I have supported myself through a definition of cancel AND have quoted several pages from the Rulebook to support that ASF is not removed from a model's profile and that is the factor that is required in order to make a model that has ASF strike simultaneously and without reroll when attacking another model with ASF (with or without ASL)


Edit:

As to lost != Removed look now I can quote another definition!

lost: denoting something that has been taken away or cannot be recovered.

So now you don't understand electricity either? A positive charge and negative charge make each-other cease to exist usually through an ark we call lightning. If you mean two magnetic fields? They also will cancel eachother out, a positive will stick to a negative rendering both unable to stick to anything else. The positive side of the negative and negative side of the positive will be unaffected leaving you with one larger magnet in the place of the two you started with.

So by those uses, they are either electric fields and destroy eachother. Or they are Magnets and stick to each-other so they can be used for noithing else.

As to adding a second negative or positive, you are left with just one positive or one negative.

dementian
06-02-2014, 23:36
Look at an atom then if you'd like. Positive charge of the proton(s) cancelled out by the negative charge of the electron(s). No they don't destroy each other. They create an overall neutral charge.

Or you can look at wave patterns in particular standing waves where interactions between the waves can be destructive if the amplitudes are opposite but equal magnitude.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0f/Interference_of_two_waves.svg the one on the right.

SteveW
06-02-2014, 23:52
You keep bait and switching and none of those examples help your side of the argument. If I show yet again how this doesn't fit are you going to switch again, but to canceled TV shows and how you can still watch them in syndication?

TinTip
06-02-2014, 23:56
You still have not shown where it says anywhere to remove the special rule from the model, all you keep saying is the two rules effects cancel out, please quote where in the BRB, any Army book or FAQ where it says they rules are removed from the model

dementian
07-02-2014, 00:03
You keep bait and switching and none of those examples help your side of the argument. If I show yet again how this doesn't fit are you going to switch again, but to canceled TV shows and how you can still watch them in syndication?

I am feeling some hostility from your end, I am simply presenting the RAW explanation. This is a rules discussion, I have provided several quotes from the rule book and I only started supplying definitions because that is all that the opposition has provided. There have been no quotes from the Rule book to support that ASF is lost as a special rule on the models profile.

And once again as mentioned several times throughout this thread that is the issue that causes a model to lose its ability to attack before or get rerolls when attacking a model that has both ASF and ASL.

SteveW
07-02-2014, 00:07
I am feeling some hostility from your end. This is a rules discussion, I have provided several quotes from the rule book and I only started supplying definitions because that is all that the opposition has provided. There have been no quotes from the Rule book to support that ASF is lost as a special rule on the models profile.

And once again as mentioned several times throughout this thread that is the issue that causes a model to lose its ability to attack before or get rerolls when attacking a model that has both ASF and ASL.

There in lies the problem. You still don't even understand the argument against you.

TinTip
07-02-2014, 00:09
There in lies the problem. You still don't even understand the argument against you.

and you cant offer any proof from any source within the game to support your argument

Figment187
07-02-2014, 01:48
I am feeling some hostility from your end, I am simply presenting the RAW explanation. This is a rules discussion, I have provided several quotes from the rule book and I only started supplying definitions because that is all that the opposition has provided. There have been no quotes from the Rule book to support that ASF is lost as a special rule on the models profile.

And once again as mentioned several times throughout this thread that is the issue that causes a model to lose its ability to attack before or get rerolls when attacking a model that has both ASF and ASL.


Here Dementian is the exact words from the ASL rules.

"If the model with this rule is fighting an enemy with the same ability, the Attacks are made simultaneously. If a model has both this rule and Always Strikes First, the two cancel out and neither applies so use the model's Initiative."

I understand that on the ASF rules it states that if the opposing model has ASF then they go simul, but you just cannot ignore the last sentence of the ASL rules. It directly ties in with the ASF rule.

I have played multiple tournaments in Indiana and Ohio and this has never been a topic for debate, in the example of White Lions vs Witch Elves the Witch Elves get to strike first and get to reroll misses. It makes no sense the other way as the White Lions would take no pealty whatsoever using a weapon that gives a +2 Strenght bonus weapon that is supposed to slow them down.

dementian
07-02-2014, 02:07
I think this will be my last post on the topic, I have been repeating my claim many times now and backed myself up with several rule book quotes.

I agree that ASL and ASF cancel out and neither applies. HOWEVER, that does not mean that you remove them from the profile of the model. I base this off the Frenzy rule that states an exception saying that "unlike other special rules Frenzy can be lost". So ASF for White Lions/Executioners is cancelled but it stays on their profile.

This is where it gets stupid but by RAW still true. If a model with ASF is attacking a model with ASF and ASL. The ASF rule reads: "If the model with this rule is fighting an enemy with the same ability, the Attacks are made simultaneously, and neither model benefits from the re-rolls normally granted by this rule."

So the process of a model attacking who uses ASF is to see if their enemy has the same ability which is the special rule ASF, it doesn't ask to see if they have it active or not cancelled or ASF but not ASL. No rule says to remove the ASF special rule from the profile, only frenzy makes an exception for losing a special rule.

So, as my final post on the topic I'd suggest a re-write of this rule to something like the following:

If the model with this rule is fighting against an enemy who also strikes with Always Strikes First, the Attacks are made simultaneously, and neither model benefits from the re-rolls normally granted by this rule.

Squishy1979
07-02-2014, 02:37
I think this will be my last post on the topic, I have been repeating my claim many times now and backed myself up with several rule book quotes.

I agree that ASL and ASF cancel out and neither applies. HOWEVER, that does not mean that you remove them from the profile of the model. I base this off the Frenzy rule that states an exception saying that "unlike other special rules Frenzy can be lost". So ASF for White Lions/Executioners is cancelled but it stays on their profile.

This is where it gets stupid but by RAW still true. If a model with ASF is attacking a model with ASF and ASL. The ASF rule reads: "If the model with this rule is fighting an enemy with the same ability, the Attacks are made simultaneously, and neither model benefits from the re-rolls normally granted by this rule."

So the process of a model attacking who uses ASF is to see if their enemy has the same ability which is the special rule ASF, it doesn't ask to see if they have it active or not cancelled or ASF but not ASL. No rule says to remove the ASF special rule from the profile, only frenzy makes an exception for losing a special rule.

So, as my final post on the topic I'd suggest a re-write of this rule to something like the following:

If the model with this rule is fighting against an enemy who also strikes with Always Strikes First, the Attacks are made simultaneously, and neither model benefits from the re-rolls normally granted by this rule.

There is no point in continuing to post the same thing...nobody is offering any new information, and the proper discussion points as to what happens have long been dealt with (albiet unresolved), and left to ambiguity...that is the actual effect of what cancelling means/does. Like I said earlier, only about 5 people posting on here actually understand the arguments, and the rest are living in a dream world trying to prove the RAI to be RAW, which is simply not correct.

As I have said multiple times in this thread...if you want to give me the definition of what the effect of cancelling is, I will tell you how it works RAW (to which they will argue that it is incorrect, of course...sigh).

Dementian I understand your definition of cancelling, and if that's true, then RAW you're right (and I actually side with you on the cancelling definition)
Kirkus has a different definitions of cancelling, which means RAW for his cancelling would mean strike at initiative, but also leaves room for potentially re-applying ASF or ASL
Everyone else wants to argue that RAI is RAW, which is not correct, but they will not see reason to it, so there is no point

Figment187
07-02-2014, 03:00
I think this will be my last post on the topic, I have been repeating my claim many times now and backed myself up with several rule book quotes.

I agree that ASL and ASF cancel out and neither applies. HOWEVER, that does not mean that you remove them from the profile of the model. I base this off the Frenzy rule that states an exception saying that "unlike other special rules Frenzy can be lost". So ASF for White Lions/Executioners is cancelled but it stays on their profile.

This is where it gets stupid but by RAW still true. If a model with ASF is attacking a model with ASF and ASL. The ASF rule reads: "If the model with this rule is fighting an enemy with the same ability, the Attacks are made simultaneously, and neither model benefits from the re-rolls normally granted by this rule."

So the process of a model attacking who uses ASF is to see if their enemy has the same ability which is the special rule ASF, it doesn't ask to see if they have it active or not cancelled or ASF but not ASL. No rule says to remove the ASF special rule from the profile, only frenzy makes an exception for losing a special rule.

So, as my final post on the topic I'd suggest a re-write of this rule to something like the following:

If the model with this rule is fighting against an enemy who also strikes with Always Strikes First, the Attacks are made simultaneously, and neither model benefits from the re-rolls normally granted by this rule.

I definetly agree that the rules should be written better on this topic.

But I have also quoted both the ASF rules and ASL rules, as well as the FAQ on not being able to stack special rules for multiple effects, backing up the fact that ASF and ASL does not take the first strike and reroll of misses from a unit/model with only ASF. The majority of the gaming world play it this way and will continue to do so.

