48 replies to this topic

[The Grim Delver]

Hey fellas,

 

Hope some of ye can help me with this.

 

I´ve recently started using 3 runes of slowness on my BsB and sticking him with hammerers or other great weapon wielding troops. Having the enemy on always strikes last for a round is awesome However, having read the rule more closely it seems to say, (without actually saying), on one hand that this ability can only be used to recieve a charge and on the other that it can be used when there is contact between your unit and the enemy unit.

 

How has everyone been playing this? Just when recieving a charge or for both charging and being charged.

[Reginbeard]

The third rune makes bestove the Always Strike Last rule to all enemies in contact with the unit that carries that standard. This comes into play even if you charged, and it last as long as the enemy is in contact with a unit with the rune.

[The Grim Delver]

That was my initial impression but the way it is worded could be read two ways, ie. a Dwarf way and a non-dwarf way

 

[Granitbeard]

Would have to look when I get out of work, but I thought it said "if an unit makes base contact". Again will have to look at exact wording when I can.

[The Rubicund Runesmith]

"Should a foe contact" was the wording I found.

[The Grim Delver]

Perhaps, I should explain where the issue comes up better. If you look at the third effect on its own, it is nice and simple. Contact is made whether charging or recieving a charge. It is only when you put it in the context of all three runes, does the problem arise.

It could be viewed that the runes are linked and , for example, if someone declares a charge. They roll for their charge distance and you subtract your 2D6, but they still make it, then "should the foe contact the bearing unit", they have ASL for 1st round. That implies that they do the contacting, ie charging and that it is only when they contact you, and not the other way round, do you benefit from the banner.

I had a game last night and my opponent read the rules this way. He does have a point, if you look at all three runes together.

But, I figured, I´d throw it out there to get some other opinions as I feel on shaky ground using this combo again in a battle and I have had a lot of success with it in the past few games.

[Granitbeard]

"Should a foe contact" was the wording I found.

 

That's the wording I think I remember, which to me means that the charger has to contacted you, not the other way around. But I still want to read it my self and see.

[Gregaz Magnusson]

Unfortunately, I definitely read it that the third rune only takes effect when you receive a charge, as the first two runes of slowness only activate when you receive a charge, so the third one will be the same. Moreover regarding the wording, it clearly states 'A third rune of slowness maintains the the previous effects (Any foes charging a unit... 1st sentence) and, should a foe contact the bearing unit.' etc. 

 

Either way I do exactly the same and its bloomin' marvelous. My favorite unit again now! 

Edited by Gregaz Magnusson, 07 January 2015 - 12:45 AM.

[Balric Fireforged]

I'm going to agree with Gregaz: the third rune effect is a continuation of the effects of the first two runes, and so only activates while being charged.

Granitbeard likewise has the pertinent syntax isolated.

[The Grim Delver]

Unfortunately, I definitely read it that the third rune only takes effect when you receive a charge, as the first two runes of slowness only activate when you receive a charge, so the third one will be the same. Moreover regarding the wording, it clearly states 'A third rune of slowness maintains the the previous effects (Any foes charging a unit... 1st sentence) and, should a foe contact the bearing unit.' etc. 

 

Either way I do exactly the same and its bloomin' marvelous. My favorite unit again now! 

Yeah, I guess that´s that settled. And you´re right, it is awesome. Hammerers or slayers with Ungrim are really dangerous with this combo.

[The Rubicund Runesmith]

Granitbeard likewise has the pertinent syntax isolated.

 

You mean "Granitbeard likewise has the pertinent syntax that The Rubicund Runsmith isolated quoted."

[Balric Fireforged]

Granitbeard likewise has the pertinent syntax isolated.

You mean "Granitbeard likewise has the pertinent syntax that The Rubicund Runsmith isolated quoted."

Yeah, my bad. What you said.

[Gormadon]

Apologies to my elders, but I would tend to disagree. The third says "maintains the precious effects and, should a foe contact the bearing unit,..." The precious effects only happen when the unit is charged, but because of the syntax I am a bit more inclined to think that the third provides a separate rule that doesn't have to happen in the same circumstances...they are separate issues. 

 

The main question is "Does a foe who is charged contact the bearing unit?" I believe it does. You don't necessarily have to read it that they initiated the contact. I understand all you previous points, but I don't think the English here is that specific or descriptive, so I would say if you charge, the first two effects don't happen, but the third does. 

