PDA

View Full Version : ASF and ASL



The Irish Commissar
05-10-2014, 19:27
So I'm sure this asked all the time but since I'm new try and give me a break haha.

Does having ASF overrule having q great weapon or does the model always still strike at I1. Noticed high elves can do it but wasn't sure if they had a special rule to allow it.

Francis
05-10-2014, 19:34
Models with both asf and asl strikes in initiative order.

3eland
05-10-2014, 19:35
Page 66 in the mini book. It's under the rules of ASL.

SteveW
06-10-2014, 00:06
So I'm sure this asked all the time but since I'm new try and give me a break haha.

Does having ASF overrule having q great weapon or does the model always still strike at I1. Noticed high elves can do it but wasn't sure if they had a special rule to allow it.
Where do you get them striking at I1? the order of initiative is
ASF
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
ASL

ASL is after I1 and to answer your question the model strikes at initiative order because both rules are ignored. Where most people seem to have a fit is when you then get an additional ASF/ASL and people refuse to play the rule correctly.

zimmo
06-10-2014, 00:23
40ks version of asl makes them go at i1 so alot of players who play both or start with 40k will make that frequent mistake

furrie
06-10-2014, 07:14
Where do you get them striking at I1? the order of initiative is
ASF
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
ASL

ASL is after I1 and to answer your question the model strikes at initiative order because both rules are ignored. Where most people seem to have a fit is when you then get an additional ASF/ASL and people refuse to play the rule correctly.
That is because most people don't realize that a model still has both rules and because neither ASF or ASL state that they stack, so the model still can use neither

The Irish Commissar
06-10-2014, 07:56
Alright thanks lads.

SteveW
06-10-2014, 17:37
That is because most people don't realize that a model still has both rules and because neither ASF or ASL state that they stack, so the model still can use neither
The chapter on special rules says they are all cumulative unless stated otherwise. If they were not, there would be no way to even play a model that has both ASF and ASL.

Mr_Rose
06-10-2014, 17:47
Ugh. That was like, the second thing they errata'd back when eighth edition was new. It says different special rules are cumulative but the same rule never is unless it specifically says so. For example, Extra Attacks is one of the ones that says so after the errata.

SteveW
06-10-2014, 20:03
All that errata did was clarify that if you had ASF x2 you wouldn't strike before asf.

hardyworld
07-10-2014, 13:37
The FAQ clarified that:

“However, unless otherwise stated, a model gains no additional benefit from having the same special rule multiple times.”

SteveW
07-10-2014, 23:52
The FAQ clarified that:

Yes, so when people back then were arguing that ASF + ASF went before ASF, this corrected that.

SimaoSegunda
08-10-2014, 09:09
Yes, so when people back then were arguing that ASF + ASF went before ASF, this corrected that.

That isn't all it corrected.

SteveW
08-10-2014, 12:19
That isn't all it corrected.


People seem to try and make it explain all sorts of things that it doesn't address. This seems to be the way of things.

aprilmanha
08-10-2014, 13:34
As I understand it High elves with great weapons also ignore ASL due to awesomeness?
So they always count as ASF even with Great weapons?

Josfer
08-10-2014, 14:12
As I understand it High elves with great weapons also ignore ASL due to awesomeness?
So they always count as ASF even with Great weapons?
Not anymore.

gareth.francis
08-10-2014, 14:21
The ASF for being a High Elf cancels out the ASL for great weapons, meaning they strike in initiative order.

aprilmanha
08-10-2014, 14:23
Not anymore.
Well I've been using them wrong all this time :P
It also greatly reduces my chance of ever winning a game XD

Charistoph
10-10-2014, 18:36
Well I've been using them wrong all this time :P
It also greatly reduces my chance of ever winning a game XD

To be fair, before the last army book came out, the FAQ said that they are ASF all the time, even if they are using an ASL weapon. So it's more about getting back up to date than being wrong all this time. It happens a lot when rules change, some people still have rules in their head from 2nd Edition, or at least play as if they do.

aprilmanha
10-10-2014, 19:15
To be fair, before the last army book came out, the FAQ said that they are ASF all the time, even if they are using an ASL weapon. So it's more about getting back up to date than being wrong all this time. It happens a lot when rules change, some people still have rules in their head from 2nd Edition, or at least play as if they do.
Want to buy some High elves? :P

copesh
10-10-2014, 19:22
striking at I with a GW is amazing. Remember, elves are base I 5 so are still striking first before most enemies.

Swordmasters and White Lions are rock hard troops and can stand up to a lot and kick teeth in.