This will also be the last example I use to show how ridiculous this debate truly is. If a unit of Witch Elves with Great Weapons where fighting a unit of Witch Elves using Hand Weapons, who in their right mind could argue that they would strike simultaniously??? It's just not how it works or how it ever will work. Arguing semantics for the sake of arguing won't change it. Nor will saying people just don't understand.

As a side note Whitle Lions have a Hand Weapon they can use if they don't want to give up the rerolls to misses and ASF,but would give up the +2 to strength.

Squishy1979
07-02-2014, 04:39
I definetly agree that the rules should be written better on this topic.

But I have also quoted both the ASF rules and ASL rules, as well as the FAQ on not being able to stack special rules for multiple effects, backing up the fact that ASF and ASL does not take the first strike and reroll of misses from a unit/model with only ASF. The majority of the gaming world play it this way and will continue to do so.

Unfortunately I fear you are part of the 90% of people here trying to prove the rules as intended, and not the rules as written. It has been conceded long ago that this is the proper way of playing, HOWEVER, this is not how it was written, and as such the purpose of this thread. You have not proven you're point through Rules/FAQ's/Etc, as the statements you have made have all been based around one fact that never comes into play...and that is the model having Always Strikes Last (again, because ASF does not look for ASL, it looks for ASF). The only ones to have actual rules/evidence to back up what they are saying have been Dan/Dementian and Kirkus.

Again I ask you, and again you will not answer, what do you see as the definition of ASF and ASL cancelling each other out? When you answer this, that will lead you to the RAW definition of what happens.


This will also be the last example I use to show how ridiculous this debate truly is. If a unit of Witch Elves with Great Weapons where fighting a unit of Witch Elves using Hand Weapons, who in their right mind could argue that they would strike simultaniously???

Nobody was arguing that playing it any other way was stupid, in fact, I believe it was said multiple times that the RAW is dumb, but that is how it is written.


It's just not how it works or how it ever will work. Arguing semantics for the sake of arguing won't change it. Nor will saying people just don't understand.

Which was admitted LONG ago. The purpose of this discussion was Rules as Written, not on how it's supposed to be played.

SteveW
07-02-2014, 04:48
As a side note Whitle Lions have a Hand Weapon they can use if they don't want to give up the rerolls to misses and ASF,but would give up the +2 to strength.

Remarks like these are why I say things like "Do you even understand the rules?". I know you will say you were joking, but this is so wrong.

Lord Solar Plexus
07-02-2014, 04:51
Sorry Squishy, I have proven it and it's precisely what the rules say. You keep ignoring ASL. You didn't even bother to answer my question when you argued you just wouldn't look at it. Neither did you backup that notion.

There are two paras. One deals with the ASF + ASL model, one with an ASF model. There's irrefutable proof. Just look it up in the book: Two paras. How are you going to argue with that? The rules themselves make a differentiation between the green and red/green model.

Take a look at the consequences. A White Lion is just as fast as a Chaos Warrior despite being encumbered. Then a character, let's say Fred, comes along. Yesterday, Fred dug out a Sword of ASF in his garden/cave/dungeon. If your interpretation would be correct and he would meet that White Lion, the latter would become even faster because of his opponent has found that sword.

If you're all in agreeance about how it should be played, and if that fits with the majority's reading of RAW, why the ruckus?

Guess we can close this thread.

dementian
07-02-2014, 05:01
Sorry Squishy, I have proven it and it's precisely what the rules say. You keep ignoring ASL. You didn't even bother to answer my question when you argued you just wouldn't look at it. Neither did you backup that notion.

There are two paras. One deals with the ASF + ASL model, one with an ASF model. There's irrefutable proof. Just look it up in the book: Two paras. How are you going to argue with that? The rules themselves make a differentiation between the green and red/green model.

Take a look at the consequences. A White Lion is just as fast as a Chaos Warrior despite being encumbered. Then a character, let's say Fred, comes along. Yesterday, Fred dug out a Sword of ASF in his garden/cave/dungeon. If your interpretation would be correct and he would meet that White Lion, the latter would become even faster because of his opponent has found that sword.

If you're all in agreeance about how it should be played, and if that fits with the majority's reading of RAW, why the ruckus?

Guess we can close this thread.

No the White Lion does not speed up, I fear that you have not grasped what we are actually discussing in this thread.

dementian
07-02-2014, 05:02
Remarks like these are why I say things like "Do you even understand the rules?". I know you will say you were joking, but this is so wrong.

At least we can agree in this if nothing else haha!

Squishy1979
07-02-2014, 05:43
Sorry Squishy, I have proven it and it's precisely what the rules say. You keep ignoring ASL. You didn't even bother to answer my question when you argued you just wouldn't look at it. Neither did you backup that notion.

There are two paras. One deals with the ASF + ASL model, one with an ASF model. There's irrefutable proof. Just look it up in the book: Two paras. How are you going to argue with that? The rules themselves make a differentiation between the green and red/green model.

Take a look at the consequences. A White Lion is just as fast as a Chaos Warrior despite being encumbered. Then a character, let's say Fred, comes along. Yesterday, Fred dug out a Sword of ASF in his garden/cave/dungeon. If your interpretation would be correct and he would meet that White Lion, the latter would become even faster because of his opponent has found that sword.

If you're all in agreeance about how it should be played, and if that fits with the majority's reading of RAW, why the ruckus?

Guess we can close this thread.

Actually, this has been answered multiple times....someone had already responded to you regarding the red/green comment (you know the fact that it looks for red, and doesn't care about green blue yellow or otherwise). I fear that you have not grasped the argument that has been going on in this thread...

Figment187
07-02-2014, 05:52
Sorry Squishy, I have proven it and it's precisely what the rules say. You keep ignoring ASL. You didn't even bother to answer my question when you argued you just wouldn't look at it. Neither did you backup that notion.

There are two paras. One deals with the ASF + ASL model, one with an ASF model. There's irrefutable proof. Just look it up in the book: Two paras. How are you going to argue with that? The rules themselves make a differentiation between the green and red/green model.

This is exactly what I have been trying to say , and have said multiple times. You can't quote the ASF line of "If the model with this rule is fighting an enemy with the same ability, the Attacks are made simultaneously, and neither model benefits from the re-rolls normally granted by this rule." And turn around a stubbornly refuse to acknowledge the last sentence of ASL "If a model has both this rule and Always Strikes First, THE TWO CANCEL OUT AND NEITHER APPLIES SO USE THE MODEL'S INITIATIVE." It is as clear as you can get. Black and white. There is no grey area here. If you are letting White Lions strike at the same time as Witch Elves you are absolutely playing it wrong. It's also funny that two or three people out of everyone else that plays Warhammer is wrong, and only they understand how it is written.

Squishy1979
07-02-2014, 06:02
This is exactly what I have been trying to say , and have said multiple times. You can't quote the ASF line of "If the model with this rule is fighting an enemy with the same ability, the Attacks are made simultaneously, and neither model benefits from the re-rolls normally granted by this rule." And turn around a stubbornly refuse to acknowledge the Last sentence of ASL "If a model has both this rule and Always Strikes First, THE TWO CANCEL OUT AND NEITHER APPLIES SO USE THE MODEL'S INITIATIVE." It is as clear as you can get. Black and white. There is no grey area here. If you are letting White Lions strike at the same time as Witch Elves you are absolutely playing it wrong. It's also funny that twoorthree people out of everyone else that plays Warhammer is wrong, and only they understand how it is written.

Sigh...I am not ignoring that fact....you're ignoring the definition of cancel...which is actually the argument that has been going on here...for people that understand what is being discussed

Figment187
07-02-2014, 06:06
Sigh...I am not ignoring that fact....you're ignoring the definition of cancel...which is actually the argument that has been going on here...for people that understand what is being discussed



Sigh......I am just not arguing semantics.......which is actually what you are doing. I and 99.9999% of the people that actually play and understand warhammer know what the rules mean when an abililty no longer applies.

T10
07-02-2014, 06:44
Since the ASF rules make no provisions for it being negated by ASL, but ASL does take into account ASF, it seems appropriate to ignore the instructions in ASF.

Though ASL makes special mention of what happens when two opposing models have "the same ability", it also proceeds to override that when it deals with models having both ASF and ASL.

When two models that have different Intiative values han that both have the ASF and ASL special rules are in combat, they fight at their own Inititiative: They don't strike before or after Initiative order, they don't strike after, and they don't strike at the same time.

-T10

Figment187
07-02-2014, 06:58
Since the ASF rules make no provisions for it being negated by ASL, but ASL does take into account ASF, it seems appropriate to ignore the instructions in ASF.

Though ASL makes special mention of what happens when two opposing models have "the same ability", it also proceeds to override that when it deals with models having both ASF and ASL.

When two models that have different Intiative values han that both have the ASF and ASL special rules are in combat, they fight at their own Inititiative: They don't strike before or after Initiative order, they don't strike after, and they don't strike at the same time.

