PDA

View Full Version : ASF and ASL vs. ASF: I was wrong



Lord Dan
14-02-2014, 05:27
Despite the Warhammer rules topic, given the street fight I started here in the Fantasy General forum I felt a public admission of wrongfulness and a brief explanation would best be served here.

We all know the arguments involved. Even those 16 who sided with me in the poll discussion thread admitted that our understanding of "RaW" was pretty daft from a realism perspective, and that it likely wasn't what the designers intended. Here's why we're, fortunately, wrong:


The rule explicitly says "same ability." You could read that to mean "same ability [title]" and invite a whole host of weird situations, or you could read that to mean "same ability [content]" (still RAW) and avoid such awkwardness.

He's right. Under the rules for ASF vs. ASF it doesn't actually say "two models with ASF", it says "a model with ASF and a model with the same ability". If we're going to be pedantic about the literal existence of ASF on two model's profiles, we should be equally pedantic about the exact meaning of the term "same ability". In other words, for those of you who want to strictly obey RaW there's an "out" built in the nuance of the ASF vs. ASF rules which I (regrettably) overlooked until geldedgoat pointed it out in the original rules discussion thread. To clarify, I now understand that ASF and ASL's canceling effect changes the ASF rule to where it is no longer technically the "same ability" as unmodified ASF, and therefore a model with such unmodified ASF would strike first with re-rolls against a model with ASF and ASL. Both ASF and ASL remain on the model's profile despite the canceling effect, reinforcing arguments that additional instances of either rule would have no effect.

So, in summary and for what will no doubt be a signature quote: I was wrong and you all were right.

V123
14-02-2014, 05:40
ASF and ASL cancel each other out, CANCEL, when 2 things cancel out it no longer exists, so you use INITIATIVE, and initiative vs ASF , ASF goes first Because a model with always strikes first goes first regardless of initiative...... Like how the hell did you mess this up, the rules are so clear........

SteveW
14-02-2014, 05:44
I gained a lot of respect for you Dan.


There, is that close enough to the original content? :p

Archon of Death
14-02-2014, 06:26
The hilarity continues.

Lord Dan
14-02-2014, 08:12
the rules are so clear........
Sigh...



Nevermind.
You couldn't bring yourself to say it, could you? :p

Evil Hypnotist
14-02-2014, 08:26
A lot of people would have just gone with the flow and accepted the interpretation blindly, you didn't. A lot of people, once they had realised they were wrong, may have just slinked away from the discussion and waited for it to die down. You didn't, so kudos for that.

Juicy21
14-02-2014, 08:34
Ive been following this discussion for a while now. And got to say kudos for you DAN! Real gentlemen move here.

Soundwave
14-02-2014, 08:35
This is funny! Been reading up on all the threads involved, very amusing:). So what about the banner of the world dragon and a High elf mage using High magic? Raw the lore attribute says it adds +1 to all ward saves yet the max is +3. So technically it makes the ward save worse.
Then there's the cauldron with the shooting and with witch brew who does have to test at -3 ?
There is probably hundreds of these things if you look into it enough.

thesoundofmusica
14-02-2014, 08:39
No need to apologize really, I certainly dont think any less of you either way. Just a good friendly discussion, more serious for some than others. It had no effect whatsoever on my gaming :)

Going to my first tournament I got a good tip:
Bring an open mind, not everyone plays the same warhammer you do.

And as the RAI vs RAW thread shows rules are not always black and white but shades of grey.

Blkc57
14-02-2014, 08:39
Kudos?! What? We are supposed to be tarring and feathering Dan. We can't give him kudos! That goes against everything I've predicted for this forum! We must punish those horribly who dare point out the failures of GW rules! BRING BACK THE PITCHFORKS! TURN THE BONFIRES BACK ON!

EDIT: odd, now that Geld mentions it it does seem like an easy & eloquent way to solve the issue for us all. I wonder why the hell I couldn't think of it before our topic blew up to 15 pages, Dan.

Lord Solar Plexus
14-02-2014, 11:16
No worries, Dan. It's way more fun having to think things through than to read yet another army list thread. It's always been a pleasure debating with you. Only when people start the "You don't understand" "No, you didn't read" game can things become annoying yet you never took part in that.

Urgat
14-02-2014, 11:46
Ahaha, even though I agree with the premises, that's really a heavy case of RAW there if you ask me. That it actually backs RAI (well, imho) makes it funny. We got a little gem there I think :p


You couldn't bring yourself to say it, could you? :p

Yes he did :p He just edited after the fact ;) I do that a lot too, I must confess, though I just delete my post instead, it's less noticeable :D

badguyshaveallthefun
14-02-2014, 15:10
I can certainly get behind that interpretation as well, and it certainly seems to flow from a RAW and RAI perspective. Kudos Geldegoat for shedding some light on an admittedly heated discussion. I'll echo Dan's statements as well. I was wrong (this time ;))

Phazael
14-02-2014, 19:56
On the one hand, a Real Men of Genius featuring Lord Dan might be amusing, but I am of the belief that when someone admits error (especially in a mental exercise where logic was being used), you accept the admission and move on to the next topic of discussion.

Lord Dan
14-02-2014, 20:31
Thanks for all of the support, guys.


On the one hand, a Real Men of Genius featuring Lord Dan might be amusing

Here's to you, Warhammer rules-lawyer who doesn't fully understand the Warhammer rules (You're the rules-lawyering ggguuuuyyyy!). You're the guy quoting page numbers as though you're citing rule references, though those pages are really just of unrelated photos and hobby articles (Better learn them rrruuules!). Sometimes the numbers aren't even real (Page eleventee-een!). When people ask you about your understanding of a rule, you answer "yes" or "no" to sound decisive, even if the question didn't warrant a yes or no answer (Ooooh! You;re the greatest!). It's no matter, Warhammer rules lawyer who doesn't understand the Warhammer rules. Even if it isn't Warhammer, it's yourhammer.

Reiko321
14-02-2014, 21:07
Here's to you, Warhammer rules-lawyer who doesn't fully understand the Warhammer rules (You're the rules-lawyering ggguuuuyyyy!). You're the guy quoting page numbers as though you're citing rule references, though those pages are really just of unrelated photos and hobby articles (Better learn them rrruuules!). Sometimes the numbers aren't even real (Page eleventee-een!). When people ask you about your understanding of a rule, you answer "yes" or "no" to sound decisive, even if the question didn't warrant a yes or no answer (Ooooh! You;re the greatest!). It's no matter, Warhammer rules lawyer who doesn't understand the Warhammer rules. Even if it isn't Warhammer, it's yourhammer.

Quote-worthy. Sig-worthy. This made my day.

Two virtual thumbs up!

geldedgoat
15-02-2014, 00:47
I can has cookie now?

Moss
15-02-2014, 01:36
Even if it isn't Warhammer, it's yourhammer.

Whether or not it was intentional, that was extremely deep.

And catchy.

SteveW
15-02-2014, 01:46
Sigh...



You couldn't bring yourself to say it, could you? :p

Sorry Dan. I misread your post and while editing my response I lost the drive to finish it so just posted what I did.

Lord Dan
15-02-2014, 02:36
Whether or not it was intentional, that was extremely deep.

And catchy.
Yourhammer™



Sorry Dan. I misread your post and while editing my response I lost the drive to finish it so just posted what I did.
Mhm. You, Urgat, and I know what you posted initially, Steve. It's okay though:

187310

I feel the same way.

Archon of Death
15-02-2014, 02:58
Actually, I know as well what Steve posted. Pretty heartwarming, albeit quickly obfuscated.