Multiple units intercepting one unit?

[Gorgoff]

11 minutes ago, SkimaskMohawk said:

 

From the answers in the thread and from what I've checked out in real life, every NA English copy has the sentence. The ©2021 box version, the ©2022 standalone, the Epub; they all have the same version of the rule. Now maybe he got a different version like Australian, or European English, and that variant is missing it. But it seems more likely that there was just a non reading of the page before the hole was dug.

Are you talking about the missing "you can make more than 3 reactions with certain equipment" part?

[Mana]

Hey! My copy of the rulebook came with the AOS box, it's copyrighted 2021 and has the full intercept line. It came from the US.

 

Still, it's a mess. In pg 241, independent characters, I don't have the rule that lets me join units with infiltrate if I'm not infiltrating during deployment. 

[SkimaskMohawk]

4 hours ago, Gorgoff said:

Are you talking about the missing "you can make more than 3 reactions with certain equipment" part?

You betcha. "Missing"

 

4 hours ago, Mana said:

Hey! My copy of the rulebook came with the AOS box, it's copyrighted 2021 and has the full intercept line. It came from the US.

 

Still, it's a mess. In pg 241, independent characters, I don't have the rule that lets me join units with infiltrate if I'm not infiltrating during deployment. 

 

That was the rule that caused people to realize the books were inconsistent. Funny how they never managed to mention it in the FAQ though.

[Brother Sutek]

Faq lol.

[Gorgoff]

On 1/27/2023 at 3:09 AM, SkimaskMohawk said:

You betcha. "Missing"

The one million dollor question now is what version @Dont-Be-Haten has.

2021 or 2022, mate?

[Brother Sutek]

Not sure what he has but I have 2021 and it has it.

 

 

 

 

 

[MichaelCarmine]

On 1/26/2023 at 10:21 PM, Mana said:

Hey! My copy of the rulebook came with the AOS box, it's copyrighted 2021 and has the full intercept line. It came from the US.

 

Still, it's a mess. In pg 241, independent characters, I don't have the rule that lets me join units with infiltrate if I'm not infiltrating during deployment. 

Which Infiltrate rule do you have? I have a printed Book from the AoD boxset, english, bought in germany. And i have a digital copy. To me, they both say the same, the digital one just describes the rule in more detail.

 

The "short" rule says, ICs without the infiltrate special rule cannot join a unit of infiltrators during deployment. 

I don't know about you guys, but to me, a unit of infiltrators is a unit with the infiltrate special rule, that is deployed using the infiltrate special rule.

The term Infiltrators is only used in the rulebook, when it is implied, that a unit makes use of the infiltrate special rule.

A unit with the deep strike special rule isn't deep striking, until it is deployed usind the special rule either.

 

So in conclusion, a IC without the infiltrate special rule cannot join a unit with the infiltrate special rule, that makes use of said special rule.

 

The other version just describes it in detail.

 

So i don't see any rule, which forbids a IC joining a non-infiltrating unit.

 

Or do you have another version of said rule? There could be, ofcourse! xD

 

 

[Gorgoff]

5 hours ago, MichaelCarmine said:

Which Infiltrate rule do you have? I have a printed Book from the AoD boxset, english, bought in germany. And i have a digital copy. To me, they both say the same, the digital one just describes the rule in more detail.

 

The "short" rule says, ICs without the infiltrate special rule cannot join a unit of infiltrators during deployment. 

IC without the Infiltration rule are deployed together with the rest of the army and after that the units which infiltrates come to play so if this sentences would mean what you assume it would be redundant. 

That's why it sure means that you can't join a unit which has the Infiltration rule when you don't have it on your own and vice verca.

You let the last part out by the way which is important. Units without the Infiltration rule can't be joined by an IC with it. The rule clearly says that becaise it didn't called the IC an "infiltrator IC" or whatever but instead called it "IC without the rule" which indicates that the prohibiting factor is having or not having the rule and not if you use it or not. That is why the apparently newer version is indeed a change. 

 

And I want to know what other changes GW build in the newer book or the eBook. 