-T10

I agree with everything you wrote, but have fun arguing the definition of cancel since you don't understand.

SteveW
07-02-2014, 06:59
Since the ASF rules make no provisions for it being negated by ASL, but ASL does take into account ASF, it seems appropriate to ignore the instructions in ASF.

Though ASL makes special mention of what happens when two opposing models have "the same ability", it also proceeds to override that when it deals with models having both ASF and ASL.

When two models that have different Intiative values han that both have the ASF and ASL special rules are in combat, they fight at their own Inititiative: They don't strike before or after Initiative order, they don't strike after, and they don't strike at the same time.

-T10

Perfectly written. They will of course argue that you're wrong though.

Blkc57
07-02-2014, 07:20
Damn you T10, why do you have to come in here and be all wise and stuff?

T10
07-02-2014, 07:24
I agree with everything you wrote, but have fun arguing the definition of cancel since you don't understand.

Since a detailed analysis of the rules results in the unworkable RAW (models with different Initiative striking at indeterminable Initiative counts), it seems safe to go with RAI.

-T10

Soulless
08-02-2014, 09:32
T10 I have question for you - I charge HE unit of swordmasters (ASF + ASL) and i manage to target the said swordmasters with effect that gives them ANOTHER ASL (as with dragon hide banner for example). The question is - will they strike after Ogres AND if not WHY :D

Cheers

DenWhalen
08-02-2014, 10:10
I think there is a major semantic error occurring in this argument. The special rule grants the ability to "always strike first in close combat, regardless of initiative." The ability is granted by the special rule, but the special rule is not the ability. Thus, when the later text says "If a model with this rule is fighting an enemy with the same ability...", it is saying "If a model with the Always Strikes First special rule is fighting an enemy who also has the ability to strike first, regardless of initiative." Models with both ASF and ASL don't have the ability to strike outside of initiative, as ASF and ASL cancel each other (even though they remain on the profile, making further applications of either rule moot). The rule as written is exactly the same as the rule as intended.

Lord Solar Plexus
08-02-2014, 16:30
T10 I have question for you - I charge HE unit of swordmasters (ASF + ASL) and i manage to target the said swordmasters with effect that gives them ANOTHER ASL (as with dragon hide banner for example). The question is - will they strike after Ogres AND if not WHY :D


The Swordmasters STILL have ASF + ASL. There's no reason to assume a unit could become "ASLer" - there simply is no such rule.

The FAQ only clarifies this; multiple same special rules = no effect.


...someone had already responded to you regarding the red/green comment (you know the fact that it looks for red, and doesn't care about green blue yellow or otherwise).

A green and red model is not a green model. Imagine both side by side. Imagine I'd ask you to hand me the green one. Would you and dementian hand me the bi-coloured one or both? Now you can say "Of course I would!" but the salient point is that they are different.

T10
08-02-2014, 17:14
T10 I have question for you - I charge HE unit of swordmasters (ASF + ASL) and i manage to target the said swordmasters with effect that gives them ANOTHER ASL (as with dragon hide banner for example). The question is - will they strike after Ogres AND if not WHY :D

Cheers
The Sword Masters fight at their Initiative. Why? Special rules do not stack, so having ASF and ASL both one or more time has the same effect.

Squishy1979
08-02-2014, 19:06
A green and red model is not a green model. Imagine both side by side. Imagine I'd ask you to hand me the green one. Would you and dementian hand me the bi-coloured one or both? Now you can say "Of course I would!" but the salient point is that they are different.

...and this proves the point that you still don't understand the argument. Your HE also have martial prowess (blue), correct? So if you want me to pass you the green one...there is no green one. There is a green+blue+red and a green+blue, and a green+orange, etc. Rarely will you have a model that only has green, or only red on its profile. Does ASL or ASF care about blue...of course not. Am I ignoring the fact that Blue is on the profile...of course not, but ASF is not looking for blue...it is ONLY looking for Green (or whatever color was designated to ASF).

As we have all agreed already, the RAI are obvious, the RAW are different (and have different interpretations based on your definition of cancel), but the RAI do not equal the RAW as much as you want to argue that point.

thesoundofmusica
08-02-2014, 19:22
Ok so how does a model striking at ASF and one striking at initiative strike simultaneously?

Squishy1979
08-02-2014, 22:53
Ok so how does a model striking at ASF and one striking at initiative strike simultaneously?

As Dementian mentioned earlier (for his definition of cancel), RAW it would mean that the ASF model would strike simultaneously at the initiative of the ASF/ASL model. Again, we are not saying that this is is RAI, as that does not make any sense, but is how RAW would work (assuming that cancel leaves the ASF/ASL on the profile, but with no effect).

SteveW
09-02-2014, 05:21
As Dementian mentioned earlier (for his definition of cancel), RAW it would mean that the ASF model would strike simultaneously at the initiative of the ASF/ASL model. Again, we are not saying that this is is RAI, as that does not make any sense, but is how RAW would work (assuming that cancel leaves the ASF/ASL on the profile, but with no effect).
It isn't the RAW either, it is your inability to understand the rule. ASF then Initiative then ASL. You cannot be in more than one spot in that order and not one rule says you can be.

Squishy1979
09-02-2014, 05:27
It isn't the RAW either, it is your inability to understand the rule. ASF then Initiative then ASL. You cannot be in more than one spot in that order and not one rule says you can be.

Actually, I understand the rule perfectly...both RAW and RAI. In this case, RAW and RAI are not the same and it's actually YOUR inability to understand the RAW that is hanging you up, as everybody plays RAI (which nobody has disagreed with here).

SteveW
09-02-2014, 05:47
Actually, I understand the rule perfectly...both RAW and RAI. In this case, RAW and RAI are not the same and it's actually YOUR inability to understand the RAW that is hanging you up, as everybody plays RAI (which nobody has disagreed with here).
I don't play RAI. I play the rules RAW and they say you either go First, Init, or Last. Not one model breaks that rule.

Not to mention the arrogance in the term RAI, how do you presume to know what was intended? Are you a mind reader?

Squishy1979
09-02-2014, 05:54
i don't play rai. I play the rules raw and they say you either go first, init, or last. Not one model breaks that rule.

Not to mention the arrogance in the term rai, how do you presume to know what was intended? Are you a mind reader?


ok .

DenWhalen
09-02-2014, 07:47
Actually, I understand the rule perfectly...both RAW and RAI. In this case, RAW and RAI are not the same and it's actually YOUR inability to understand the RAW that is hanging you up, as everybody plays RAI (which nobody has disagreed with here).

Since my post above seems to have been ignored, let me point out that I disagree. You are misreading the rule book. A special rule and an ability are not the same thing. To repeat myself from above (caps are for my emphasis), "If a model WITH THIS RULE is fighting an enemy WITH THIS SAME ABILITY, the Attacks are made simultaneously..." The rule is Always Strikes First. The ability is the ability to "strike first in close combat, regardless of initiative." A model with both Always Strikes First and Always Strikes Last does not strike first, regardless of initiative. It attacks in the initiative order. If the rule wanted you to look for the rule, it would say something like; "If a model with this rule is fighting an enemy with this rule," "If a model with this rule is fighting another model with this rule," "If two models with this rule fight each other" or some other language that mentions "rules." The language of the rule differentiates between the special rule and the ability.

The language under Always Strikes last references rules: "If a model has both this rule and Always Strikes First, the two cancel out..." Notice the use of "this rule" and "Always Strikes First," the name of a special rule. The language here does not reference an ability. If another rule granted a model the ability to strike first, regardless of initiative order, there would be no such interaction as the text of Always Strikes Last specifically names Always Strikes First as the rule it interacts with.

The actual issue here is a general refusal on the part of players to distinguish between a special rule and the ability it confers. If you distinguish between the two, the rule as written is exactly what consensus agrees is the rule as intended. It only fails if you refuse to distinguish between rules and abilities, which isn't the rulebook's fault.

Squishy1979
09-02-2014, 08:41
Since my post above seems to have been ignored, let me point out that I disagree. You are misreading the rule book. A special rule and an ability are not the same thing. To repeat myself from above (caps are for my emphasis), "If a model WITH THIS RULE is fighting an enemy WITH THIS SAME ABILITY, the Attacks are made simultaneously..." The rule is Always Strikes First. The ability is the ability to "strike first in close combat, regardless of initiative." A model with both Always Strikes First and Always Strikes Last does not strike first, regardless of initiative. It attacks in the initiative order. If the rule wanted you to look for the rule, it would say something like; "If a model with this rule is fighting an enemy with this rule," "If a model with this rule is fighting another model with this rule," "If two models with this rule fight each other" or some other language that mentions "rules." The language of the rule differentiates between the special rule and the ability.

The language under Always Strikes last references rules: "If a model has both this rule and Always Strikes First, the two cancel out..." Notice the use of "this rule" and "Always Strikes First," the name of a special rule. The language here does not reference an ability. If another rule granted a model the ability to strike first, regardless of initiative order, there would be no such interaction as the text of Always Strikes Last specifically names Always Strikes First as the rule it interacts with.