Don Zeko
11-10-2014, 15:50
Want to buy some High elves? :P

Trust me, your white lions are still awesome.

Lord Dan
12-10-2014, 07:44
Aw, man, and here I thought we were about to wade into another round of the infamous ASF vs. ASF+ASL debate... :p

Hulkster
13-10-2014, 11:58
People seem to try and make it explain all sorts of things that it doesn't address. This seems to be the way of things.

One of the things it adresses is that ASF+ASF+ASL does not equal ASF as ASF+ASF= ASF not ASF x2

They cancel out. That is all. I cannot understand your interpretation.

Lord Dan
13-10-2014, 12:07
ASF+ASF+ASL does not equal ASF as ASF+ASF= ASF not ASF x2
Could you rephrase that? Because I just read it ten times and I'm still lost.

the_picto
13-10-2014, 12:09
So, if a model with ASF attacks a model with ASF+ASL does the first model get rerolls to hit?

furrie
13-10-2014, 12:20
So, if a model with ASF attacks a model with ASF+ASL does the first model get rerolls to hit?

Yes, because even though the second model still has the ASF special rule, all the effect of ASF are cancelled by the ASL

furrie
13-10-2014, 12:20
So, if a model with ASF attacks a model with ASF+ASL does the first model get rerolls to hit?

Yes, because even though the second model still has the ASF special rule, all the effect of ASF are cancelled by the ASL

Lord Dan
13-10-2014, 12:23
Yes.

Believe me, though. I know why you're asking. ;)

SteveW
13-10-2014, 16:47
So, if a model with ASF attacks a model with ASF+ASL does the first model get rerolls to hit?
If it has an equal or higher initiative it does.

Hulkster
13-10-2014, 21:55
Could you rephrase that? Because I just read it ten times and I'm still lost.

Sorry I wrote it in a rush

ASF+ASF+ASL does not mean the model ends up with ASF

ASF+ASF is still ASF not ASF X2

Therefore ASF +ASF+ ASL must cancel out as normal and not equal ASF

SteveW
13-10-2014, 22:11
Sorry I wrote it in a rush

ASF+ASF+ASL does not mean the model ends up with ASF

ASF+ASF is still ASF not ASF X2

Therefore ASF +ASF+ ASL must cancel out as normal and not equal ASF

Now if only someone could justify that with the rules.

The rules say that all special rules are cumulative, the errata says they confer no additional benefit. So ASF + ASF is still ASF because you get no additional benefit from having ASF twice.

Now, if you have ASF and ASL you ignore both rules because their cumulative effect is to erase each others effects and the model goes at initiative order.

Now if you add ASF or ASL you get the benefit from such a rule because all special rules are cumulative and it doesn't oppose the errata to the rule because there was no current benefit from an identical special rule so you don't gain an additional benefit.

Hulkster
13-10-2014, 22:13
Now if only someone could justify that with the rules.

The rules say that all special rules are cumulative, the errata says they confer no additional benefit. So ASF + ASF is still ASF because you get no additional benefit from having ASF twice.

Now, if you have ASF and ASL you ignore both rules because their cumulative effect is to erase each others effects and the model goes at initiative order.

Now if you add ASF or ASL you get the benefit from such a rule because all special rules are cumulative and it doesn't oppose the errata to the rule because there was no current benefit from an identical special rule so you don't gain an additional benefit.

why do you think it works that way?

I cannot understand why

SteveW
13-10-2014, 22:20
why do you think it works that way?

I cannot understand why

A basic understanding of what words like "cumulative", "ignore", and "additional" mean.

Hulkster
13-10-2014, 22:39
A basic understanding of what words like "cumulative", "ignore", and "additional" mean.

you have a model it has 3 rules

ASF, ASL ans ASF again

ASF ans ASF is still ASF. IT is not ASF x 2

Therefore ASF is cancelled by ASL

so ASF and ASF is countered by ASL

Lord Dan
13-10-2014, 22:45
Though, Hulkster, under that interpretation the old "ASF vs. ASF and ASL" debate gets blown open again. The only way we can conclude that a model with ASF gets re-rolls against a model with ASF and ASL is if we believe that the phrase "cancel" within the latter's interaction suspends both the effect and the rule itself. If we argue that a model with ASF and ASL still technically has ASF in its unaltered form (thus preventing a reapplication from some other source), then it would mean that other models with ASF would not get re-rolls against them because, despite having ASL, they have ASF on their profile.

To most logical conclusion, therefore, is what SteveW has proposed.

decker_cky
13-10-2014, 22:45
That part of the rules is as follows:

"Unless otherwise noted, the effects of different special rules are cumulative. However, unless otherwise stated, a model gains no additional benefit from having the same special rule multiple times."