[Balric Fireforged]

If you don't accept that the third rune's syntax is a continuation of the first and second rune, that's fine. The third rune's syntax likewise supports no ASL when the bearing unit charges:

It says "...should a foe contact the bearing unit..."

In this clause, the subject is "foe," the object is "bearing unit," and the verb is "contact."

Therefor, the subject ("foe") is the one performing the action. The foe performs this action via charging.

If the rune had instead stated "... should a foe and the bearing unit make contact with each other..." it would be different. In that case, both units are the subject of the clause, and so either can be the actor of the verb "make contact." But, it does not say this. "Foe" is explicitly the subject of that sentence, and "bearing unit" is explicitely the object.

Furthermore, another syntax issue in support of my interpretation is use of the word "should." "Should" implies that the following clause is dependant on a prior statement. If it did not have a dependancy on a prior statement, the more definitive word would be "when," as in:

"When a foe contacts the bearing unit..."

(Note that this still has the problem of "foe" being the singular subject.)

The use of "when" in this case makes the statement independent of anything written prior. An even more explicit term would be "whenever."

As I said earlier, the word "should" implies a dependancy on a prior statement, which in this case can only imply the effects of the first and second runes. Especially since the implication of the prior runes and the rule for the third are linked within the same sentence, like this, "... maintains the previous effects and, should a foe..." If the author had meant for the statements to be independant, two separate sentences should have been used.

If the author wanted 3xRoSlowness to have the effect of causing a foe to gain ASL regardless of who charged, the proper syntax would have been:

"...maintains the previous effects. When(ever) a foe and the bearing unit make contact, the foe has the ASL..."

The statement as written is explicit enough (though could be more so) to suggest that the foe only gains ASL when they are charging without requiring any revision. However, revision is required to claim the opposing viewpoint.

[kgkid]

Well, from a physics point of view, as well as semantic, if A contacts B, the B contacts A as well... Does it not?

[Balric Fireforged]

Unfortunately, it's a game of English and Statistics, since Physics goes out the window.

Like a Great Unclean One is a Large Target... and the Glottkin is not.

[kelvenmore]

The word contact is a state not an action.

con·tact
noun

the state or condition of physical touching.
a meeting, communication, or relationship with someone.


It does not matter who started the engagement so long as the foe is contact it "makes contact" thus making the rule in effect.

The problem is folks are reading runes as they are progressions and they're not. Runes are inclusions, meaning that as runes stacks they add new behaviors.

Edited by kelvenmore, 15 January 2015 - 05:03 PM.

[Zidane_blade]

RAW: Yes.
RAI: Don't think so. In this instance, I actually think you need to look at the rune as a whole. Because, when GW wants a base contact effect to take place, they write, base contact. Making contact, is an action, or a thing, during the movement phase, and here it's mentioned as the enemy making contact.

It's just a thought, but I think if it was intended to also include if we contacted the enemy, as in a general contact, they'd just have written, base contact. Like, shield of thorns, Frostheart phoinex or that mammoth the ogres have (doesn't that grant ASL in base contact?).

Edited by Zidane_blade, 15 January 2015 - 06:04 PM.

[kelvenmore]

RAW: Yes.
RAI: Don't think so.

I do agree with you here, but most of the games I play are competitive and I've found playing RAI and fluff I get in far more disagreements with folks. I've learned just to play RAW and things go a lot smoother.

It's just a thought, but I think if it was intended to also include if we contacted the enemy, as in a general contact, they'd just have written, base contact. Like, shield of thorns, Frostheart phoinex or that mammoth the ogres have (doesn't that grant ASL in base contact?).

I'm not sure I buy this argument, in fact fro me it's quite the opposite. Charging is a very special case that gets a lot of attention from GW rules. I would have expected the text to read "...if the foe makes a successful charge...". If GW truly wanted to call out a charge was required.

[Zidane_blade]

But they already explain that, in the first rune? Can we agree that: ''If the enemy fails to make contact.....''. Is the same as a failed charge? Precisely, like they mention it, in the book. If the first is true, and in context with said wording of the first rune, then the following has to be as well: ''Should a foe contact the bearing unit'' = Should a foe make a successfull charge.

 

Or am I missing something?