The actual issue here is a general refusal on the part of players to distinguish between a special rule and the ability it confers. If you distinguish between the two, the rule as written is exactly what consensus agrees is the rule as intended. It only fails if you refuse to distinguish between rules and abilities, which isn't the rulebook's fault.

I understand what you are trying to get at here, but (and no offense intended) I think that's reaching to read into things. The ABILITY you quoted is referring to the SPECIAL RULE of Always Strikes First. It needs to be defined as a special rule, otherwise, there would no precedent as to what would happen if someone has the ABILITY to strike first and the Always Strikes First SPECIAL rule. There would also be no way within the rules to remove the ABILITY to strike first.

thesoundofmusica
09-02-2014, 09:41
As Dementian mentioned earlier (for his definition of cancel), RAW it would mean that the ASF model would strike simultaneously at the initiative of the ASF/ASL model. Again, we are not saying that this is is RAI, as that does not make any sense, but is how RAW would work (assuming that cancel leaves the ASF/ASL on the profile, but with no effect).

I dont know which post is referenced and the thread is 10 pages.
Just explain in short please why an ASF model and a model striking at initiative both strike simultaneously at initiative necessarily?

Lord Solar Plexus
09-02-2014, 10:25
...and this proves the point that you still don't understand the argument. Your HE also have martial prowess (blue), correct? So if you want me to pass you the green one...there is no green one. There is a green+blue+red and a green+blue, and a green+orange, etc. Rarely will you have a model that only has green, or only red on its profile. Does ASL or ASF care about blue...of course not. Am I ignoring the fact that Blue is on the profile...of course not, but ASF is not looking for blue...it is ONLY looking for Green (or whatever color was designated to ASF).


As you say yourself, other special rules are entirely unrelated to the ASF/ASL debate. To solve this riddle, all we need to do is look at p. 66. Not for Forest Strider, not for MP, not for the flyer rules, only ASF, ASL and their combination. Therefore, we ignore Martial Prowess and the others in this context, they do not help and only complicate things.

In this context, there is no blue. There is however still ASL (red); that special rule is pertinent to this debate. We can indeed completely ignore blue (Forest Strider, flyer, you name it) but we cannot ignore ASL. Yes, ASF looks for ASF. No, ASF does not look for ASF + ASL.


Ok so how does a model striking at ASF and one striking at initiative strike simultaneously?

The argument is that they both have ASF and nothing else. Lord Dan, squishy and dementian argue that the rules tell us to ignore ASL on an ASF model if it meets an ASF only model. They cannot produce a quote though since there is no such rule.

Squishy1979
09-02-2014, 10:47
As you say yourself, other special rules are entirely unrelated to the ASF/ASL debate. To solve this riddle, all we need to do is look at p. 66. Not for Forest Strider, not for MP, not for the flyer rules, only ASF, ASL and their combination. Therefore, we ignore Martial Prowess and the others in this context, they do not help and only complicate things.

In this context, there is no blue. There is however still ASL (red); that special rule is pertinent to this debate. We can indeed completely ignore blue (Forest Strider, flyer, you name it) but we cannot ignore ASL. Yes, ASF looks for ASF. No, ASF does not look for ASF + ASL.



The argument is that they both have ASF and nothing else. Lord Dan, squishy and dementian argue that the rules tell us to ignore ASL on an ASF model if it meets an ASF only model. They cannot produce a quote though since there is no such rule.

Actually, direct quotations have been produced multiple times, and there is no point producing it again, as you have not read the whole thread, or are ignoring that part. The argument isn't that ASF is ignoring ASL, it's that ASF doesn't look for ASL at all...just as it doesn't look for forest strider or martial prowess, etc. ASF only looks to see if ASF is on its opponents profile regardless of ASL, Forest Strider, Poison attacks, etc....as I have stated on NUMEROUS occasions, and am STILL being misquoted/misunderstood on.

...and with that, this is my last post on the topic, as the cyclical arguments in this thread are exhausting (and the fact that it's very apparent that the whole thread is not being read)

thesoundofmusica
09-02-2014, 11:07
As Dementian mentioned earlier (for his definition of cancel), RAW it would mean that the ASF model would strike simultaneously at the initiative of the ASF/ASL model. Again, we are not saying that this is is RAI, as that does not make any sense, but is how RAW would work (assuming that cancel leaves the ASF/ASL on the profile, but with no effect).

That doesnt make much sense.
One is ASF and one is striking at initiative. How you get both to strike at initiative from the line "they strike simultaneously" is what I dont get. It seems you just accepted striking at initiative to suit your argument because it isnt playable otherwise.

You might be correct that RAW the rules are as you say meaning you either just broke the game, pack up and go home or play the way LSP and others are supporting?

DenWhalen
09-02-2014, 14:19
I understand what you are trying to get at here, but (and no offense intended) I think that's reaching to read into things. The ABILITY you quoted is referring to the SPECIAL RULE of Always Strikes First. It needs to be defined as a special rule, otherwise, there would no precedent as to what would happen if someone has the ABILITY to strike first and the Always Strikes First SPECIAL rule. There would also be no way within the rules to remove the ABILITY to strike first.

As a parallel consider the Multiple Shots special rule. "A weapon with this special rule enables its wielder to fire several shots at a time, rather than a single shot. The number of shots the weapon can fire will normally be given as part of its description. Such weapons can either fire once with no penalty, or as many times as indicated by their rules with a -1 To Hit penalty (this is in addition to any other modifiers for range, cover and soon)..." If the ability and the rule are the same, a High Elf Eagle Claw Bolt Thrower would have to take this penalty for using its Volley Fire rule as it is using the option to fire multiple shots. However, since it has an ability conferred by the rule without actually having the rule, it suffers no penalty.

There is no precedent for what would happen if someone has both another ability to strike first and the Always Strikes First special rule because the rules have no other way to confer the ability. Most special rules are that way. But as the Multiple Shots rule demonstrates, you can have the upside of an ability without the downside of a rule if the ability is written into the model's description without the rule being added to its profile. It's not reaching, it's reading.

badguyshaveallthefun
10-02-2014, 02:28
The OP Lord Dan is correct as far as RAW, for all the reasons quoted BY THE RULEBOOK by both himself and others.
Regardless of it not making sense.
Regardless of it obviously not being RAI.
Everyone trying to argue otherwise is either in denial, doesn't understand the argument, can't stand to be wrong, or has buried their head in the sand.
Talk about it before you play with your opponent, but this horse is long dead.

Blkc57
10-02-2014, 04:51
The OP Lord Dan is correct as far as RAW, for all the reasons quoted BY THE RULEBOOK by both himself and others.
Regardless of it not making sense.
Regardless of it obviously not being RAI.
Everyone trying to argue otherwise is either in denial, doesn't understand the argument, can't stand to be wrong, or has buried their head in the sand.
Talk about it before you play with your opponent, but this horse is long dead.

So your argument is: "You are wrong and I am right". How is that making a case for Lord Dan? What about the other arguments from people like t10, Myself, or frankly anyone who disagrees with you? What makes our arguments wrong?

Lord Solar Plexus
10-02-2014, 08:02
Let it rest, blkc. It's not going to lead anywhere.

Lord Dan
10-02-2014, 08:41
The argument is that they both have ASF and nothing else. Lord Dan, squishy and dementian argue that the rules tell us to ignore ASL on an ASF model if it meets an ASF only model. They cannot produce a quote though since there is no such rule.

I've been keeping quiet for a while now, but no. That is not the argument.

The argument is that despite a model having ASL, which IS taking effect in the sense that the model with ASL and ASF strikes at initiative, this fact does not in any way interfere with the normal rules for ASF vs. ASF. In other words a model with ASF and ASL, while striking at initiative due to the rule you keep quoting, still forces other models with ASF to strike with them simultaneously.

Figment187
10-02-2014, 09:11
I've been keeping quiet for a while now, but no. That is not the argument.

The argument is that despite a model having ASL, which IS taking effect in the sense that the model with ASL and ASF strikes at initiative, this fact does not in any way interfere with the normal rules for ASF vs. ASF. In other words a model with ASF and ASL, while striking at initiative due to the rule you keep quoting, still forces other models with ASF to strike with them simultaneously.

I have seen both sides of the argument but as far as RAW goes, when it tells you specifically in the ASL rule that a model with both ASF and ASL has their ASF cancelled out and no longer applies and to strike at initiative, that tells me that in no way is it in effect in any sense of the word, as it no longer applies for said model. As I have said before it's never came up in tournament play or local gameshop games.

And please don't ask what would happen if it were re-applied from another source, it can't happen.

Here would be the entire conversation if let's say Bob were playing Witch Elves and Gary were playing White Lions.

