Seahawk Posted July 11, 2012 Share Posted July 11, 2012 Infiltrate says a "unit that deploys using these rules cannot charge in the first turn." Page 9 defines a turn and says "Whenever a rule refers to 'a turn' it always means 'player turn' unless it specifically refers to a 'game turn'. We then read the infiltrate rules to say - a unit that deploys using these rules cannot charge in the first 'player turn.' So, Infiltrators cannot charge in the top of turn 1 , but they can charge in the bottom of turn 1. It works just like that in WHFB with Scouts and Vanguard. They use pretty much the same wording too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greatcrusade08 Posted July 11, 2012 Share Posted July 11, 2012 its a nice thought, but i still think it means first player turn for the owning player i fully expect it to be FAQd but in the mean time its not an argument i could make without feeling dirty if im honest edit: actually tbh i dont think it really matters, no-one in thier right mind is going to infiltrate a unit of scouts in the hope the enemy will move closer to them.. they are going to shoot them to pieces first i suppose it gives shrike and hammenators something to hope for Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seahawk Posted July 11, 2012 Author Share Posted July 11, 2012 Good thing it doesn't mean owning player :D. Remember, this place is for RAW, not RAI :D. "A unit that deploys using these rules cannot charge in the first turn" and ""Whenever a rule refers to 'a turn' it always means 'player turn' " works perfectly fine with no contradiction or conflict. This is how it works in WHFB too...it's the advantage of going second, rather than first. Use it and be happy! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thade Posted July 11, 2012 Share Posted July 11, 2012 Good thing it doesn't mean owning player :D. Remember, this place is for RAW, not RAI :D. Nah, without RAI a whole bunch of these rules wouldn't make any sense at all. I'm with GC08. Just because there's a small gap in the rules, doesn't mean we should try to take advantage of it. That said, it does work that way in Fantasy...which is not a shooting game, really. An odd additional benefit to going second. Perhaps it's not a gap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greatcrusade08 Posted July 11, 2012 Share Posted July 11, 2012 if we assume its correct by RAW.. what advantage does it actually give you? so we deploy 18" from our enemy and hope he moves towards us in his turn.. its not really a viable plan IMO.. that being said as mentioned previously, i suppose shrike and hammernators can go for it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Willy Posted July 11, 2012 Share Posted July 11, 2012 the problem is are you gonna ever get off a charge like that, PA infiltrators are shiet, other then Shrike Hammernators but then your being a bit of a douche. Besides even the most rule crazy lawyers I know wouldn't do that it takes to much twisting of rules to get an advantage that most people won't know about. RAW is all good but remember sportsmenship or you'll be playing by yourself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seahawk Posted July 11, 2012 Author Share Posted July 11, 2012 Good thing it doesn't mean owning player ;). Remember, this place is for RAW, not RAI ;). Nah, without RAI a whole bunch of these rules wouldn't make any sense at all. I'm with GC08. Just because there's a small gap in the rules, doesn't mean we should try to take advantage of it. That said, it does work that way in Fantasy...which is not a shooting game, really. An odd additional benefit to going second. Perhaps it's not a gap. And the +OR+ only delves into the RAW unless it is absolutely contradictory in every sense, at which point RAI becomes useful, but still doesn't give us what we need. Is it a gap or is it intentional? How do you know? I prefer simply going with what the rules tell me I'm allowed to do instead of putting words in the mouths of the devs. In this case, it's telling me that I can make a first turn assault if I infiltrate, and it's incredibly clear cut with no other rules to conflict with. It doesn't have to be boring ol' hammernators. Assault marines could do it from the 18" mark rather nicely too. Besides even the most rule crazy lawyers I know wouldn't do that it takes to much twisting of rules to get an advantage that most people won't know about.Really, you went there? How many debates about the definition of a "turn" did we go through last edition with transports and crashing and whatnot without resorting to immediately calling the rules lawyers? Anybody with half a brain that reads the entirety of the 6th edition book (see my sig) will be able to put two and two together like this. There is no word twisting whatsoever. GW even provided the definitions right in the rulebook so that there is no more debate about it. Does it have to give an advantage? Not necessarily, but it keeps options open. Who cares if the units that can do it are scrubs...wouldn't that just let the opposing player relax about it then, rather than get all uppity because they didn't read the rules? