How Does Onslaught Work?

[coredump]

Jul 18, 2012 15:11:42 GMT 1b2a said:

Agreed. This goes with my argument that GW isn't smart enough/doesn't consider most players smart enough to use that strict logical interpretation of "unless"

I don't know, I am on several 40K boards.. and pretty much everyone got this right away.

[Sensei]

I'm sorry coredump I don't agree with what you're saying about the restrictions.

Yes if mom said you can't have dessert if you came home late, different restrictions would apply. But that isn't the case; Mom says you can't have dessert - BRB says you can't assault/charge after run; Dad days you can't have dessert - Onslaught says you can't assault/charge after run but adds unless you eat dinner - have the fleet ability. Mom and dad have the same rule, but dad added a condition and exception. Because mom and dad cooperate (ie the BRB and codices work together) you do not need permission twice because in this case they have agrees that dads condition trumps the base rule (pg 7 of BRB).

Let's look at another example the way you are interpreting the rules. A unit is hit by a weapon that causes a morale check. The BRB says in some weapons force units to take a morale check. The weapon says it forces units hit to take a morale check. The unit hit ignores morale. Well based on your interpretation the unit has to take a morale check because there are two restrictions from two different sources, but only one exception. Therefore either the BRB or the weapon profile forces that unit immune to morale checks to take a morale check. And that is clearly wrong.

The definition of the word unless: "except under the circumstances; except on the condition that".
Permission is inherent in the definition of the word. If GW did not mean the rule to be written that way they should not have used a word that gives permission upon to completion of a requirement or they should have more fully explained the requirement. It doesn't matter. The fact is that the way it is written whether you like it or not, Onslaught supercedes the BRB and inherently grants permission on the completion of its requirement.

[wisdomseyes1]

i dont understand this argument at all.

It is worded this way to clarify what fleet had done in the past. What the codex is saying is "it can not run and assault unless it has the special rule that says it can"

is this an argument on if we can interpret the rules poor wording for he new rules in 6th edition to say "onslaught gives the original rules of fleet back to the unit that has it"? I disagree with that logic nd hold my belief that it is a clarification sentence, nothing more. Not unless a later FAQ says otherwise, and a FAQ that does will shock me greatly, but would make sense based on the name and give hormagaunts some of their speed back

[Sensei]

Wisdom, that's exactly what I meant by people are getting stuck on what fleet used to mean. When our codex was written, YES that is exactly what it referred to. But that doesn't apply anymore. Throw out the old rules for fleet. Now look at the rule. It just says "unless it has the fleet ability". It does not specify "the old rules for the fleet ability". The only requirement is to have fleet.

If you had never played 5th edition and were picking the codex up for the first time in 6th, this would be read as an exception to the normal rules and the only thing necessary for onslaught to allow my unit to run,shoot and assault would be the presence of the USR "Fleet".

Therefore: If I Onslaught a unit, it may run and shoot, contrary to the normal rules
In addition to that, I gain the added bonus of being able to assault if the unit I selected also benefits from the USR "fleet".

Nids have traditionally been a fast scary swarm and the way Onslaught is written it allows us to have a unit (per terv) gain a little extra mobility. This is balanced by the 2d6 variable charge. I personally like the idea of tyranids being pushed on by the Hive mind to run faster than the average unit. Unfortunately this doesn't fix the genestealer charge. In this instance, Coredumps "two restrictions" totally applies. As Onslaught does not remove the "cannot charge when coming in from reserves" restriction, genestealers still are unable to charge on outflank.

[fragile]

Sensei, nothing in Onslaught gives you permission to assault. It states you cannot, with an exception. That exception also does not address any other restrictions on assaulting, running, rapid fire, heavy weapons etc.. Fleet lets you break the Onslaught rule that states you cannot assault. Fleet "used" to let you break the running and assaulting rule. Fleet is what let you assault before, not Onslaught. Fleet now no longer does that. So therefore if you Run, by rule you may not assault, just as if you broke any other rules prohibiting assaulting.

Also by rewording rules like that you can get just about any rule you want. For example. A unit that fired a heavy weapon may not assault unless it has relentless. Now by your example a unit with Relentless can run and assault in the same turn because relentless says it can assault.

[coredump]

Onslaught lifts that restriction for Onslaught only. It does not lift it for theBRB restriction. It never says you *can*... it just doesn't. I have shown it many different times, in many different ways.

If you don't want to believe, feel free to head to Dakka, or Warseer, or Bolter, or any other forum... they will all agree with what I am saying.

I even proved it with formal logic in the last thread.

Or, just assume that you got it right, and everyone else in the world has it wrong... that is fine too...

[coredump]

Jul 18, 2012 21:14:17 GMT Sensei said:

. Mom and dad have the same rule, but dad added a condition and exception. Because mom and dad cooperate (ie the BRB and codices work together) you do not need permission twice because in this case they have agrees that dads condition trumps the base rule (pg 7 of BRB).

YOu are making the assumption that they are 'working together', and the opposite is true, they work independently.
Onslaught *never* says you can charge, it says you can't,and if you have fleet,it says it no longer cares.... but the BRB still says no.

[Geneva]

Actually, regardless of who is right in regards of Fleet allowing you to assault, Onslaught still doesn't in any way allow you to run, shoot and then assault.

Onslaught prevents any unit affected by it from charging unless it has Fleet. In that case you may argue that it can assault even when affected by Onslaught. Good good. But not if you run. Running is a seperate restriction that prevents you from assaulting. E.g:

I cast Onslaught on my Raveners. They can now run and shoot. They can also assault as they have fleet. I now have two courses of action:

A) I do not run or shoot and instead simply assault. Normally the restrictions from Onslaught would prevent me from assaulting but I can do this as my Raveners have Fleet.