Bob-"My Witch Elves go first and will reroll their misses because they have ASF and a higher Initiative."
Gary-"Not so fast my friend, my White Lions have the ASF rule as well so they cancel each other out."
Bob-" They also have the ASL which cancels out your ASF and it no longer applies, so therefore it can't have an effect on my ASF."
Gary-" That's not how I see it good sir. Let's just get the tourny director and get a decision."
Tourny Director Eric-" Per RAW and every tournament ever played with 8th Edition rules, Bob is correct."

thesoundofmusica
10-02-2014, 09:39
Forces other models with ASF to strike with them simultaneously.

How exactly does this happen? It just says simultaneously in the rules. Nothing about striking at initiative or that the ASF model isnt still ASF. The fact that there is no mention at all seems to support that a model is either ASf or it isnt, no ASF+ASL but still negating ASF bs.

Lord Dan
10-02-2014, 09:44
I'm not getting back into the trenches here, Figment. I just wanted to clarify the arguments involved to Lord Solar Plexus to ensure there weren't any misunderstandings. :p

Lord Dan
10-02-2014, 09:49
How exactly does this happen? It just says simultaneously in the rules. Nothing about striking at initiative or that the ASF model isnt still ASF. The fact that there is no mention at all seems to support that a model is either ASf or it isnt, no ASF+ASL but still negating ASF bs.

There's interpretation either way, I'm afraid. In the one camp you're interpreting the in-game meaning of the word "cancel" and sorting out how a special rule can not count if it's being compared to another special rule but still count for the purpose of determining whether or not a repeat occurrence of the rule will have any effect, and in the other you're resolving the two units which strike "at initiative" and "simultaneously" (which I would interpret to mean simultaneously at that initiative value).

Anyway, pick your poison. It's just certainly not as cut-and-dry as some might have you believe.

T10
10-02-2014, 10:21
In other words a model with ASF and ASL, while striking at initiative due to the rule you keep quoting, still forces other models with ASF to strike with them simultaneously.

If the intent was that models are indeed compelled to fight at a different Initiative order due to another model's abilites (which makes no sense, even in a world with wiards and dragons!), then the rules are simple not adequate for resolving this. A combat might well contain 10 models with ASF, 10 with ASL and another 10 with both, and each group contains models with Initiative values ranging from 1 through 10. When are these guys supposed to fight? Always? Never?

Assuming instead that GW doesn't intend for us to go crazy, the "strikes simultaneously" parts of the ASF and ASL rules only come into play if the model gets to actually strike first/last, and its purpose is to forego the use of other tie-breakers between it and other models that also strike first/last

Models that have both ASF and ASL strike in Initiative order, therefore they do not strike first/last, regardless of wether or not any opponent or ally has ASF/ASL.

-T10

badguyshaveallthefun
10-02-2014, 13:57
So your argument is: "You are wrong and I am right". How is that making a case for Lord Dan? What about the other arguments from people like t10, Myself, or frankly anyone who disagrees with you? What makes our arguments wrong?

This is why this argument is going in circles. You seem to not understand what the argument is about, and instead prefer to attack other posters.

What I'm saying is: Lord Dan and others have clearly and with proper rules quotation explained their side of the argument, and I happen to agree with their interpretation of the argument and the rules in question. So, I'm saying they're right and you're wrong. ;)

I've read all 10 pages of posts and listened to both sides of the argument and am trying to approach this from a neutral standpoint. I feel this argument was answered quite nicely and appropriately by the end of page 4, but then it's just been another 6 pages of the other side refusing to admit that they're wrong (hence burying their head in the sand).

Is it what I think makes the most sense? Heck no.

Is it what I think was meant to happen? Heck no.

Is it how I'll play it? I'll most likely push for a house rule allowing ASF > ASF + ASL.

But as it stands, I think RAW is clear, and whether or not you can accept that, well, we've already had our answer to that haven't we?

But anyway I'm finished with this. Others have made the same point and a lot more eloquently than I can, so I'll leave it be.

Blkc57
10-02-2014, 15:34
This is why this argument is going in circles. You seem to not understand what the argument is about, and instead prefer to attack other posters.

What I'm saying is: Lord Dan and others have clearly and with proper rules quotation explained their side of the argument, and I happen to agree with their interpretation of the argument and the rules in question. So, I'm saying they're right and you're wrong. ;)

I've read all 10 pages of posts and listened to both sides of the argument and am trying to approach this from a neutral standpoint. I feel this argument was answered quite nicely and appropriately by the end of page 4, but then it's just been another 6 pages of the other side refusing to admit that they're wrong (hence burying their head in the sand).

Is it what I think makes the most sense? Heck no.

Is it what I think was meant to happen? Heck no.

Is it how I'll play it? I'll most likely push for a house rule allowing ASF > ASF + ASL.

But as it stands, I think RAW is clear, and whether or not you can accept that, well, we've already had our answer to that haven't we?

But anyway I'm finished with this. Others have made the same point and a lot more eloquently than I can, so I'll leave it be.

I wasn't attacking you Badguy, I was just asking for you to state an argument so that if you jump into the conversation, that you at least add something to it. We are in effect trying to get to the bottom of the rule by attacking it from all sides and maybe if we can completely deconstruct it we can allow others who happen into this thread to see all the arguments and make an informed choice. Read the thread and see that for the most part we are not attacking each other, even those that disagree are doing so in a constructive and gentlemanly manner. We are in effect arguing in order to better understand not our the other side, but our own sides as well.


I'm not getting back into the trenches here, Figment.

Oh, but Dan, the trenches miss you so much.


Let it rest, blkc. It's not going to lead anywhere.

Oh i'm not reviving anything, LSP, I was just posting something to remind anyone just now jumping into the argument to post a little more than just "I agree" or "I disagree". If you do disagree or agree then extrapolate so that we can get to the bottom of where things are failing. Like Dan, I actually stepped out of the argument a long time ago around page 8 or so I think. I've just been making friendly comments to keep things civilized.

Don Zeko
10-02-2014, 16:17
It isn't the RAW either, it is your inability to understand the rule. ASF then Initiative then ASL. You cannot be in more than one spot in that order and not one rule says you can be.

That certainly seems to be what the rule is trying to get at, and it's absolutely the way that everybody plays the game. The trouble is that the actual rule is poorly written, and therefore does not achieve the desired and sensible result. Similarly, if a model with ASF and initiative 3 is fighting a model with ASL and initiative 5, he will not get to re-roll his rolls to hit. Why? Because rather than saying what the rule seems to mean to say (if the model with ASF would be entitled to strike first or simultaneously even if it did not have ASF, then re-roll to hit), the rule has one specific parameter which does not necessarily mean what the rule 'wants' it to mean (the initiative value of the target).

SteveW
10-02-2014, 18:19
That certainly seems to be what the rule is trying to get at, and it's absolutely the way that everybody plays the game. The trouble is that the actual rule is poorly written, and therefore does not achieve the desired and sensible result. Similarly, if a model with ASF and initiative 3 is fighting a model with ASL and initiative 5, he will not get to re-roll his rolls to hit. Why? Because rather than saying what the rule seems to mean to say (if the model with ASF would be entitled to strike first or simultaneously even if it did not have ASF, then re-roll to hit), the rule has one specific parameter which does not necessarily mean what the rule 'wants' it to mean (the initiative value of the target).

That's a different subject entirely. The thing is this whole ordeal could be resolved by removing ASF and ASL and replacing it with "If your initiative is more than double your targets, you may re-roll your failed to-hit rolls". Then instead of giving ASL and ASF out you'd just augment models initiative through spells and such, like 'Timewarp gives you x2 initiative' or 'Frost aura: -5 initiative'. Thats how I would take care of this whole thing.

iamjack42
10-02-2014, 18:35
That's a different subject entirely. The thing is this whole ordeal could be resolved by removing ASF and ASL and replacing it with "If your initiative is more than double your targets, you may re-roll your failed to-hit rolls". Then instead of giving ASL and ASF out you'd just augment models initiative through spells and such, like 'Timewarp gives you x2 initiative' or 'Frost aura: -5 initiative'. Thats how I would take care of this whole thing.

That's not going to be good for Saurus and Zombies.

N1AK
11-02-2014, 14:46
"If the model with this rule is fighting an enemy with the same ability, the Attacks are made simultaneously. If a model has both this rule and Always Strikes First, the two cancel out and neither applies so use the model's Initiative."


I started reading this thread certain that the proposition was nonsense and that Dan, SteveW and others were missing the obvious meaning of "cancel out". I mean how obvious could it be!? Fortunately, the threads so blooming long that my brain had time to re-consider again and again and my initial thought was wrong in my opinion.

The 'cancel out' sentence is part of the ASL rule and only specifically returns the model to striking in initiative order. Now it's not unreasonable to say that 'cancel out and neither applies' affects more than just initiative but it's also not unreasonable to say that as it refers specifically to the initiative order it doesn't influence the potential re-rolls.

