When Lurking, can you "charge" now?

[nurglitch]

Yes, if a unit does not have fleet, then it cannot charge. Therefore if it does have fleet, then it can charge.

Note: Whoops, not modus tollens, but something else.

[fragile]

Nurg, your trying to apply Onslaught as an exception to the rule that a unit that ran in the shooting phase may not charge.

Onslaught is a rule that breaks the rules for the shooting phase not the assault phase (in 5th). It states that you may do two things in the shooting phase that you otherwise cannot. It then adds a redundant restriction. "a unit under the effect of Onslaught may not assault (restriction) unless it also has the Fleet ability(exception)"

So regardless of any other effects/powers unless a unit had Fleet it could not assault.(by rule of Onslaught.) (I know of no other abilities that let you run and assault.) Nothing in Onslaught rule overrides the restrictions in the Assault phase.

During the assault phase you check for whether a unit can assault. During that check, you check to see if a unit "ran" not if a unit "Onslaughted". The unit under Onslaught did run, therefore making it ineligible to assault.

However Fleet is an exception to that rule, not Onslaught. Fleet allowed the unit to run. In 6th, Fleet no longer does that so there is no exception here. A unit ran during the shooting phase, therefore is no allowed to charge. Onslaught says nothing about allowing a unit to break that restriction, in either edition.

[coredump]

Jul 11, 2012 13:08:54 GMT nurglitch said:

Yes, if a unit does not have fleet, then it cannot charge. Therefore if it does have fleet, then it can charge.

This is a logical fallacy. One of the most basic, and most common.

Again, lets copy the exact same structure, with a different example.

If a vehicle does not have and engine, then it cannot fly. Therefore if it does have an engine, then it can fly. (what about a car?)

See how it is a fallacy?

If you don't have $20 you can't go to the movie; therefore if you do have $20 you can go to the movie. (14yo and XXX movie)

[nurglitch]

Fra, you're missing the point that Onslaught gives two permissions in 6th edition: (1) Combine running and shooting, (2) Combine running and charging.

The sentence in question, "A unit under the effect of Onslaught may not assault unless it also has the Fleet ability," merely reiterates the general rule that units that run may not assault, and then gives permission for units with the Fleet rule to break that rule. Just as it did in 5th edition.

If a unit cannot charge unless it has the Fleet rule, and the unit has the Fleet rule, then the unit can charge.

So yes, Onslaught says plenty about allowing a unit to break the restriction on running and charging in the same phase. In fact it says: "A unit under the effect of Onslaught may not assault unless it also has the Fleet ability."

Fleet may not longer allow units to charge after running, but Onslaught apparently does in combination with Fleet.

[nurglitch]

coredump:

I'm going to go out on a limb and guess you're referring to "affirming the consequent". Arguments that affirm the consequent are invalid because they have the following form:

A1. IF A THEN B
A2. B
C. A

And I can certainly see how you might think I'm making it. After all, if we let A be "A unit under the effect of Onslaught and the Fleet ability" and B be "may not Assault/Charge", we get:

On the assumptions (A1) unit under the effect of Onslaught may not assault (charge) unless it also has the Fleet ability, and (A2) the unit may not charge, it follows (C) the unit under the effect of Onslaught does not have the Fleet ability.

However, I'm making an argument using "Modus Ponens". Modus Pollens has the following form:

A1. NOT P OR Q
A2. P
C. Q

Let P be "A unit under the effect of Onslaught and the Fleet ability". Let Q be "Assault/Charge", so that we get:

On the assumptions (A1) a unit under the effect of Onslaught may not assault unless it also has the Fleet ability, and (A2) it has the Fleet ability, therefore (C) it may assault.

Which is to really overcomplicate something that is simpler than arithmetic operations.

Basically the conditions for the permission are Onslaught and Fleet, and the consequence of having those conditions is permission to charge. Without Fleet, the unit can still run and then shoot.

[fragile]

Nurg, Onslaught does not give 2 permissions. The second part of the statement is a restriction. You cannot assault under Onslaught.

You can restate the rule without using the words Onslaught and Fleet.

A unit that (ran and shot) may not assault unless (it has the ability that lets it run and assault)

Running during the shooting phase is the common denominator. Running is what prevents you from charging / assaulting. Onslaught does not change this. Fleet does and Fleet no longer exists that way.

[coredump]

Dude, I managed to get A's in both my logic classes without every having to remember any of the Latin names... and I still know that is not Modus Ponens.....

"Not P or Q' isn't even a logical argument, it is simply a statement. And it contradicts the second statement. Then entire thing is non-sensical.
And it doesn't come close to matching the format of the Onslaught rule.

But if you want to play formal logic... lets do that.
Under Onslaught
No Assault unless Fleet
so
If No Fleet then No Assault
so
If Not P then Not Q
P
Therefore.... nothing....



You continue to ignore the various examples given using the *same* format at the Onslaught rule which are obviously false. Why are you ignoring them? Do you think they are also true?