If you have ASF twice, is that different special rules? Nope. Is that the same special rule multiple times? Yes. What does that sentence say? The model gains no additional benefit from having it.

Hulkster
13-10-2014, 22:49
Though, Hulkster, under that interpretation the old "ASF vs. ASF and ASL" debate gets blown open again. The only way we can conclude that a model with ASF gets re-rolls against a model with ASF and ASL is if we believe that the phrase "cancel" within the latter's interaction suspends both the effect and the rule itself. If we argue that a model with ASF and ASL still technically has ASF in its unaltered form (thus preventing a reapplication from some other source), then it would mean that other models with ASF would not get re-rolls against them because, despite having ASL, they have ASF on their profile.

To most logical conclusion, therefore, is what SteveW has proposed.

Here is the thing RAW, that is what I believe, I don't like it but that is what I see

Though thinking about it again. Why?

The rules are the same and are then cancelled out by ASL. The fact there is 2 ASF does not matter as any number of ASF is cancelled out by a single ASL or vice versa.


That part of the rules is as follows:

"Unless otherwise noted, the effects of different special rules are cumulative. However, unless otherwise stated, a model gains no additional benefit from having the same special rule multiple times."

If you have ASF twice, is that different special rules? Nope. Is that the same special rule multiple times? Yes. What does that sentence say? The model gains no additional benefit from having it.

Exactly Decker

Lord Dan
13-10-2014, 22:51
No, I'm saying under your and Decker's interpretation you have have to likewise conclude that a model with ASF could not re-roll to hit against a model with both ASF and ASL on his profile.

decker_cky
13-10-2014, 22:52
No you don't, since that model can ignore the rule.

Hulkster
13-10-2014, 22:52
No, I'm saying under your and Decker's interpretation you have have to likewise conclude that a model with ASF could not re-roll to hit against a model with both ASF and ASL on his profile.

and I'm saying, in my edited post, that this is not the case

Lord Dan
13-10-2014, 22:56
The fact there is 2 ASF does not matter as any number of ASF is cancelled out by a single ASL or vice versa.

What would give you that impression?

Hulkster
13-10-2014, 22:58
What would give you that impression?

because of the errata

We only have a rule that says they do not stack. therefore multiple are ignored.

Nothing is written that says that a single asf is cancelled by a single asl so another asf grants asf again

decker_cky
13-10-2014, 23:04
No, I'm saying under your and Decker's interpretation you have have to likewise conclude that a model with ASF could not re-roll to hit against a model with both ASF and ASL on his profile.

BTW....even accepting this as the interpretation (which I don't)...so what? Better a slightly quirky rules situation than needing to ignore a rule to get your interpretation.

Lord Dan
13-10-2014, 23:12
Nothing is written that says that a single asf is cancelled by a single asl so another asf grants asf again
Sure, but it also doesn't specify that ASL cancels multiple instances of ASF. Given that we operate in a permissive ruleset, the ambiguity forces us to make a decision: either it cancels both or it cancels one. I'm trying to understand why you would choose the former.


BTW....even accepting this as the interpretation (which I don't)...so what? Better a slightly quirky rules situation than needing to ignore a rule to get your interpretation.
Which rule is being ignored, exactly? Because as I mentioned, the "multiple instances" errata wouldn't apply under this interpretation.

decker_cky
13-10-2014, 23:28
Well...it doesn't say cancel, it says ignore, which does make a difference since the rule is still there.

SteveW
14-10-2014, 00:02
because of the errata

We only have a rule that says they do not stack. therefore multiple are ignored.

Nothing is written that says that a single asf is cancelled by a single asl so another asf grants asf again

That is not in any errata.

SteveW
14-10-2014, 00:04
No you don't, since that model can ignore the rule.
So you ignore it in both instances and not just the one that serves your argument. You don't get it both ways.

hardyworld
14-10-2014, 00:19
The problem that currently exists is that the application of the current rules are not transitive; meaning contrary results occur when applying the RAW in a different order. Without direction to the order to which the rules are applied, both conditions simultaneously exist within the RAW.

Multiples of ASF or ASL and its interaction with its counterpart:
.....Applying the Errata rule first for application of model's rules: (ASF+ASF)+ASL = ASF+ASL = Initiative Order
.....Applying the ASF/ASL Interation Rule first for application of model's rules: ASF+(ASF+ASL) = ASF+(Initiative Order) = ASF

.....I believe that the Errata rule should apply first as that makes the most sense within the rule set (given that the ASF/ASL rules are still present but not in effect should govern whether additional applications of ASF or ASL may apply), but you could argue the contrary given the lack of direction.