Edited January 30, 2023 by Gorgoff

[MichaelCarmine]

4 hours ago, Gorgoff said:

IC without the Infiltration rule are deployed together with the rest of the army and after that the units which infiltrates come to play so if this sentences would mean what you assume it would be redundant. 

That's why it sure means that you can't join a unit which has the Infiltration rule when you don't have it on your own and vice verca.

You let the last part out by the way which is important. Units without the Infiltration rule can't be joined by an IC with it. The rule clearly says that becaise it didn't called the IC an "infiltrator IC" or whatever but instead called it "IC without the rule" which indicates that the prohibiting factor is having or not having the rule and not if you use it or not. That is why the apparently newer version is indeed a change. 

 

And I want to know what other changes GW build in the newer book or the eBook. 

Do you refer to the "vice versa"? i don't think it means, what you think it means.

Nowhere is ther a rule, as you describe it. There is no sentence, in no iteration of the rules, that describe the "last sentence" as you do.

Vice versa simply means, that a Unit without the infiltrate rule cannot join an IC Infiltrator, an IC, which chooses to be deployed by the infiltrate rule. As described before, its just, that the IC and the unit switched places, "vice versa".

Even the detailed rules from the pdf doesn't have the rule, as you describe it.

Or do you have a third version? xD

[Gorgoff]

5 hours ago, MichaelCarmine said:

Do you refer to the "vice versa"? i don't think it means, what you think it means.

Nowhere is ther a rule, as you describe it. There is no sentence, in no iteration of the rules, that describe the "last sentence" as you do.

Vice versa simply means, that a Unit without the infiltrate rule cannot join an IC Infiltrator, an IC, which chooses to be deployed by the infiltrate rule

Which as well would be redundant, because you deploy infiltrating units after the regular deployment. 

In other words: It wouldn't make any sense to write this into the rules because there can't be a situation in which you try to join an infiltrating unit during deployment, because those aren't on the table yet and a unit without this rule can't join a charakter with this rule for the same reason. Apart from the fact that units can't join charakter anyway.

My opinion on this stems from the fact that this is a reoccurring question since 5th edition (imho, could be in 4th as well) and was solved in the FAQs for every edition after that.

But anyway, since the rules doesn't explain what a infiltrators unit is we could argue all day.

 

I'd say if you wabted to say what you mean in english it would be : IC without Infiltrate can't join an infiltrating unit and vice versa.

 

 

Edited January 30, 2023 by Gorgoff

[MichaelCarmine]

14 minutes ago, Gorgoff said:

Which as well would be redundant, because you deploy infiltrating units after the regular deployment. 

In other words: It wouldn't make any sense to write this into the rules because there can't be a situation in which you try to join an infiltrating unit during deployment, because those aren't on the table yet and a unit without this rule can't join a charakter with this rule for the same reason. Apart from the fact that units can't join charakter anyway.

My opinion on this stems from the fact that this is a reoccurring question since 5th edition (imho, could be in 4th as well) and was solved in the FAQs for every edition after that.

But anyway, since the rules doesn't explain what a infiltrators unit is we could argue all day.

 

I'd say if you wabted to say what you mean in english it would be : IC without Infiltrate can't join an infiltrating unit and vice 

Well, it isn't redundant, because the Infiltrate rule only requires one model in the unit to actually have the special rule, so you have to tell people, that you cannot attach an IC to the unit to let them both infiltrate. =]

 

The whole argument is based on the fact, that you say "infiltrators" are all units which have the infiltrate rule and not just the units, which make actual use of the rule. Am i right in that assumption?

 

As i Said, the term "Infiltrators" has numerous mentions in the rulebook. Allways under the assumption and context, that they make use of the infiltrate special rule.

So i'd say it is save to say, Infiltrators are units with infiltrate special rule, who are in fact infiltrating/making use of the special rule.

 

But anyway, if you still think otherwise, we can continue that one on our german forum xD 

Back on Topic, i'd say. Sorry for the offtopic ^^

[SkimaskMohawk]

2 hours ago, MichaelCarmine said:

As i Said, the term "Infiltrators" has numerous mentions in the rulebook. Allways under the assumption and context, that they make use of the infiltrate special rule.

