48 replies to this topic

[Gotrong Gudmundsson]

The rune works in the first round of any combat. While the two prior uses of it only work on a charge, the wording makes it clear it's the first round of combat that matters, not being charged exlusively.

 

I do think that's on purpose aswell, because otherwise the third rune would be absolutely completely rubbish.

 

Incidentally, how has it been working out for you? I think that Rune has... sort of potential, but I always feel wary about bringing it on a BSB! He's so vulnerable!

Edited by Gotrong Gudmundsson, 15 January 2015 - 11:42 PM.

[kelvenmore]

Or am I missing something?

Yes your treating runes as if they are stackable. As if the attributes of one rune carries over when you add another rune. But that is noy the case. Adding a second rune can completely change the abilities of that magical object. If you read the other runes you'll see they usually included rules for the second and third rune. They don't stack, they'll say include and or just straight out say the bonus. Such as they did in the Rune of Battle.

So going back to thr rune of slowness if they don't mention a charge is required with the third rune then a charge is not required even though it was for the first and second rune.


Btw im not questioning your logic if runes attributes carried over i would agree with your interpretation, I'm just saying adding a second or third rune changes the rune. Just like adding an accent completely changes a word.

Edited by kelvenmore, 16 January 2015 - 02:51 AM.

[Salgar]

Just like adding an accent completely changes a word.

That's very true.

Here in America, we know what the word "chips" means, but if you add a British accent suddenly it means french fries!

Edited by Salgar, 16 January 2015 - 03:45 AM.

[Zidane_blade]

Well...in all honesty, they kinda do stack. Else you'd do D3 wounds on every attack, with rune of fire, and not just the breath weapon.

But I agree, not all stack, though you can't use as a rule: They don't stack under no circumstances.

I want to ask a question, which seems to be ignored: "If an enemy fails to make contact, all rules for a failed charge applies".
Can we agree, this is the same as a failed charge, which the enemy made?

[Granitbeard]

Well...in all honesty, they kinda do stack. Else you'd do D3 wounds on every attack, with rune of fire, and not just the breath weapon.

But I agree, not all stack, though you can't use as a rule: They don't stack under no circumstances.

I want to ask a question, which seems to be ignored: "If an enemy fails to make contact, all rules for a failed charge applies".
Can we agree, this is the same as a failed charge, which the enemy made?

 

A) If three rune of burning (flaming whatever) meant we had D3 attacks on a hand weapon all the time I would do it.

 

2) Yes to your failed charge question, not sure why you are asking that personally.

[Swordthain]

The effects of the third RoSlowness depend on the context. In its context, the effects can only be understood to obtain on the basis of the event that triggers the effects of the first and second RoSlowness. In other words, the effects of the third RoSlowness are only themselves triggered by an enemy unit charging the unit bearing the RoSlowness banner(s) when that charging unit successfully completes its attempted charge and thereby contacts (which is actually a verb in this context, because the word is used as a verb rather than a noun--seriously, if you're going to be pedantic, at least have the courtesy to be correctly pedantic) the unit bearing the RoSlowness banner(s). On any turn in which the unit bearing the RoSlowness banner(s) completes a successful charge and thereby contacts an enemy unit, that enemy unit is not subject to the Always Strikes Last special rule in the first round of combat.

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.

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?

No, Zidane_blade, you're not missing anything. The meaning communicated by the rules for the third RoSlowness covers the event that some unit that has not "charged", but still manages to make contact with the unit (things like Hellpit Abominations or the new Stormfiends), will also gain the Always Strikes Last special rule. In all cases, the enemy element is the acting agent, while the unit bearing the RoSlowness banner(s) is the passive agent.

Edited by Tah Kazak Rik, 17 January 2015 - 03:46 PM.

[Thunderförge]

Sorry to be a grammar-dark-elf, but shouldn't it be the Rune of Sloth, not Slowness ?

[Salgar]

Sorry to be a grammar-dark-elf, but shouldn't it be the Rune of Sloth, not Slowness ?

Only if it makes the enemy unit lazy, instead of slow.

...Or transforms them into bizarre tree-dwelling creatures from the American tropics.

[Thunderförge]

^ Will probably form the next joyride of literation in my thread in the Preacher's Corner! Thanks Salgar! X-D

[kelvenmore]

seriously, if you're going to be pedantic, at least have the courtesy to be correctly pedantic)

It behooves you to understand what is being said else you just sound silly, case in point. The point that is being made is that what is the rules written for the first rune has no bearing on what is written for the second or third rune. So arguing that charge was required for rune one and two does not have any bearing on the third rune, unless the rules for the third rune require it. And it does not.