ASF re-rolls against a target with both ASF and ASL (I'm assuming profile Initiative values are equal in the example):
.....Applying the ASF rule first for application of model's rules: (ASF+target has ASF)+target has ASL = (Attacker cannot re-roll to-Hit)+ target has ASL<---this is irrelevant to attacker
.....Applying the target's initiative step first for application of model's rules: ASF+(target has ASF+target has ASL) = ASF+(target's at Initiative Order) = Attacker can re-roll to-Hit

.....I believe that the target's initiative step should apply first as that makes the most sense within the rule set (given that the target's initiative step determines whether ASF grants to-Hit re-rolls for the attacker), but you could argue the contrary given the lack of direction.

The order to which you apply the rules matters.

I'm not saying anything that hasn't already been said here, but the non-transitive properties of the rules are just going around in circles (and will continue that way). You are not going to reach a consensus because BOTH applications are RAW.

Hulkster
14-10-2014, 05:21
So you ignore it in both instances and not just the one that serves your argument. You don't get it both ways.

What we are saying is

ASF + ASF is still just ASF regardless of how many instances of ASF you have

so you could have 18 instances of ASF on a model, it only counts as one instance as all others are ignored

ASL cancels out ASF meaning initiative order

This also means another model with just ASF gets re-rolls if it has equal or greater initiative

That is what the rules say to me

Lord Dan
14-10-2014, 07:22
Right, but if a model has ASF and ASL he never has "ASF and ASF", because the interaction between ASF and ASL fundamentally changes both rules. Remember, it's not like the model comes into the game with two instances of ASF - the second one is only cast sometime later in the game, after the initial ASF and ASL have canceled each other out. Given this, I don't see how it could be argued that ASL could have any effect on the second instance of ASF.

Hulkster
14-10-2014, 08:46
Right, but if a model has ASF and ASL he never has "ASF and ASF", because the interaction between ASF and ASL fundamentally changes both rules. Remember, it's not like the model comes into the game with two instances of ASF - the second one is only cast sometime later in the game, after the initial ASF and ASL have canceled each other out. Given this, I don't see how it could be argued that ASL could have any effect on the second instance of ASF.

Ok I see where you are coming from here. Raw I would I agree if it came from a spell later.

From equipment though, no way

Josfer
14-10-2014, 08:55
I agree with Hulkster. The errata says:
“However, unless otherwise stated, a model gains no additional benefit from having the same special rule multiple times.”
Having ASF twice would have a benefit if you had ASL once in your interpretation, it can't have that benefit, so both instances of ASF have to be canceled.

[Edit] And nothing says the model loses ASF/ASL if it has both, they only cancel out aka have no effect.

SteveW
14-10-2014, 09:26
Josfer, it actually says to ignore them as in pretend they are not there. SO a model that has neither gets a fresh ASF/ASL.

Josfer
14-10-2014, 09:45
The rule says nothing about ignoring, it says cancel.

Lord Dan
14-10-2014, 11:24
And nothing says the model loses ASF/ASL if it has both, they only cancel out aka have no effect.
I understand this interpretation, I've just been arguing that adhering to it would require that you also believe models with ASF would not get rerolls against models with ASF and ASL.

This is because if, as you say, "they have no effect" but still are recognized on the model's profile for determining interaction with other special rules (such as multiple instances of ASF), then the "ASF vs. ASF" rule would still be triggered for a unit with ASF attacking a unit with both ASF and ASL. I'm not advocating this interpretation, merely pointing a potential byproduct of your argument.

Josfer
14-10-2014, 11:42
I would argue that the errata I quoted refers to the same "special rule", which is given by the name like magic resistance (1) doesn't stack with magic resistance (2), while ASF refers to the "same ability", which is given by the rules effect, as a model with "ultra quick: Models with this special rule (or who are attacking with a weapon that grants this special rule) always strike first in close combat regardless of Initiative.
In addition, if the model's Initiative is equal to or higher than his enemy's, he can re-roll failed misses when striking in close combat — he moves so fast that he can land his blows with incredible precision. 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." would still cancel out rerolls, while "Always Strike First: nothing here, because canceled out" doesn't.

Lord Dan
14-10-2014, 12:02
I would argue that the errata I quoted refers to the same "special rule", which is given by the name like magic resistance (1) doesn't stack with magic resistance (2), while ASF refers to the "same ability"
Remember, though, there's nothing preventing you from having the same ability twice - the errata simply states that you ignore the effects of those beyond the first. My argument has been that the ASF vs. ASL interaction effectively "cancels" the existence of the first, thereby allowing models with ASF to have rerolls against those with ASF and ASL, and for successive castings of ASF to count as single instances.