Based on that I would say that neither reading is irrefutably correct but assuming ASF+ASL means losing re-rolls requires a more interpretive reading. All that said, I'm entirely confident that GW meant for all benefits of ASF to be lost, and all downsides of ASL to be lost when a model has both; the gaming community plays it that way and it will remain thus.

dementian
11-02-2014, 16:57
I started reading this thread certain that the proposition was nonsense and that Dan, SteveW and others were missing the obvious meaning of "cancel out". I mean how obvious could it be!? Fortunately, the threads so blooming long that my brain had time to re-consider again and again and my initial thought was wrong in my opinion.

The 'cancel out' sentence is part of the ASL rule and only specifically returns the model to striking in initiative order. Now it's not unreasonable to say that 'cancel out and neither applies' affects more than just initiative but it's also not unreasonable to say that as it refers specifically to the initiative order it doesn't influence the potential re-rolls.

Based on that I would say that neither reading is irrefutably correct but assuming ASF+ASL means losing re-rolls requires a more interpretive reading. All that said, I'm entirely confident that GW meant for all benefits of ASF to be lost, and all downsides of ASL to be lost when a model has both; the gaming community plays it that way and it will remain thus.

Haha now you have introduced something that none of us have even been discussing!

The thread is regarding whether a model with ASF special rule attacking another model with ASF (and ASL) would attack simultaneously without rerolls.

Lord Dan
11-02-2014, 17:06
The thread is regarding whether a model with ASF special rule attacking another model with ASF (and ASL) would attack simultaneously without rerolls.

I don't think this thread has much more life in it, however I'm still adding this to the opening post.

geldedgoat
11-02-2014, 19:20
Eh, the rules seem clear enough: ASF + ASL results in an instance of ASF that is similar enough to prevent accumulation of further applications of itself but different enough ('deactivated' seems appropriate) to not fully respond to a melee opponent's ASF (they don't really have the same ability any more).

Out of curiosity, are those of you arguing in favor of White Lions stopping Witch Elf rerolls doing so from a purely academic standpoint?

Lord Dan
12-02-2014, 00:42
Out of curiosity, are those of you arguing in favor of White Lions stopping Witch Elf rerolls doing so from a purely academic standpoint?

No, this is actually how we play in our store. This thread was brought up primarily because I wanted to find a rules-based way around our meta's interpretation of the rule, and what we've discovered is that everyone seems to play in the way you've described because everyone plays that way. That's a totally acceptable reason when both solutions require a degree of interpretation, it just surprised me that so many people seemed to be so vehemently opposed to the idea of an alternative interpretation being remotely valid.

geldedgoat
12-02-2014, 03:01
what we've discovered is that everyone seems to play in the way you've described because everyone plays that way.

I highly doubt everyone puzzled over that rule, unable to figure out how the situation should play out, and was forced to seek out and submit to the status quo.

Since you said this is how your gaming community plays the rule, how did that come to pass? Was there a struggle for interpretation in your group?

Lord Dan
12-02-2014, 03:14
I highly doubt everyone puzzled over that rule, unable to figure out how the situation should play out, and was forced to seek out and submit to the status quo.
That's exactly my point. No one thought about it, and simply played the way everyone else played.


Since you said this is how your gaming community plays the rule, how did that come to pass? Was there a struggle for interpretation in your group?
Frankly, I don't think it was a problem for most of the edition until the HE book was re-written and changed their ASF rule to behave normally with ASL. At that point we collectively pulled out our rulebooks when the issue began surfacing more frequently, and all came to pretty much the same conclusion:

ASF vs. ASF only cares if the rule is on the profile.
ASF and ASL does not remove ASF from the profile.
Therefore
ASF and ASL vs. ASF results in both sides striking simultaneously with no re-rolls.

This was an easier solution for us than assuming "cancel" meant "removed", which led to a broader issue of whether or not successive castings of ASF would have any effect on units with ASF/ASL.

geldedgoat
12-02-2014, 03:24
That's exactly my point. No one thought about it, and simply played the way everyone else played.

That's not what I said, but fine.


This was an easier solution for us than assuming "cancel" meant "removed", which led to a broader issue of whether or not successive castings of ASF would have any effect on units with ASF/ASL.

Hmmmm, and that's the only other interpretation everyone felt was left available? Odd. I suppose if everyone in your group accepts that, and this isn't being pulled out as a means with which to coerce another player into an inappropriately vulnerable position, then there's no harm in it.

badguyshaveallthefun
12-02-2014, 03:27
Frankly, I don't think it was a problem for most of the edition until the HE book was re-written and changed their ASF rule to behave normally with ASL. At that point we collectively pulled out our rulebooks when the issue began surfacing more frequently, and all came to pretty much the same conclusion:


To be fair though Dan, we didn't TRULY run into this problem until Brian broke out his ASF + ASL executioners. (i.e. the new Dark Elves) I'm actually surprised we went as long as we did before this cropped up.

Lord Dan
12-02-2014, 03:59
Hmmmm, and that's the only other interpretation everyone felt was left available? Odd. I suppose if everyone in your group accepts that, and this isn't being pulled out as a means with which to coerce another player into an inappropriately vulnerable position, then there's no harm in it.

Sure, because the alternative was to admit that "canceled" meant "no longer counting as on the profile". This opens the door to the issue of what happens if ASF is cast on the unit again, or if their great weapons are rendered inactive, etc., and that proved to be far more of a headache for our group. I keep hearing arguments here that "canceled" effectively means "inactive only for the sake of interactions with other special rules", however that's just total conjecture. I've yet to hear a convincing argument that our interpretation of this rule, while certainly not what the designers intended, is anything less than RaW.

Lord Dan
12-02-2014, 04:02
To be fair though Dan, we didn't TRULY run into this problem until Brian broke out his ASF + ASL executioners. (i.e. the new Dark Elves) I'm actually surprised we went as long as we did before this cropped up.
Dave and Brandon both run HE, and I know this problem came up in some games against Dave2's Slaanesh Daemons. For the most part, though, you're right, and it's the abundance of ASF that is causing this problem to pop up more and more.

SteveW
12-02-2014, 04:31
Let's take a unit of Executioners. They have ASF and ASL, meaning they they strike in Initiative order against normal units.

A unit of HE spearmen charges them. While the ASF and ASL on the Executioners are interacting under a special caveat, there is nothing that technically removes the ASF rule from the model. As a result the HE spearmen and Executioners fight simultaneously, per the rules for ASF vs. ASF.

Is this interpretation correct?

I just realized where your misconception comes in. You added "against normal units" to a rule changing it's meaning.

Lord Dan
12-02-2014, 04:36
I just realized where your misconception comes in. You added "against normal units" to a rule changing it's meaning.

Uh, what?

Against units without ASF ("normal" units) they strike in initiative order. There is no further conflict.

Against units with ASF they attempt to strike in initiative order, however the ASF vs ASF clause is triggered by both units having the rule (note, not having an "active" version of the rule) and so they strike simultaneously.

SteveW
12-02-2014, 04:44
Uh, what?

Against units without ASF ("normal" units) they strike in initiative order. There is no further conflict.

Against units with ASF they attempt to strike in initiative order, however the ASF vs ASF clause is triggered by both units having the rule (note, not having an "active" version of the rule) and so they strike simultaneously.
You're adding the whole "normal units" thing. This is not a distinction that games workshop has made.

Lord Dan
12-02-2014, 04:52
You're adding the whole "normal units" thing. This is not a distinction that games workshop has made.

I still don't understand what you're talking about. I was using the term "normal units" to refer to units without ASF.

Let me amend my first post in a way that doesn't distract you:

"Let's take a unit of Executioners. They have ASF and ASL, meaning they they strike in Initiative order against units without ASF."

Better?

SteveW
12-02-2014, 04:56
You again added a series of words that change what the rule does.

Like this "All models with this rule are immune to psychology and must jump to their deaths"

See if you can find what I added and how a few words change the meaning.

Lord Dan
12-02-2014, 04:58
...am I the only one completely lost here?

SteveW
12-02-2014, 05:00
...am I the only one completely lost here?
Yes. But don't worry Daniel son, I will help you.

Lord Dan
12-02-2014, 05:03
I will help you.

That's my fear, actually.

SteveW
12-02-2014, 05:05
That's my fear, actually.
There in lies your malfunction. You can learn from everyone, even those you don't like.

Lord Dan
12-02-2014, 05:11
There in lies your malfunction. You can learn from everyone, even those you don't like.

I would love to learn from you. I'm just waiting for someone to drop in and either translate what you're talking about for me, or reaffirm my current belief that you might be confused.

Squishy1979
12-02-2014, 05:26
Sure, because the alternative was to admit that "canceled" meant "no longer counting as on the profile". This opens the door to the issue of what happens if ASF is cast on the unit again, or if their great weapons are rendered inactive, etc., and that proved to be far more of a headache for our group. I keep hearing arguments here that "canceled" effectively means "inactive only for the sake of interactions with other special rules", however that's just total conjecture. I've yet to hear a convincing argument that our interpretation of this rule, while certainly not what the designers intended, is anything less than RaW.