In ever single rune they re-write the rules for adding a second as well as for adding a third rune. Why suddenly assume they make a special case for the Rune of Slowness.
 

 

Just like adding an accent completely changes a word.

That's very true.

Here in America, we know what the word "chips" means, but if you add a British accent suddenly it means french fries!

 

Ha Ha true. I remember I use to work for a Fast Food place that had a plate called fish and chips. I expected potato chips and got just bread crumbs. Quite disappointing.

[Swordthain]

seriously, if you're going to be pedantic, at least have the courtesy to be correctly pedantic)

Good job swordthain, I always say the best way to win an debate is to come off sounding like a condescending arrogant jrk.

But it behooves you to understand what is being said else you just sound silly, case in point. The point that is being made is that what is the rules written for the first rune has no bearing on what is written for the second or third rune. So arguing that charge was required for rune one and two does not have any bearing on the third rune, unless the rules for the third rune require it. And it does not.

In ever single rune they re-write the rules for adding a second as well as for adding a third rune. Why suddenly assume they make a special case for the Rune of Slowness.

You're wrong. In fact, the connections of subsequent runes to their corresponding prior runes are made explicit in multiple ways, not least of which is the fact that all three RoSlowness are explained under the same structural heading and share the same name. That they are in fact related and form an internally occurring context should be obvious.

Edited by Swordthain, 16 January 2015 - 09:58 PM.

[Zidane_blade]

No bearing? Would it also mean, I wouldn't be able to have both killing blow and armour piercing on the same attack, since it's two different runes from the rune of Cleaving...?
Don't understand the logic..

[Balric Fireforged]

The word contact is a state not an action.

 

Actually, it can be both.  It is both a noun and a verb.  In this case, it's a verb.

con·tact
noun

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

con·tact

verb \ˈkän-ˌtakt, kən-ˈ\

:  to make contact

In this case, the word "contact" is being used as a verb.  It must be, otherwise the clause goes:

 

"...should a foe (noun-subject) contact (noun-state of being???) the bearing unit (noun-object)..."

 

This context makes no sense.  It is not a proper English clause.  It must have a verb.  "Contact" must be this verb:

 

"...should a foe (noun-subject) contact (verb) the bearing unit (noun-object)..."

 

This is the only way that clause makes any sense in English.

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

Except in English, standard clause structure goes "subject-verb-object" with the verb being the action of the subject.  In this case, the verb "contact" (meaning-to make contact) is assigned as the action of the subject noun "foe," who then performs that action on the object noun "bearing unit."  With the clause structure as it is, it is explicitly stating that the foe is contacting the bearing unit, that the foe is the one acting upon the bearing unit.  It must be the foe who acts.  Given the rules of the game, the only way the foe can make contact is to charge.

 

If they had intended for that sentence to be unspecific with who was charging, then both units would need to be both the subjects, and the objects of that clause, like this, "...should either the foe or the bearing unit contact each other..."

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.

 

Sometimes they are, and sometimes they're not.  Believe me, they could have stated it more explicitly, but the fact remains that the English of the statement does not support ASL regardless of who charges.  In this case, it is a continuation, as I explained earlier, due to the fact that the statement that the third rune maintains the previous runes' effects, and the effects of the third rune are mentioned in the same sentence.

 

 

RAW: Yes. (Well... we're still debating that)
RAI: Don't think so (I agree). 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 (Again, I agree!). Making contact, is an action, or a thing, during the movement phase, and here it's mentioned as the enemy making contact (Yes!).

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?).

 

Given the way most other effects work, my guess is that they would have written, "In the first round of combat, the enemy gains the ASL special rule," if they had in fact intended for the rune to work regardless of who charged.

 

In the case of 3xRoSlowness, the phrasing is far different from that used throughout other rulebooks for first round effects (Choppas, Resolute, Shieldwall, etc...). In those cases the rules state either "... in the first round of each combat..." (Choppas), or "...during a turn in which they charge..." (Resolute), or "In a turn in which their unit is charged..." (Shieldwall).  This or similar wording is not used in the case of 3xRoSlowness.

 

In this case, the phrasing is "...maintains the previous effects and, should a foe contact..."  This is an important distinction.  The word "should" implies a dependency on a prior clause.  Furthermore, it implies that the situation in which the rule is used (contact) is uncertain.  The condition it is referring to, is that the previous levels of RoSlowness have been activated, and this is only possible if the foe has charged.  The reason that the situation (contact) is uncertain, is that the previous levels of RoSlowness directly work to prevent it, by reducing charging distance.  This is the only way this phrasing can be interpreted, without ignoring clause structure.