In addition, if the model's Initiative is equal to or higher than his enemy's, he can re-roll failed misses when striking in close combat — he moves so fast that he can land his blows with incredible precision. 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." would still cancel out rerolls, while "Always Strike First: nothing here, because canceled out" doesn't.
I apologize for being daft, but what did you mean by this?

Josfer
14-10-2014, 13:31
I apologize for being daft, but what did you mean by this?
Sorry for writing with such a big quote in the middle of a sentence. To make this understandeable:
ASF says

Always Strikes First:
Models with this special rule (or who are attacking with a weapon that grants this special rule) always strike first in close combat regardless of Initiative.
In addition, if the model's Initiative is equal to or higher than his enemy's, he can re-roll failed misses when striking in close combat — he moves so fast that he can land his blows with incredible precision. 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.
Let's say there is another special rule called ultra quick that does exactly the same:

Ultra Quick:
Models with this special rule (or who are attacking with a weapon that grants this special rule) always strike first in close combat regardless of Initiative.
In addition, if the model's Initiative is equal to or higher than his enemy's, he can re-roll failed misses when striking in close combat — he moves so fast that he can land his blows with incredible precision. 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.
If a model with ASF fights a model with UQ, both would lose the rerolls, because they are "fighting an enemy with the same ability".
And once you have ASF and ASL together the ASF actually gets changed to

Always strike first:
Does nothing but wait for the model to lose ASL in which case it's replaced by the standard ASF rule


My argument has been that the ASF vs. ASL interaction effectively "cancels" the existence of the first, thereby allowing models with ASF to have rerolls against those with ASF and ASL, and for successive castings of ASF to count as single instances.
So once they cancel out, they are removed from the army sheet? And if you give someone ASL magically he completely loses ASF even after the spell stops working? Because otherwise he still HAS ASF, it just doesn't do anything but waiting for the ASL to be removed. And what about a model having ASF using a weapon having ASL? Does it not have ASF while not attacking with that weapon? What about a chaos lord with flaming breath, helm of many eyes and GW? Does he lose ASF completely or can he first use his breath weapon before initiative 10 and then during his initiative attack with his GW?

Lord Dan
14-10-2014, 13:40
So once they cancel out, they are removed from the army sheet? And if you give someone ASL magically he completely loses ASF even after the spell stops working? Because otherwise he still HAS ASF, it just doesn't do anything but waiting for the ASL to be removed. And what about a model having ASF using a weapon having ASL? Does it not have ASF while not attacking with that weapon? What about a chaos lord with flaming breath, helm of many eyes and GW? Does he lose ASF completely or can he first use his breath weapon before initiative 10 and then during his initiative attack with his GW?
These are great questions, and happen to be the exact same ones brought up in the old "ASF vs. ASF and ASL" thread that almost broke Warseer. The agreed upon conclusion was something to the effect of "They exist in a MTG 'exiled' sense, in that they are there, but aren't, and interact with each other but have no other in-game effect." This is the only way we could get around the nonsensical idea that a model with ASF and ASL would prevent a model with ASF from getting re-rolls to hit it, given the fact that the "ASF vs. ASF" rules don't care what "form" of ASF a model has, but instead only cares that it exists on its profile.

SteveW
14-10-2014, 13:46
The rule says nothing about ignoring, it says cancel.
You're right, it says cancel. Cancel of course means they negate the existence of eachother. So the point is even stronger no, thanks.

Josfer
14-10-2014, 13:51
I really don't like a "is there but isn't there" approach. Distinguishing between "same special rule" (refering to the name) and "same ability" (refering to the effect) and ASF under canceled out effect thus being not the "same ability" as ASF normally is way more sound in my opinion. And it doesn't even solve the problem of ASF+ASF+ASL as you can interpret "interact with each other but have no other in-game effect" regarding ASF+ASL or 2*ASF+ASL...

Josfer
14-10-2014, 14:03
You're right, it says cancel. Cancel of course means they negate the existence of eachother. So the point is even stronger no, thanks.