B) I run and shoot. Fleet allows me to ignore the Onslaught restriction but I can no longer assault regardless as I am still restricted by the rules for running. Onslaught at no point says you can run, shoot and assault. Just that you can run and shoot and also that you cannot assault unless the unit has fleet.

The semantics are tricky and the rule clearly doesn't translate well to 6th edition rules but even when you break it down it still amounts to the same thing. No move, run, shoot, assault.

[1b2a]

I'm willing to believe that the other boards are also wrong simply because the nids there are such pushovers.

[Sensei]

Fragile, I'm not rewording the rule. It is written like that. I'm not adding or rewording anything. Yes, if I was generically making up the wording, I would be completely wrong. The fact is I'm not, so sure you CAN reword any other rule like that. But unless it is written like that you're wrong.

Also as I explained in my last post: Yes, it was written with 5th ed fleet in mind. Yes, it WAS fleet that allowed the assault after run. However all of that is out the window, null and void. This is 6th edition. Now the old rules for fleet mean nothing, what allows the assault is the fact a unit that is under the effect of Onslaugh simply has fleet. The word "unless" has inherent permissive value. I don't care if you agree or not, it's the English language. If you fulfill said restriction, whatever was disallowed is allowed. Could GW have used a better more concise wording? Yes. But they didn't.

Coredump, you have not proved it using logic. You have used logic, yes. I'm not denying that. However, logic alone does not have any permissive value. Therefore logic alone does not explain this rule. Again, the wording has inherent permissive value in the definition of the word "Unless". I understand what you're saying when you say the BRB has a restriction and Onslaught has a restriction. What I'm saying is they are the same restriction. You don't keep counters for restrictions in the BRB and codices. If a rule in a codex references a rule in the BRB, it is assumed they are the SAME RULE. If a special rule alters something that is reference in both the codex and the BRB - it doesn't need to specify that it alters the SAME RULE from both book.

I am not assuming the rules work together.
1: Warhammer 40k has the BRB and the codices are all rules for the same game. If they did not work together the game would not work.
2: Page 7 of the BRB - specifically states codecies trump BRB in the case of special rules.

Genevaman, your point is moot. Yes, running disallows assaults. Onslaught is a special rule in the codex. Codex trumps BRB.

I have never once claimed that the rules explicitly state you can. I have said the words chosen in the rules have inherent permissive value. Coredump, you said the rule lifts the restriction. Well what is the opposite of having a restriction? If you have your drivers license suspended for 7 days, you have a restriction placed on you. You are not allowed to drive for seven days. At the end of the 7 days, the no driving restriction is lifted. When that happens, no one comes and explicitly tells you that you are allowed to drive again. Are you allowed to drive or not?

Based on the RAW, ignoring the preconcieved idea of fleet based on the previous rules, and the wording chosen by GW in the Onslaught entry (based on the grammatical definition of the word UNLESS) the rule allows an Onslaughted unit to move-run-assault/charge.

In conclusion, I'm not denying the rule isn't ambigous and as I stated in my very first post - It requires an FAQ or at least for both opponents to agree on the terms.

[wisdomseyes1]

the only thing I disagree with on cordumps side of the argument is THIS:

If you don't want to believe, feel free to head to Dakka, or Warseer, or Bolter, or any other forum... they will all agree with what I am saying.

You must be joking. Dakka Dakka is like facebook for 40k nerds. There are so few smart people on there that its not worth trying to listen to anything anyone says. "Don't aregue with stupid people, they drag you down to their level and beat you with experience" the saying goes.

You honestly expect the people who believe a harpy model made from a tyranid warrior with wings on an oval base was an acceptable model to side with you? (actual thread, mind you. Anyone who questioned the models size was bashed because he guy who made it was basically a cordump/yori/devil's advocate (smogi?)/spaceisprettybig/psychichobo/stingray/AUX of the site

[fragile]

I don't care if you agree or not, it's the English language.

Yes, and your basing your entire argument on 1 word in a sentence. The "unless" is not giving permission. It is simply overriding the restriction of Onslaught that states that you "cannot assault"

"May not assault unless you have Fleet" is not the same as "May also assault if you have Fleet"

[Sensei]

How many times have I read on here arguments based on a single word? I'm pretty sure "single words" are exactly what bring up the reason for many of these debates. Many of them hinge on the meaning of a single word.

[callios]

IMHO this problem is based on the 5th Ed mindset most of us are still in.
I for myself chose to ignore the "fleet" part of the Onslaught rule until a FAQ cleares it up for all of us.
Not because i want to avoid any discussions, but out of common sense.
Are Tau players still doing target priority tests because their codex says so? Not to my knowing, because it is a ruling from a previous edition of the rules.
We should apply the same idea to Onslaught.

Sure, it´s another "negative" aspect of the new rules set Tyranid players will have to adapt to, but that is just the way it has to go.
We need to start from scratch regarding strategies and playstyle and stop holding on to old rules do not work.

If you were a new player starting with 6th Ed., you wouldn´t even know what Fleet meant in 5th.
And starting a rules argument against one of those new players with the words "Back in 5th..." can not be a good idea, right?

[nurglitch]

I think it goes without saying that using such a rule to your advantage when it is controversial is bad sportsmanship. I don't think anyone is arguing that it should be used in games, because an opponent might find it questionable. I believe the discussion centres around what the rules say, rather than how reasonable people might go about applying them.

That said, I think someone earlier in the thread pointed out that a new player starting with 6th edition would interpret the rule as giving units under the effect of Onslaught the ability to charge so long as they had the Fleet rule, and avoided other restrictions on charging.