 

 

The rune works in the first round of any combat. While the two prior uses of it only work on a charge, the wording makes it clear it's the first round of combat that matters, not being charged exlusively.

 

Except it's not. If they meant the first round of combat, they would have said it.

 

I do think that's on purpose aswell, because otherwise the third rune would be absolutely completely rubbish.

 

The rune not working how you want it to does not make its rules to be other than what is written.

 

Incidentally, how has it been working out for you? I think that Rune has... sort of potential, but I always feel wary about bringing it on a BSB! He's so vulnerable!

 

I personally don't believe that 3xRoSlowness is viable, because only a BSB can carry it, and I feel a MRoGrungni is mandatory on a BSB if only for his own survivability. 2xRoSlowness is great on a variety of units, most notably Irondrakes, but also any combat unit, as it helps to ensure getting a charge.

 

Edited by Tah Kazak Rik, 17 January 2015 - 03:51 PM.

[Swordthain]

You did a better job, Balric. I think you made the shot, and I made the assist.

[Krudd Kraggsson]

My personal opinion is that for RAI, almost certainly asl only applies when the banner bearer is charged.

For RAW the implication is the same, however it is not as semantically clear cut as some are suggesting. The verb 'contact' can be active or passive and doesn't always imply who initiates it. Also 'foe' is the subject in this case because the following clause of the sentence applies to it - it is therefore linguistically much simpler to put 'foe' as the first noun. im sorry but its not conclusive.

The example of the rune of fire, mentioned earlier, is a good one, because it clearly lays out the changes made by each extra rune. Effects do stack, but they don't always (as someone said). therefore with the rune of fire GW explain clearly all the effects each time, even if they have to repeat themselves. They don't repeat themselves with the rune of slowness. Therefore this is a justifiable argument to support the third rune being applied in a different way, because it is worded differently. This is an argument based on a technicality. But it cannot be dismissed. That's the whole point of RAW.

Like i said, I agree with people who believe asl only applies when receiving a charge, because thats how I read it first time and contextually it does make more sense. Here the 'should' argument would seem to apply, but it isn't a silver bullet either I'm afraid. So I'm actually arguing the opposite of how i interpret the rule because I think this one is not entirely clear from the language used (and I used to be an English language teacher, before anybody questions my credentials 😝). those who say it clear cut are being a bit too dismissive of other opinions, imho.

Most likely this is all caused by lazy editing and the need to squeeze all the rules on that one page. Good job GW 👍.

Also, please lets not make this 'deathblow mark II'. Although funnily enough i think this debate actually has more legs to it than that one.

Beers to all!
Krudd

Edited by Krudd Kraggsson, 17 January 2015 - 12:12 AM.

[Balric Fireforged]

You did a better job, Balric. I think you made the shot, and I made the assist.

As long as we score, man.

[Gotrong Gudmundsson]

If you go by RAW, there's no doubt about it. Here's the checklist for ASL:

 

- Making contact with the unit.

 

That's it. That's the only trigger for it. You make contact when being charged, and charging. It lasts the first round of combat.

 

Personally, I think even RAI it's meant to work on the charge, because otherwise the first two runes would be contradicting and directly working against the effect of the third rune. Sorta like having a Rune of Fire that also gave your opponent a 2+ ward against flaming.

 

"Haha, this only works when I'm getting charged! You'll never reach me in the first place".

[Balric Fireforged]

Fine. Play that way. Keep your messages clean and respectful.

[Granitbeard]

If you go by RAW, there's no doubt about it. Here's the checklist for ASL:

 

- Making contact with the unit.

 

That's it. That's the only trigger for it. You make contact when being charged, and charging. It lasts the first round of combat.

 

Personally, I think even RAI it's meant to work on the charge, because otherwise the first two runes would be contradicting and directly working against the effect of the third rune. Sorta like having a Rune of Fire that also gave your opponent a 2+ ward against flaming.

 

"Haha, this only works when I'm getting charged! You'll never reach me in the first place".

 

See to me, it is being charged only. Sorry. I get why it seems like it works either way, but I can't agree.

[Gotrong Gudmundsson]

I mean, if you want to do houserules that's fine, but the rule as written only gives you 1 requirement for triggering the ASL effect- being in contact. Since arguing RAI can take all day (and is often moot at a tournament), going by RAW until we get a FAQ (hah!) is the most sensible option.