Actually Dan, assuming that cancel means removing, it would be pretty difficult to "regain" ASF when you are striking with great weapons. You would somehow have to gain ASF while in combat, as casting a spell would happen in a phase were ASL is not cancelling out ASF yet. It would be easier, nowever, for them to gain ASL, as something like the thundertusk would giving them ASL while the Great Weapon is cancelling out ASF.


....am I the only one completely lost here

I'm sure that one of two thing is happening with SteveW
1) He thinks he is being clear, but is either confused or confusing
2) Is mocking you and still trying to prove that ASL+ASF means striking at Initiative for both ASF models, and non-ASF models regardless of how it's worded

geldedgoat
12-02-2014, 05:35
Sure, because the alternative was to admit that "canceled" meant "no longer counting as on the profile".

I would say that the "no longer applies" is the more important component, but whatever. ASF + ASL doesn't cause the unit to lose either special rule title, but the content - or abilities - of those special rules certainly do change. ASF checks for an identical ability, which something that carries a great weapon doesn't have. This is not "total conjecture," but I understand that you disagree.


...am I the only one completely lost here?

He's pointing out that your original statement was poorly reconstructed from the rules. ASF + ASL instructs that the unit strike in initiative order just, not initiative order against certain types of units.

Lord Dan
12-02-2014, 05:51
ASF checks for an identical ability
From a RaW perspective, no, it does not.


ASF + ASL instructs that the unit strike in initiative order just, not initiative order against certain types of units.
"Normal units" was an obvious reference to my interpretation of the ASF vs. ASF rule. "Units with ASF and ASL strike in initiative order against all units" is false when I believe that they do not strike in initiative order against other units with ASF.

I just came up with a counter-argument for you, though, in the form of a paradox:

Based on my interpretation of the ASF vs. ASF rule, what happens when a unit with ASF and ASL fights another unit with ASF and ASL?

SteveW
12-02-2014, 06:09
Based on my interpretation of the ASF vs. ASF rule, what happens when a unit with ASF and ASL fights another unit with ASF and ASL?
They fight as per the rulebook order, at their initiative.

Lord Dan
12-02-2014, 06:16
I agree.

Which flies in the face of my original interpretation. My claim that "ASF vs. ASF" only looks at whether or not a unit has ASF on it's profile cannot be true if it leads to the paradox of causing units with ASF and ASL to strike both at initiative order and at the same time as other units with both ASF and ASL.

My point is, I think I've finally been convinced of your argument from a rules perspective.

SteveW
12-02-2014, 06:23
My point is, I think I've finally been convinced of your argument from a rules perspective.

Awesome. It seems we've helped eachother today.

Squishy1979
12-02-2014, 06:23
I just came up with a counter-argument for you, though, in the form of a paradox:

Based on my interpretation of the ASF vs. ASF rule, what happens when a unit with ASF and ASL fights another unit with ASF and ASL?

I am not sure of the Initiative values of all the units that we have been discussing, but lets say that an ASF/ASL I(6) fighting ASF/ASL I(2). The ASF/ASL I(6) unit would go to strike whenever I6 models are striking, and so the I2 model would go at that time with the ASF/ASL I(6) model that he is in base contact with, as they would have to strike simultaneously


They fight as per the rulebook order, at their initiative.

Dan asked in his interpretation of the ASF vs. ASF rule how things would play out....does your response mean you're finally admitting to the way the rules were written....

SteveW
12-02-2014, 06:25
Dan asked in his interpretation of the ASF vs. ASF rule how things would play out....does your response mean you're finally admitting to the way the rules were written....

Try and just speak for Squishy, Squishy.

Squishy1979
12-02-2014, 06:27
Try and just speak for Squishy, Squishy.

You make no sense

Lord Dan
12-02-2014, 06:29
The ASF/ASL I(6) unit would go to strike whenever I6 models are striking, and so the I2 model would go at that time with the ASF/ASL I(6) model that he is in base contact with

I'd like for it to be that simple, however I'm not as convinced anymore. ASL/ASF vs. ASF alone is easy to resolve, as both the ASL vs. ASF and ASF vs. ASF rules caveats can be satisfied: strike simultaneously with the higher initiative.

In this case, the ASF vs. ASF says strike simultaneously, while ASF vs. ASL says strike in initiative order. When both models have BOTH rules, and varied initiatives, you can't have both.

Figment187
12-02-2014, 06:33
Here is how combat goes at my gameshop or tournaments in and around Ohio and Indiana.
Basically there are three phases of order, A,B, and C.

A group, or units or models with ASF go first, unless fighting other models with ASF then strike simultaneously. (thanks dementian)

B group, or normal units without ASF, plus units or models with ASF and ASL that are forced to strike at initiative.

C group , or units with ASL rules or abilities strike last.( Great weapons, Stomp, Thunderstomp etc.....)

So for us the scenario we keep using, the White Lions and the Witch Elves, the WL's fall under B and the WE's fall under A. A unit or model that has the ability to strike first should never not be allowed to strike first against a unit/model that is striking during the normal initiative phase. We don't play it this way just because this is how we have always played it. This is the way it has been RAW'ed here since 8th edition dropped. The only problem we had was the multiple stacking of ASL and ASF until the FAQ came out about it not being able to effect more than once.

This thread is so good I brought it up at my gameshop to see what they all thought, and most of them still think that as RAW we were playing it right , but there were a few that also agreed with Lord Dan that as it's written, you could argue either way.

Squishy1979
12-02-2014, 06:38
I'd like for it to be that simple, however I'm not as convinced anymore. ASL/ASF vs. ASF alone is easy to resolve, as both the ASL vs. ASF and ASF vs. ASF rules caveats can be satisfied: strike simultaneously with the higher initiative.

In this case, the ASF vs. ASF says strike simultaneously, while ASF vs. ASL says strike in initiative order. When both models have BOTH rules, and varied initiatives, you can't have both.

It is just semantics, as it has already been determined what RAI are, however, I don't believe that the RAW does create a "caveat", as the striking is happening simultaneously (which means regardless of initiative). So because I6 would determine it's his time to strike, and models in base contact with that model (also carrying both ASF/ASL) realize that they are striking at the same time, they would go at that time as well. The only situation I can think of where this becomes an issue, is when there are multiple types of models (i.e. an ASF/ASL unit that charged/being charged also gets flanked, and is therefore fighting models that may not have ASF.

This still boils down to the fact that RAW is poorly written, and the consensus is that striking at Initiative (without being able to gain/lose ASF or ASL) is the rules as they were intended.

Personally, I believe that my brother and I will be playing that cancelling out, removes the ASF and ASL from the profile until one of the rules removes themselves (i.e. combat is over, and ASF comes back). This also leaves the unit open to potentially gaining ASF or ASL again.

dementian
12-02-2014, 12:24
L
Here is how combat goes at my gameshop or tournaments in and around Ohio and Indiana.
Basically there are three phases of order, A,B, and C.

A group, or units or models with ASF go first, unless fighting other models with ASF then they go on Initiative.

B group, or normal units without ASF, plus units or models with ASF and ASL that are forced to strike at initiative.

C group , or units with ASL rules or abilities strike last.( Great weapons, Stomp, Thunderstomp etc.....)

So for us the scenario we keep using, the White Lions and the Witch Elves, the WL's fall under B and the WE's fall under A. A unit or model that has the ability to strike first should never not be allowed to strike first against a unit/model that is striking during the normal initiative phase. We don't play it this way just because this is how we have always played it. This is the way it has been RAW'ed here since 8th edition dropped. The only problem we had was the multiple stacking of ASL and ASF until the FAQ came out about it not being able to effect more than once.

This thread is so good I brought it up at my gameshop to see what they all thought, and most of them still think that as RAW we were playing it right , but there were a few that also agreed with Lord Dan that as it's written, you could argue either way.

Your A group is messed up. ASF fighting ASF attack simultaneously not at initiative it's like you didn't even read the section of the rule we have been discussing this whole time.
If so that's hilarious, but I will give you the benefit of the doubt and say you just wrote it wrong though.

Sureshot05
12-02-2014, 12:28
This is a very interesting discussion. It becomes more complicated if one considers the following three unit scenario.

Empire greatswords buffed with Birona's Timewarp from the Lore of Light charge a unit of High Elf Spearmen. Simulataneously an Empire General (init 5) charges the unit. In this case, due to the lower initiative of the greatswords the general ends up striking before the spearmen if we play ASF vs ASF strike simultaneously.

I agree that the ASF & ASL vs. ASF & ASL contradiction solves this in priniciple, but the dream of having an Empire general strike faster than those pesky elves is lovely.

T10
12-02-2014, 12:54
This is a very interesting discussion. It becomes more complicated if one considers the following three unit scenario.