The wording in the rules is:

If a model has both this rule and Always Strikes First, the two cancel out and neither applies so use the model's Initiative.
Let me quote you some definitions from cancel out:


Verb 1. cancel out - wipe out the effect of something;
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/cancel+out

cancel out
- definition
to stop something from having any effect
http://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/british/cancel-out

cancel sth out
verb uk — phrasal verb with cancel /ˈkæn.səl/ (-ll- or US usually -l-) us
› to remove the effect of one thing by doing another thing that has the opposite effect: This month's pay cheque will cancel out his debt, but it won't give him any extra money.
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/cancel-sth-out

cancel out
phrasal verb
If one thing cancels out another thing, the two things have opposite effects, so that when they are combined no real effect is produced.
http://dictionary.reverso.net/english-cobuild/cancel%20out

Every definition only speaks about the effect of the two things that is zero, not that they are somehow completely removed. And if you look at real world examples, if you loan 1000$ from a mobster to balance 1000$ debt at your bank, they might cancel out, but that doesn't mean you suddenly don't own the mobster the money, because both things somehow vanish from existence.

SteveW
14-10-2014, 15:42
Cancel: to bring to nothingness or destroy

Is more what I was going for. So both rules are brought to nothingness or destroyed and you get a fresh new shiny rule in it's place.

Josfer
14-10-2014, 16:47
That`s as out of context as saying “eating someones dust“ means literally putting stuff in your mouth and swallowing it...

The rule text clearly speaks of “cancel out“ which is a figure of speech..

SteveW
14-10-2014, 16:51
I race bikes in the dessert, eating dust means just that. The rest of you use the term for things its not supposed to be used for.

Tae
14-10-2014, 16:52
The wording in the rules is:

Let me quote you some definitions from cancel out:

Every definition only speaks about the effect of the two things that is zero, not that they are somehow completely removed. And if you look at real world examples, if you loan 1000$ from a mobster to balance 1000$ debt at your bank, they might cancel out, but that doesn't mean you suddenly don't own the mobster the money, because both things somehow vanish from existence.

Really? Do you want to re-read your definitions - particularly the second one.


verb UK -etc.
>to remove the effect of one thing by doing another

So it seems even your own definitions agree that by cancelling they do, in fact, remove the effects as well.

Josfer
14-10-2014, 16:58
The effect is removed, the two things aren`t. That`s what I said. “The effect“ is singular and can`t be the point of reference “they“ in the bold part refers to...

Tae
14-10-2014, 17:03
The effect is removed, the two things aren`t. That`s what I said. “The effect“ is singular and can`t be the point of reference “they“ in the bold part refers to...

No re-rolls for ASF v ASF is an effect.

Effects are removed.

Therefore ASF vs ASF+ASL = Re-rolls

Lord Dan
14-10-2014, 17:10
No re-rolls for ASF v ASF is an effect.

Effects are removed.

Therefore ASF vs ASF+ASL = Re-rolls
...

What? :wtf:

Don Zeko
14-10-2014, 17:47
No re-rolls for ASF v ASF is an effect.

Effects are removed.

Therefore ASF vs ASF+ASL = Re-rolls

Particularly this deep into a running rules thread, you can't just assert that this is how the rules work. You have to provide some evidence to support that preposition, and what you've written isn't even responsive to the question. Here's the dilemma, as a reminder:

The rules on ASF + ASL say that, when both are present, they "cancel" and the model strikes at initiative order. The question is whether this means that the model can be treated as one that has neither at all, meaning that it can get ASF or ASL from spells and abilities, and that ASF grants re-rolls against it, or does this mean that, while the rules do not effect the model's attacks, because they cancel out, it is still a model with both rules, in which case it cannot gain ASF or ASL from spells or abilities and troops with ASF attacking it strike simultaneously and without rerolls.

Lord Dan
14-10-2014, 19:26
The rules on ASF + ASL say that, when both are present, they "cancel" and the model strikes at initiative order. The question is whether this means that the model can be treated as one that has neither at all, meaning that it can get ASF or ASL from spells and abilities, and that ASF grants re-rolls against it, or does this mean that, while the rules do not effect the model's attacks, because they cancel out, it is still a model with both rules, in which case it cannot gain ASF or ASL from spells or abilities and troops with ASF attacking it strike simultaneously and without rerolls.
Wow, that was incredibly eloquent. Thanks, Don Zeko.

Don Zeko
14-10-2014, 19:30
Wow, that was incredibly eloquent. Thanks, Don Zeko.

Why thank you.

Lord Dan
14-10-2014, 19:33
Where do you stand on this, by the way?

