When Lurking, can you "charge" now?

[Deathnid]

TROLL! assault is charging. c'mon man dont be a rule troll.

[coredump]

Jul 9, 2012 2:16:29 GMT Geneva said:

Found this on a thread on Dakka Dakka which explains it better than I could.

Because of the wording. "A unit under the effect of Onslaught may not assault unless it also has the Fleet ability."

It doesn't say that's because you ran. It says that because you are under the effect of Onslaught you can't assault unless you have fleet. So if you have fleet the Onslaught restriction doesn't apply, but that's not express permission to assault no matter what.

Did I write that??

[coredump]

Jul 9, 2012 1:13:52 GMT Davor said:

Well please explain to me what this means then. Tyranid codex page 62, under Onslaught, "A unit may not assault unless it also has fleet ability."

So to me, since a unit has fleet, it ran, it can also assault because right there it says it can assault if it has fleet. This is overriding the BRB/BGB. Right here it is giving us permission to do something. It is saying you have fleet, you can assault after you did a run.

Onslaught makes a restriction
"you cannot Run and Assault"
Then it says the 'Onslaught restriction' does not apply if you have fleet.

All that does is take away the restriction that Onslaught made, it does *not* give permission.

It says there is 'no way' you can without fleet. That is not the same as saying you *can* with fleet.

I tell you,
There is no way your car can go 200mph if it doesn't have tires.
Does that inherently mean that your car *can* go 200mph if it has tires?? Of course not.

If you use Onslaught, there is no way you can charge/assault without fleet.
Does that inherently mean that you can Charge if you do have fleet? Of course not.

Jul 9, 2012 5:56:32 GMT Deathnid said:

TROLL! assault is charging. c'mon man dont be a rule troll.

Lighten up Francis...

[Davor]

I think I finally UNDERSTAND where you guys are coming from. Thank you very much everyone, while I may still disagree (but will play it that you can't), I Finally UNDERSTAND where you guys are coming from.

I belive it's case closed now. So for my sanity, maybe we should lock up this thread

[liquid405]

Jul 9, 2012 23:07:07 GMT Davor said:

I think I finally UNDERSTAND where you guys are coming from.

Yay!

[nurglitch]

I still can't help but disagree. De dicto, Onslaught gives permission to assault after running and then shooting because of the double negative involved. The rule is stated in the sentence:

"A unit under the effect of Onslaught may not assault unless it also has the Fleet ability."

This sentence can be re-written as: "A unit under the effect of Onslaught may assault if it has the Fleet ability." It can be re-written as such because the sentence states that 'unless it also has the Fleet ability', which is to say the same as 'if it does not also have the Fleet ability.' The double-negative forms a permission.

So yes, there is no way our car can go 200mph if it doesn't have tires.
That does imply that our car can go 200mph if it does have tires.

Whether the car actually does so is immaterial because the antecedent of the conditional is having tires, and the consequent of the condition is the possibility of going 200mph, and the double-negative cancels out.

"A car may not go 200mph unless it also has tires." if and only if "A car may go 200mph if it also has tires."

De rei, I'm content to play as if the Onslaught does not confer permission to assault if the unit affected by it has the Fleet special rule, because it is a point of contention.

[nurglitch]

Which brings me back to the original point about Instinctive Behaviour: Lurk. The rule says: "A unit that Lurks may not move in the Movement phase and may not launch an assault in the Assault phase." And as titanmatrix points out, the rulebook says that "[charging] is sometimes called Launching an Assault."

Not much in common with the permissions granted by Onslaught, but relevant in the sense of a contrast between a restriction and a permission.

[coredump]

You are right, it means it is 'possible' for the car to go 200mph with tires. Just like it is 'possible' to assault if you have Onslaught and fleet.

But that does not say you *can* go 200 mph with tires, nor does it say you *can* assault if you have Onslaught and Fleet.


Onslaught puts on a restriction on Run and Assault without Fleet.
It removes *that* restriction on Run/Assault if you have fleet, but does not actually give permission...

[nurglitch]

If you say so. The rules apparently say otherwise.

[coredump]

Yeah, that must be it.

[liquid405]

Jul 10, 2012 12:55:18 GMT nurglitch said:

I still can't help but disagree. De dicto, Onslaught gives permission to assault after running and then shooting because of the double negative involved. The rule is stated in the sentence:

"A unit under the effect of Onslaught may not assault unless it also has the Fleet ability."

This sentence can be re-written as: "A unit under the effect of Onslaught may assault if it has the Fleet ability." It can be re-written as such because the sentence states that 'unless it also has the Fleet ability', which is to say the same as 'if it does not also have the Fleet ability.' The double-negative forms a permission.