Empire greatswords buffed with Birona's Timewarp from the Lore of Light charge a unit of High Elf Spearmen. Simulataneously an Empire General (init 5) charges the unit. In this case, due to the lower initiative of the greatswords the general ends up striking before the spearmen if we play ASF vs ASF strike simultaneously.

I agree that the ASF & ASL vs. ASF & ASL contradiction solves this in priniciple, but the dream of having an Empire general strike faster than those pesky elves is lovely.

The scenario is simple:

The High Elf Spearmen strike first due to having ASF.
The Empire General strikes at Initiative 5.
The Empire Greatswords strike at Initiative 3 due to having both ASF and ASL. They do not strike simultaneously with the High Elf Spearmen because they do not have the ability to strike first.

-T10

dementian
12-02-2014, 16:17
The scenario is simple:

The High Elf Spearmen strike first due to having ASF.
The Empire General strikes at Initiative 5.
The Empire Greatswords strike at Initiative 3 due to having both ASF and ASL. They do not strike simultaneously with the High Elf Spearmen because they do not have the ability to strike first.

-T10

They have the ability "Always Strikes First"

A similar scenario was brought up earlier in the thread.

The High Elf Spearmen that are striking the General will strike at ASF with re-rolls due to both being Init 5. The High Elf Spearmen striking the Greatswords would attack "simultaneously and without re-rolls" meaning they would be forced to attack at Initiative 3.

It's weird and like mentioned numerous times. This is not how we think the game should be played but by RAW it seems that way to a minority of the community. The general discussion thread has it at a 6:1 ratio I think.

SteveW
12-02-2014, 16:37
They have the ability "Always Strikes First"

A similar scenario was brought up earlier in the thread.

The High Elf Spearmen that are striking the General will strike at ASF with re-rolls due to both being Init 5. The High Elf Spearmen striking the Greatswords would attack "simultaneously and without re-rolls" meaning they would be forced to attack at Initiative 3.

It's weird and like mentioned numerous times. This is not how we think the game should be played but by RAW it seems that way to a minority of the community. The general discussion thread has it at a 6:1 ratio I think.

How can you read that and not laugh? I try not to be mean but you just wrote that the high elf spearmen strike both before and after the Empire general. They only strike once bro, if your model makes them have two different stages to attack in it's automatically wrong.

dementian
12-02-2014, 17:16
How can you read that and not laugh? I try not to be mean but you just wrote that the high elf spearmen strike both before and after the Empire general. They only strike once bro, if your model makes them have two different stages to attack in it's automatically wrong.


Steve. I can think up another scenario where a unit can strike at two different times.

p.62 Vampire Counts Army Book


The Nightshrouds adds +1 to the bearer's armor save. Furthermore, enemy models in base contact with the wearer lose all Strength bonuses conferred from normal and magical weapons, and have the Always Strikes Last special rule.

Clearly this item is wrong as you can't make a unit attack at two different steps right?

For further clarification I will repeat what I have said MANY times in this thread.

It doesn't feel right, I don't LIKE this. But as far as RAW goes, and I have supported our sides argument with numerous rules quotes throughout the thread this is how I see it as RAW. I have not seen anything that convinces me otherwise brought forth from the other side of the argument.

RAI I do not think this is how they intended it to work. RAW unfortunately is how it works.

Blkc57
12-02-2014, 17:26
RAI I do not think this is how they intended it to work. RAW unfortunately is how it works.

RAW, Dementian is not agreed upon by almost half the people in the thread. I still believe RAW works the other way, but as I stated when I bowed out of thread: RAI is so clear as to be the obviously better choice in settling a rules dispute of this caliber.

dementian
12-02-2014, 17:28
Sorry I should have said. Based on evidence supported through the thread and quoted from the rulebook, I see this as the proper way currently supported through RAW

Blkc57
12-02-2014, 17:30
Sorry I should have said. Based on evidence supported through the thread and quoted from the rulebook, I see this as the proper way currently supported through RAW

Muy bueno. :)

SteveW
12-02-2014, 17:36
Steve. I can think up another scenario where a unit can strike at two different times.

p.62 Vampire Counts Army Book



Clearly this item is wrong as you can't make a unit attack at two different steps right?

For further clarification I will repeat what I have said MANY times in this thread.

It doesn't feel right, I don't LIKE this. But as far as RAW goes, and I have supported our sides argument with numerous rules quotes throughout the thread this is how I see it as RAW. I have not seen anything that convinces me otherwise brought forth from the other side of the argument.

RAI I do not think this is how they intended it to work. RAW unfortunately is how it works.

You're playing that one wrong as well then. That gives models in base contact ASL, not hard to see where the units would then fall into the combat order.

If a unit with ASF contacts the night shroud it gains ASL and strikes in initiative order as per the rules.

If a unit striking at initiative order contacts the night shroud it gains ASL and strikes last

If a unit with ASL contacts the night shroud it is unaffected as it would have ASL + ASL.

dementian
12-02-2014, 17:41
You're playing that one wrong as well then. That gives models in base contact ASL, not hard to see where the units would then fall into the combat order.

If a unit with ASF contacts the night shroud it gains ASL and strikes in initiative order as per the rules.

If a unit striking at initiative order contacts the night shroud it gains ASL and strikes last

If a unit with ASL contacts the night shroud it is unaffected as it would have ASL + ASL.


If a unit with ASF contacts the night shroud then the unit is ASF except for models that are in base contact with the character with the nightshroud. Those ~3 models will strike at initiative while the rest of the unit strikes before them.

If a unit striking at initiative order contacts the night shroud the unit will strike at initiative order except for the models that are in base contact with the character with the Nightshroud. Those ~3 models will strike at ASL.

Did you not read the rule that I quoted? If so I can see the issue that you and I seem to be having in this thread. I quote rules and you ignore the rules and make stuff up haha.

SteveW
12-02-2014, 17:46
If a unit with ASF contacts the night shroud then the unit is ASF except for models that are in base contact with the character with the nightshroud. Those ~3 models will strike at initiative while the rest of the unit strikes before them.

If a unit striking at initiative order contacts the night shroud the unit will strike at initiative order except for the models that are in base contact with the character with the Nightshroud. Those ~3 models will strike at ASL.

Did you not read the rule that I quoted? If so I can see the issue that you and I seem to be having in this thread. I quote rules and you ignore the rules and make stuff up haha.

Yeah, the models touching him get ASL, so they are effected by it and change their order of attacks. They do not then exist in two steps in the order.

dementian
12-02-2014, 18:49
In what I wrote originally no model was striking at two steps in the order as each model's attack cannot hit two different targets...If you attack the Lord then you attack _________________ if you chose to attack the greatswords you attack _____________.

badguyshaveallthefun
12-02-2014, 19:28
RAW, Dementian is not agreed upon by almost half the people in the thread. I still believe RAW works the other way, but as I stated when I bowed out of thread: RAI is so clear as to be the obviously better choice in settling a rules dispute of this caliber.

You can't base your opinion off of what the majority says, if the majority are wrong it doesn't make it right.

And agreed, RAI should ultimately be employed here.

Lord Dan
12-02-2014, 19:30
I think the obvious solution is to ban players from taking units with both ASF and ASL. Problem solved.

Blkc57
12-02-2014, 20:05
I think the obvious solution is to ban players from taking units with both ASF and ASL. Problem solved.

*nods approvingly*

Squishy1979
12-02-2014, 20:06
I think the obvious solution is to ban players from taking units with both ASF and ASL. Problem solved.

LOL....sure, that's a better solution than having the rules writers make proper rules, and use FAQ's/Erratas/Forums to make sure the game is played out as intended....actually, banning the ASF+ASL units is probably more likely than GW stepping up and getting involved in the community (at least that's what I have been gathering from these discussions)

Blkc57
12-02-2014, 20:12
You can't base your opinion off of what the majority says, if the majority are wrong it doesn't make it right.


Oh I agree with that sentiment, Badguy, its why I was trying to council Dan against bringing this issue to the general Forum (where rules disputes tend to be settled more often with fists than words). My point was to remind people that RAW is still debated in this thread. I usually base my own rules interpretations on a simple formula: I try to go by RAW as much as possible. If RAW is either unclear to the point of contention (As in this case) or if it creates a situation that I find breaks enjoyment of the game (as in Worst Play Abuses), then I switch from RAW to RAI. RAI is always subjective and does require you to sit down and have a conversation with your opponent before the game, but if both of you can settle things amicably then a much more enjoyable game will be had by all.
My own gaming group created a system a long time ago to deal with GW's lack of response on FAQ problems. We based it around Direwolf's FAQ Council. Basically, we created a group of about 7 people that debate the rules in a forum much like this ,then we issue a series of house rulings and collect them into an FAQ packet for other players in the store and surrounding area. People are free to either utilize or not utilize these House Rulings when they play friendly games, but when we host tournaments in the area we always make rulings according to them, and poeple are aware of this and tend to match their friendly play by how we judge our competitive tournaments.