Tae
14-10-2014, 20:18
Particularly this deep into a running rules thread, you can't just assert that this is how the rules work. You have to provide some evidence to support that preposition, and what you've written isn't even responsive to the question. Here's the dilemma, as a reminder:

The rules on ASF + ASL say that, when both are present, they "cancel" and the model strikes at initiative order. The question is whether this means that the model can be treated as one that has neither at all, meaning that it can get ASF or ASL from spells and abilities, and that ASF grants re-rolls against it, or does this mean that, while the rules do not effect the model's attacks, because they cancel out, it is still a model with both rules, in which case it cannot gain ASF or ASL from spells or abilities and troops with ASF attacking it strike simultaneously and without rerolls.

I am well aware of both sides of the debate and the distinct lack of clarity of guidance provided by the authors (in this case GW) themselves.

However my replies above were not designed to set out my personal viewpoint on this argument. They were merely designed to be a parody of the poster I was quoting who, upon first reading, appeared to be being wilfully ignorant. However in retrospect I can see how they could believe what they do with sincerity and do not believe them to be metaphorically putting their fingers in their ears.

At which point I apologise to all concerned.

Don Zeko
14-10-2014, 20:25
Where do you stand on this, by the way?

Well I think it's pretty clearly a case of the rules writers having something in mind that they failed to achieve. I don't think anybody would intend either of the alternatives I put forward to be the rules. If I were writing an FAQ/Errata or re-writing the rules myself, I'd say that ASF + ASL means ASF troops hit you like a unit with neither rule, but you can't get ASF or ASL from spells or abilities, and when possible I would like to discuss this in advance and play that way if possible. But if I have to pick one of the interpretations that works with the rules that are actually written, my preference would be that you treat the model as having neither ASF nor ASL, so ASF troops get re-rolls against them but they can gain either rule from spells and abilities.

Josfer
14-10-2014, 21:32
Just a reminder for everyone that in most cases ASL comes from using a weapon and that weapon only, so a white lion has ASF normally, then could get another ASF for example through magic and once he uses his great weapon two ASFs stand against one ASL.
Same goes as said with the chaos lord with breath weapon, helm of many eyes and GW.

Having thought about this again I have to say it would be logical to not give ASF attackers rerolls to hit if the defender has ASF and wields a weapon with ASL. During the moment the enemy attacks, he still can move his body out of the way in the same speed as always, only the swing comes slower.

Lord Dan
14-10-2014, 21:43
Having thought about this again I have to say it would be logical to not give ASF attackers rerolls to hit if the defender has ASF and wields a weapon with ASL. During the moment the enemy attacks, he still can move his body out of the way in the same speed as always, only the swing comes slower.

Oh no...

201576

I should point out, though, the the ASF vs. ASF rules would also dictate that the models strike at the same time. So under your interpretation, Cold One Knights would not get their re-rolls and would strike simultaneously with White Lions...

SteveW
14-10-2014, 21:52
But if I have to pick one of the interpretations that works with the rules that are actually written, my preference would be that you treat the model as having neither ASF nor ASL, so ASF troops get re-rolls against them but they can gain either rule from spells and abilities.


Looks like you have a decent grasp of the rules.

Josfer
15-10-2014, 04:03
Oh no...

201576

I should point out, though, the the ASF vs. ASF rules would also dictate that the models strike at the same time. So under your interpretation, Cold One Knights would not get their re-rolls and would strike simultaneously with White Lions...

At the COKs initiative, yes.

It`s stupid, but RAW. Like a unit not being able to charge after a character has charged out of it.

Josfer
15-10-2014, 04:14
Stop, does not apply to WLs. They have ASL only on the weapon, so clearly they “strike“ at “I0“ with anything else, the same time the COKs strike, and afterwards strike with the GWs at their normal initiative.

SteveW
15-10-2014, 04:49
At the COKs initiative, yes.

It`s stupid, but RAW. Like a unit not being able to charge after a character has charged out of it.
No. That is not how they would strike. To think that is not only impossible but shows a complete lack of understanding basic english.

This is the order a combat would go between Cold one Knights and White lions

ASF: Cold one Knights (with re-rolls)
I10:-
I9:-
I8:-
I7:-
I6:-
I5: White lions
I4:-
I3:-
I2: Cold Ones
I1:-
ASL:-


That is not the same time

Josfer
15-10-2014, 06:21
“shows a lack of underszanding basic english“

Says the guy unable to google or understand “cancel out“...

And can you back your fight with rules or is it just your imagination of “this is how it should be intended“?

And what about the chaos lord on demonic mount wit flaming breath, helm of many eyes and GW against cold one riders? When does what happen in your opinion?

Hulkster
15-10-2014, 07:33
Looks like you have a decent grasp of the rules.

Huh? He is talking about an interpretation it has nothing to do with grasping of the rules.