So yes, there is no way our car can go 200mph if it doesn't have tires.
That does imply that our car can go 200mph if it does have tires.

Whether the car actually does so is immaterial because the antecedent of the conditional is having tires, and the consequent of the condition is the possibility of going 200mph, and the double-negative cancels out.

"A car may not go 200mph unless it also has tires." if and only if "A car may go 200mph if it also has tires."

De rei, I'm content to play as if the Onslaught does not confer permission to assault if the unit affected by it has the Fleet special rule, because it is a point of contention.

A unit under the effect of Onslaught may not assault unless it also has the Fleet ability.

You rewrite it as:

A unit under the effect of Onslaught may assault if it has the Fleet ability.

This is a logical fallacy of composition, if we want to start busting out the Latin argument stuff.

A car that has an engine may not go 200 mph unless it also has tires. (Note the sentence structure is exactly the same)

Your rewrite would be:

A car that has an engine may go 200 mph if it has tires. (Again, same derived structure)

The above is obviously untrue in most situations.

[nurglitch]

Obviously.

Oh, wait, it isn't because we're having this conversation. The 'fallacy of composition' is irrelevant here because we are not arguing whether the truth of constituent parts of the relevant sentence converts to the truth-value of the whole sentence, but whether the sentence is semantically equivalent to a permission.

If you're going to change the universe from that of Warhammer 40,000 to that of cars, then of course you're going to end up with a permission that is false in some ambiguously defined "most situations". In other words, whether the car can go 200mph depends on more factors than having tires, but the analogy only maps in the loosest sense. Yet the fact remains that however we contrive the truth of it, the sentence is permissory.

Where the universe of discourse is Warhammer 40,000, and the sentences in question are rules consisting of permissions, prohibitions, and statements of fact, and the unit in question does indeed have Fleet and Onslaught manifested upon it, then the semantic transformation into a more conventional permissory sentence is truth-preserving. The rule lays out what can be done, and under what conditions, and the combination of Fleet and Onslaught is the whole of it.

The thing that struck me last night while away from my computer was that the rule allows units with shooting weapons to run and then shoot, which is ordinarily prohibited by the rules. Likewise, it now appears to give permission to units with Fleet to run and then charge. Which takes it from occasionally useful, to a live option amongst Catalyst and Dominion.

Having pointed out the rules, I'll reiterate that I'll wait until GW clarifies Onslaught, along with the AP of Boneswords, the effect of Impaler Cannons on vehicles, and other disputed questions. The rules are clear to me, but they may not be to other people (like yourselves) and I have no interest in picking a fight over the rules during play.

The rule is sufficiently ambiguous that we must be aware of it, because it may be disputed in actual games, and we don't want to predicate our strategies on a disputed point. Discuss it with your opponent or tournament organizer, or just play it conservatively, and move on with your life.

[killme304]

Jul 10, 2012 12:55:18 GMT nurglitch said:

I still can't help but disagree. De dicto, Onslaught gives permission to assault after running and then shooting because of the double negative involved. The rule is stated in the sentence:

"A unit under the effect of Onslaught may not assault unless it also has the Fleet ability."

This sentence can be re-written as: "A unit under the effect of Onslaught may assault if it has the Fleet ability." It can be re-written as such because the sentence states that 'unless it also has the Fleet ability', which is to say the same as 'if it does not also have the Fleet ability.' The double-negative forms a permission.

If we are going to start rewording rules to make our arguments sound, then Devourers cause all Ld checks to be failed, regen gives me all my wounds back at the start of the turn, and the swarmlord can use as many powers as he wants (even duplicates).

If GW wanted it changed, it would have been in the faq. GW doesn't want people assaulting with onslaught in this edition because that is not what fleet does anymore.

If you run, you CAN'T assault. (nothing in the game at present overwrites this rule, I'm sure GW will print some stupid broken dex that allows it for marines)

If you shoot certain weapons, you CAN'T assault.

If you arrive from reserve, you Can't assault.

[nurglitch]

killme304:

The difference being that the wording is equivalent, so that they mean the same thing. One's simply clearer than the other, since double-negatives are ambiguous between emphasis and permission. You can't, for example, change the sentences stating that Devourers cause all leadership tests to be failed, because that would change the meaning of the sentence allowing Devourers to penalize the 25% casualty morale check at the end of the shooting phase.

Incidentally, to riff on your lovely little set of normal rules, the ones superseded by the codex rules:

If you run, you cannot shoot.

[killme304]

I was using exaggerated examples on purpose.

The point is, no where in the string of rules that applies to a unit under the effects of Onslaught gives you permission to launch the assault. It simply states that if you don't have fleet, you can't launch an assault.

(using the original wording instead of charge)