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thade Posted July 11, 2012 Share Posted July 11, 2012 In this case, it's telling me that I can make a first turn assault if I infiltrate, and it's incredibly clear cut with no other rules to conflict with. This I actually agree with; it's the rest of your approach - both to my comments and the idea behind them - that I'm a bit at odds with. Since the RAW is boilerplate, there's not much to contend with. That's kind of nice. And the +OR+ only delves into the RAW unless it is absolutely contradictory in every sense, at which point RAI becomes useful, but still doesn't give us what we need. There's a deep philosophical question here about what we actually need to play this game, but it's well outside of the scope of RAW. (That should tell us something.) Is it a gap or is it intentional? How do you know? I don't know, but stepping into the shoes of the designers and trying to consider the "why" of decisions they made can help with understanding. This is true in all sorts of things. For instance, I work in software, and when working with tools or code developed by others, considering "what they were thinking" can shed some light on behaviors and events I see but do not expect. I see this rule-set much the same way. That's not to say that RAI should ever overrule RAW without reason...and really, the only reason that I consider valid is where RAW is demonstrably unclear. I prefer simply going with what the rules tell me I'm allowed to do instead of putting words in the mouths of the devs. I'm not putting "words in the mouths of the devs", and pure pejoratives like that do both of us a disservice. That I can't read their minds or otherwise predict absolutely what they were thinking shouldn't preclude trying. We do it on here all the time and we've been doing it on here since I signed on several years ago now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seahawk Posted July 11, 2012 Author Share Posted July 11, 2012 Fair enough. I just see the RAI approach as a nice afterthought, but one that isn't an actual rule, much like fluff. And, if it isn't a part of the rules, well...;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarkGuard Posted July 11, 2012 Share Posted July 11, 2012 RAW you can charge on your first turn after infiltrating if you went second. I wouldn't be too surprised if it's supposed to be like that as well, the point being to allow people to react to infiltrators etc before they can pull off a charge, stopping first turn charges you can't do anything about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greatcrusade08 Posted July 12, 2012 Share Posted July 12, 2012 RAW you can charge on your first turn after infiltrating if you went second. I wouldn't be too surprised if it's supposed to be like that as well, the point being to allow people to react to infiltrators etc before they can pull off a charge, stopping first turn charges you can't do anything about. there is logic to that argument, i still think it defeats the purpose, anything other than hammernators attached to shrike doesnt stand a chance of pulling that off and even then its not gauranteed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gentlemanloser Posted July 12, 2012 Share Posted July 12, 2012 It's so much easier to get a first turn charge with Scout and a dedicated Transport. ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarkGuard Posted July 12, 2012 Share Posted July 12, 2012 It's so much easier to get a first turn charge with Scout and a dedicated Transport. :) Pretty sure you can't charge if you Scout move. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greatcrusade08 Posted July 12, 2012 Share Posted July 12, 2012 scout, infiltrate or outflank. all first turn assaults are outlawed i wonder if one of my victims went crying to matt ward :P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gentlemanloser Posted July 12, 2012 Share Posted July 12, 2012 /grumble Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seahawk Posted July 12, 2012 Author Share Posted July 12, 2012 hammernators attached to shrike doesnt stand a chance of pulling that off and even then its not gauranteedErm...hammernators stand a poor chance unless it's at the 12" mark. Assault marines would have it the easiest! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greatcrusade08 Posted July 12, 2012 Share Posted July 12, 2012 hammernators attached to shrike doesnt stand a chance of pulling that off and even then its not gauranteedErm...hammernators stand a poor chance unless it's at the 12" mark. Assault marines would have it the easiest! sorry what i meant is that your relying on the enemy moving to you and surviving a rounds shooting, even assault marines need a 7 on the charge roll, its even chances, i suppose the re-roll from fleet makes it easier.. but nothing is gauranteed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seahawk Posted July 12, 2012 Author Share Posted July 12, 2012 So with so little chance of success, why feel dirty about playing as the rules tell you to? Seems backwards ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brother Casman Posted July 12, 2012 Share Posted July 12, 2012 Cool, an advantage for second player infiltrators - just like Fantasy! Edit: which I see you also mentioned in the original post, Seahawk :( Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.