[nurglitch]

fra, Onslaught does indeed give two permissions. The first permission is to run and then shoot. The second permission is to assault if the unit has Fleet. However, I think we have the point of contention nailed down here.

Because we cannot restate the relevant sentence in as "A unit that (ran and shot) may not assault unless (it has the ability that lets it run and assault)" because the sentence is "A unit under the effect of Onslaught may not assault unless it also has the Fleet ability."

Basically "under the effect of Onslaught" is a condition. So is "it also has the Fleet ability". The phase "may...assault" is the antecedent of those conditions. The terms "unless" and "not" are the relevant double-negation.

Now, as the rules tell us, the rules in the Codex trump the normal rules in the rulebook, just as the special rules trump the normal rules. By the normal rules, running prevents charging, just as it did in 5th edition. Thanks to the change-over from 5th edition to 6th edition, the Fleet rule no longer confers permission to break that normal rule.

However Onslaught allows that normal prohibition to be broken so long as the unit has the Fleet rule, whatever abstract nonsense that special rule might itself contain. Simply having the Fleet rule is the condition, not the content of those rules.

So, unfortunately your restatement does not preserve the truth-value of the original sentence. We can, however, restate it as:

"A unit [Conditon 1: under the effect of Onslaught] may not [Effect: Charge] unless it also has the [Condition 2: Fleet rule]."

It's kind of curious that this needed clarifying in 5th edition as the rules specifically prohibited a running unit from engaging in an assault, but I suppose that some idiot somewhere would have argued that because units shooting assault weapons may assault that units running and shooting assault weapons may assault.

As it is, Onslaught's curiously redundant allowance for Fleet units that run and shoot to assault in 5th edtion, because all the Fleet rule did was allow units that ran to assault, becomes the only permission for Fleet units that run to charge in 6th edition.

[nurglitch]

coredump:

Congratulations on showing up to logic class. Did you pay attention to the part where modus tollens was also called 'disjunctive syllogism'? I mean, you took two whole classes. I expect that makes you an expert.

A material condition such as "IF P THEN Q" is equivalent to "NOT P OR Q", meaning that if you also have as a premise that P, therefore you have Q.

So, clearly, if we take Onslaught as saying "May not Charge unless Fleet", which means "IF Fleet THEN Charge" because 'unless' is a conjunction meaning 'except under the circumstances that' which we can swap into the sentence while preserving its meaning:

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

Is the circumstance such that a unit under the effect of Onslaught has the Fleet ability? Yes? Then charge.

[creep]

fra, Onslaught does indeed give two permissions. The first permission is to run and then shoot. The second permission is to assault if the unit has Fleet. However, I think we have the point of contention nailed down here.

as already discussed somewhere else Onlaught enables you to CHARGE

well this is 6th Ed - what you want it to enable its called ASSAULT here

You have a rule you can't use as any reference is missing. It simply doesn't say what you want it to say.
Be patient maybe FAQ will fix this
until then bear with the simple truth of RAW sorry

[coredump]

Because it is *not* saying you can assault if you have fleet.
It is saying if you Don't have fleet you may not assault.

Onslaught says "If you don't have fleet, you can't assault"
you have fleet
Okay, Onslaught no longer affects your ability to assault.

but other rules do...

[Davor]

You know, it would be good to explain what these "other rules" are because it gets so confusing at least for me trying to go back and see what other people have said.

While you may have already said it, to debate, and explain your side, it would have been good to say everything what you mean, other wise, it just makes this disuccussion (at least I am not part of it no more ) linger on.

I think Coredump could have nailed it, but let it linger by saying "but other rules do..." and not really prove his point 100%.

I am so proud of this forum though. We can debate like gentlemen without any name calling and respect one another.

[nurglitch]

creep:

The equivalence of launching an assault and charging is established on p.20 of the 6th edition rulebook. See the third bullet point under Charge Sub-Phase, right-hand column.

[Davor]

Well you guys do know that there is presedence, that you have to use the way the rules are written. Remeber the Dark Angels? While every other freaking SM could Turbo boost, DA couldn't Turbo Boost because it said in their codex, even though it was reference to a 4th edition rule.

So because Onlsaught does say if you have Fleet, you can assault if you have ran that turn, even though that was written for a 5th editon rule, I believe going by past precedence, you shoult be able to Run and assault/charge. Problem is, I don't think it can be used on Brood Lord/Genestealers, because they Can't Shoot and Run in the same turn since they can't shoot.

But for other units that can shoot, they should be able to Run, Shoot, then if they have Fleet, assault/charge afterwards, just like how DA for 5th editon could never EVER Turpbo Boost because how it was written in their codex.

I see where Creep is coming from.

[coredump]

Okay folks, I have played this game with Nurglitch a few times. Nothing I say is going to matter, so I am going to stop.

If anyone is under the impression that Onslaught lets you charge after Run, let me know and we can discuss it. But it is a waste of time to try and convince Nurglitch, regardless of how many people try and convince him.