At the end of the day I see it like this when it comes to outside sources during the game. But no initial equipment setup

But trying to make out that this is the clear and only version is daft. Either way could be used and can be used.

SteveW
15-10-2014, 08:54
“shows a lack of underszanding basic english“

Says the guy unable to google or understand “cancel out“... Both your googling and mine supported my side of the argument.


And can you back your fight with rules or is it just your imagination of “this is how it should be intended“? I did, I have several times, and even in the post you quoted I made you a diagram.


And what about the chaos lord on demonic mount wit flaming breath, helm of many eyes and GW against cold one riders? When does what happen in your opinion? Is this supposed to be confusing?

ASF: Breath weapon and cold one knights
9:-
8 or 7: Chaos lord
6-5:-
4: Mount
3:-
2: Cold ones.

SteveW
15-10-2014, 08:56
But trying to make out that this is the clear and only version is daft. Either way could be used and can be used.

No, one sides interpretation causes people to function in extra initiative steps where they don't belong.

Josfer
15-10-2014, 11:35
So the COKs get no rerolls against the CL, but against the WLs because...?

Hulkster
15-10-2014, 11:39
No, one sides interpretation causes people to function in extra initiative steps where they don't belong.

No ones persons in a particular case. Not in general

Even in general there are at least 2 different ways to view which both have valid points. We are choosing one, but it doesn't mean it is 100% correct. It is still an interpretation.

You are starting to make this personal with your comments and I do not like it.

SteveW
15-10-2014, 13:19
So the COKs get no rerolls against the CL, but against the WLs because...?


Initiative.

SteveW
15-10-2014, 13:22
You are starting to make this personal with your comments and I do not like it.


It is personal, unless you're not a person that is.

Lord Dan
15-10-2014, 13:26
It is personal, unless you're not a person that is.

:shifty::shifty:

zimmo
15-10-2014, 18:13
This is silly if you could apply mutiple asf's or if the rules removed themselves they would have provided an example of this.

Lord Dan
15-10-2014, 18:57
This is silly if you could apply mutiple asf's or if the rules removed themselves they would have provided an example of this.
It's just a discussion. Because these rules are rather poorly written, either way you play it there's going to be interpretation. It's just interesting to see how people come to their own conclusions by working through the nuances.

Hulkster
15-10-2014, 19:23
It is personal, unless you're not a person that is.

Are you mocking me?

SteveW
15-10-2014, 22:51
Are you mocking me?
You can take offence to whatever you want too. My point is that when two people converse it's either personal or professional, and this is not the latter.

Lord Dan
15-10-2014, 22:55
My point is that when two people converse it's either personal or professional, and this is not the latter.

Come on, man. You know he's not referring to this:

"1. Of, pertaining to, or coming as from a particular person; individual; private"

But this:

"4. Referring or directed to a particular person in a disparaging or offensive sense or manner, usually involving character, behavior, appearance, etc."

SteveW
15-10-2014, 23:11
Come on, man. You know he's not referring to this:

"1. Of, pertaining to, or coming as from a particular person; individual; private"

But this:

"4. Referring or directed to a particular person in a disparaging or offensive sense or manner, usually involving character, behavior, appearance, etc."

Seeing as how only one of those fits what we were doing it's a stretch to think 4 was even on the table. I really don't get how people are so sensitive on here. How about we keep to discussing rules and or warhammer on here and leave the feigned offense for some other venue.

Don Zeko
16-10-2014, 02:08
Seeing as how only one of those fits what we were doing it's a stretch to think 4 was even on the table. I really don't get how people are so sensitive on here. How about we keep to discussing rules and or warhammer on here and leave the feigned offense for some other venue.

Most humans prefer to discuss things like this without the implication that they can only hold their position as a result of idiocy or bad faith, which is pretty much how I read your earlier comment.

SteveW
16-10-2014, 02:18
Most humans prefer to discuss things like this without the implication that they can only hold their position as a result of idiocy or bad faith, which is pretty much how I read your earlier comment.


Because that's what you would have meant if you wrote it. Just sayin guys, but this reflects poorly on your state of mind when you see everything as an insult.

Either way, I'm done. Too much having to walk on eggshells around you lot.

Hulkster
16-10-2014, 07:05
Because that's what you would have meant if you wrote it. Just sayin guys, but this reflects poorly on your state of mind when you see everything as an insult.

Either way, I'm done. Too much having to walk on eggshells around you lot.

No you are just obnoxious. So long please do not return

Josfer
16-10-2014, 11:14
Initiative.
And if the CL got -3 initiative from Melkoth's Mystifying Miasma? Rerolls yes or no? And why?