So i'd say it is save to say, Infiltrators are units with infiltrate special rule, who are in fact infiltrating/making use of the special rule.

 

This is basically the main factor; are "Infiltrators" a unit actively using the Infiltrate special rule to position themselves up the board, or are they any unit with the Infiltrate special rule? Well, the term is only used 5 times in the rules. Three of those are timing references (Scout reposition, Flanking Assault marker placement, Onslaught objective reposition), the fourth is the IC joining vice-versa line, and the fifth is telling you that Infiltrate gives outflank when a unit of Infiltrators are kept in reserves. 

 

It's that last one that shows that you don't have to be actively using the alternate deployment to qualify as a unit of Infiltrators. It's also why 1st had a FAQ (pre-2018) giving the option to deploy normally, and that's what made it into the 2022 version of the 2nd core rules. 

Edited January 30, 2023 by SkimaskMohawk

[MichaelCarmine]

1 hour ago, SkimaskMohawk said:

 

This is basically the main factor; are "Infiltrators" a unit actively using the Infiltrate special rule to position themselves up the board, or are they any unit with the Infiltrate special rule? Well, the term is only used 5 times in the rules. Three of those are timing references (Scout reposition, Flanking Assault marker placement, Onslaught objective reposition), the fourth is the IC joining vice-versa line, and the fifth is telling you that Infiltrate gives outflank when a unit of Infiltrators are kept in reserves. 

 

It's that last one that shows that you don't have to be actively using the alternate deployment to qualify as a unit of Infiltrators. It's also why 1st had a FAQ (pre-2018) giving the option to deploy normally, and that's what made it into the 2022 version of the 2nd core rules. 

Well then, lets quote Flanking Asault - "Once all units have been assigned to a Flanking Assault, and all units in both armies have been deployed, but before any infiltrators deploy, or scout moves are made,..."

 

If "Infiltrators" would depict every unit, that has the infiltrate special rule, that wouldn't make any sense. 

It would mean, that both players deploy all their units, then place the Flanking assault marker, then deploy the units, that have the infiltrate special rule, but don't use it, then deploy infiltrators, that use their special rule, then make scout moves...

Seriously?

Edit: aditionally, if it where that way, then any unit with the infiltrate rule would have no choice but to deploy last, if any one player chooses to deploy via flanking assault. Which would also be in contradicion with the infiltrate special rule, which gives a unit with the infiltrate special rule a choice, when to deploy. 

So one player chooses to outflank, then every unit with the infiltrate special rule would have been forced to deploy last no matter what. 

Edited January 30, 2023 by MichaelCarmine

[Gorgoff]

1 hour ago, MichaelCarmine said:

Well then, lets quote Flanking Asault - "Once all units have been assigned to a Flanking Assault, and all units in both armies have been deployed, but before any infiltrators deploy, or scout moves are made,..."

 

If "Infiltrators" would depict every unit, that has the infiltrate special rule, that wouldn't make any sense. 

It would mean, that both players deploy all their units, then place the Flanking assault marker, then deploy the units, that have the infiltrate special rule, but don't use it, then deploy infiltrators, that use their special rule, then make scout moves...

Seriously?

 

No because that isn't how the rules are written. It says that units with this rule can be deployed last, after regular deployment and then go on how that works. 

So units which don't deploy that way obviously are deployed like the rest of the shmucks in your army without it. What this rules doesn't do is calling units who do so Infiltrators and also don't give you a choice when to deploy them if they use this special rule. They are deployed last. 

 

Having said that I still don't u understand why GW doesn't tell us that there are different versions of the book and curious what else is different. 

 

[SkimaskMohawk]

I mean you're totally right; the 2nd edition rule for flanking assault causes a mechanical breakdown with infiltrators. As gorgoff mentioned GW has had some famously terrible wording with infiltrate and characters; Kayvaan Shrike had a broken squad-wide infiltrate rule for at least...three editions? So it's not surprising.

 

But still, the rules call the boys in reserve Infiltrators. It was the rule that caused the old FAQ/current wording. Without making up clauses of what infiltrators means in given circumstances, then it means a unit with the infiltrate special rule (and causes a mechanical fiasco).