Dawnstrider Posted January 20, 2016 Share Posted January 20, 2016 So, here is the question: Slaughtersprint (from the Killclade) says: "Once per game, on any game turn after the first, Sicarian Ruststalkers from this formation can charge in the assault phase even if they made a run move in the same turn"So, probably not RAI, but RAW do other people interpret this as being able to allow you to charge when normally you would not be allowed to do so? For example, came in from reserves or disembarked from a non-assault vehicle. If it is turn 2+, you can use this rule to disembark from a Rhino and then assault. Since the rule stopping you normally from doing that is in the BRB and this is a codex rule, I, and most everyone at my LGS think yes, just wanted to see what you guys thought and bring it to your attention as I could not find it discussed anywhere else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CommodusXIII Posted January 20, 2016 Share Posted January 20, 2016 I'd say that it's specific to Running. Otherwise, it would say "even if they made a Run move, disembarked from a transport, arrived from Reserves, deployed with Infiltration, etc." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chaeron Posted January 21, 2016 Share Posted January 21, 2016 I'd say that it's specific to Running. Otherwise, it would say "even if they made a Run move, disembarked from a transport, arrived from Reserves, deployed with Infiltration, etc." I echo this sentiment, I think it's the emphasis on the ability to run, within this rule. That said, it's excellent for covering distance - could be a great counter-charge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
march10k Posted January 21, 2016 Share Posted January 21, 2016 Mind-boggling that "even if they made a run move" is understood from a RAW perspective to mean "all other restrictions on charging are also waived." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dawnstrider Posted January 21, 2016 Author Share Posted January 21, 2016 Well I haven't even got my army put together yet. More than half is still in boxes so haven't really been part of this at my LGS yet, but there wasn't much discussion on the topic. Everyone pretty much just went along with one way. I do not think anyone brought up the other view. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
march10k Posted January 22, 2016 Share Posted January 22, 2016 That sounds more like a house rule than an interpretation of the standard GW rule. The idea that "even if you ran, you can still charge" means "even if you fell out of the sky in a drop pod this turn, you can still charge" is completely unsupportable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CommodusXIII Posted January 22, 2016 Share Posted January 22, 2016 To be fair, it's poor wording. Taking a RAW approach means interpreting the text of the rules as one would interpret law. Phrasing it as "the unit may run and charge in the same turn" would have been much more clear and concise. Technically, he's right - "being able to charge when normally you would not be allowed to do so." The rule calls out one specific instance when this is true. It doesn't say that there are any other instances, and it doesn't say that there are not. That ambiguity is why the question was asked, and there's no reason to take such a harsh stance for having done so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mmimzie Posted January 22, 2016 Share Posted January 22, 2016 I say if you rule that this lets you charge when ever. Then you'd also have to say the tau rule means they get ll the buffs because they are all a single unit, and just one example was given. I like to stay on the conservative side and I'd say it's pretty clear they maybe charge after running. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
march10k Posted January 23, 2016 Share Posted January 23, 2016 Technically, he's right - "being able to charge when normally you would not be allowed to do so." The rule calls out one specific instance when this is true. It doesn't say that there are any other instances, and it doesn't say that there are not. That ambiguity is why the question was asked, and there's no reason to take such a harsh stance for having done so. Equine excrement. It doesn't say "such as when you already ran this turn," that would hint that there are other examples. It says "even if," that not only fails to hint that GW is giving one example among many, it explicitly indicates that only the run+charge prohibition is being waived. Neither RAW nor RAI supports "once per turn game you may charge no matter what." /edit/ fixed game/turn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CommodusXIII Posted January 23, 2016 Share Posted January 23, 2016 I'm not arguing against the conclusion - it's the same one I posted at the top of the thread. I'm arguing against your notion that it's unacceptable to ask questions about a vague rule. That's one of the reasons that this forum exists. Dawnstrider (and his meta) had one interpretation. It didn't sound exactly right, so he asked for this community's opinion. What is your problem? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dawnstrider Posted January 23, 2016 Author Share Posted January 23, 2016 Thats basically it, those in my LGS see it one way but it did not quite sit right with me so I was wondering what the rest of the AdMech thought. I did not want to stir up trouble, just get opinions. Now that I have my answer, an admin can lock this thread before the flame wars spiral out of control. Thanks for the input. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mmimzie Posted January 23, 2016 Share Posted January 23, 2016 Thats basically it, those in my LGS see it one way but it did not quite sit right with me so I was wondering what the rest of the AdMech thought. I did not want to stir up trouble, just get opinions. Now that I have my answer, an admin can lock this thread before the flame wars spiral out of control. Thanks for the input. Your fine brother. Put some data in the hands of these dominus and they'll quibble about it for months. Haha !! Anywho my usual rule of thumb is take the most conservative interpretation of the rules. Given that all other ways of reading g the rule are equal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
march10k Posted January 23, 2016 Share Posted January 23, 2016 I'm arguing against your notion that it's unacceptable to ask questions about a vague rule. It's not vague, that's the point. There is neither need nor room for interpretation. your LGS is not "seeing it one way," they're implementing a house rule, and that's perfectly fine. If I show up to play at that LGS, I'll abide by that LGS's house rules without any fuss. At most, I'll fuss if the house rule isn't mentioned till mid-game and comes as a nasty game-changing surprise. It clearly says "even if they made a run move the same turn." What's vague about that? It's making one limited exception, it's not saying anything at all that can be interpreted as "once per game you may charge no matter what would normally prevent you from doing so." If they outflanked this turn, for example, they'd be prevented from charging whether they ran or not. If they ran, they'd have two rules saying they couldn't charge. The slaughtersprint rule would waive the "if you run, you may not charge" restriction, but it would not waive the "you may not charge because you outflanked this turn" restriction. There's nothing vague here, it's not like the usual argument about whether "a" means "one and only one" or "one at a time, repeatable ad infinitum," it clearly only addresses running, and in a way that makes running a closed list of one, not a random example of an open list of charge-preventing conditions that are waived. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Jackal Posted January 24, 2016 Share Posted January 24, 2016 Hmmmm.... You can run after Outflanking or disembarking, RAW there is no restriction to say you can't use this rule after doing so. I'd guess this will be FAQ'd because it is vague when you consider how other rules are written. Perfect example of this is Tireless Advance, gives the special rule Scout and provides a specific limitation on not conferring Outflank. However I think mmimzie's way is correct, I to would assume the conservative point of view Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.