Jump to content


Rune Of Slowness

slow bsb rune

  • Please log in to reply
48 replies to this topic

#41 Zidane_blade


    Dwarf Lord

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,383 posts

Posted 17 January 2015 - 11:41 AM

Normally, yes, but not in this instance. Taking a part of a sentence, and calling that, the rule, is not the way to go.
You have to put it into context. Which is, the way it is written, rather clear. So no need to argue a whole day.

#42 Krudd Kraggsson

Krudd Kraggsson

    Dwarf Longbeard

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 550 posts

Posted 17 January 2015 - 11:58 AM

Although i agree with your conclusion in terms of how the rule should be interpreted zidane_blade, your argument is incorrect. The language, even in context, is not 100% definitive. Therefore, Gotrung and others are entitled to interpret the rule their way because its semantically unclear.

#43 The Grim Delver

The Grim Delver

    Dwarf Warrior

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 80 posts

Posted 17 January 2015 - 12:06 PM

Everytime I read this rule, I switch sides on the debate. I was originally on the side of charging and recieving a charge. Then when I looked at the rule in the context of the previous effects and I thought it was just on recieving a charge. Now again, I´m not so sure. The wording is completely open to interpretation because the writers failed to make it explicit. The contact mentioned isn´t stated specifically as only happening when recieving a charge. Or at least not specifically enough for my liking.


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!


I´ve used it three times all with positive results. Twice I recieved a charge and one battle where I charged. The thing about using it on the BsB is that if you need to  make sure this unit goes up against his deathstar or some other  big expensive unit. Hammerers are the optimal choice for this combo. On recieving a charge, if your hammerers are in horde formation, and  can get about 40 ws5 str6 attacks away at the same time as him, it´s going to hurt. There are not many units that can stand up to this type of beating and I was sure to make him understand that he was going to take severe casulties.. My opponent was so worried about maximising his own attacks that my BsB survived both times as he didn´t want to waste dice to kill him. Even if he did go after him, the complete loss of his own unit was great enough of a blow that it tipped the balance irrevocabily in my favour. This combo could come a cropper against stubborn units but even then, the fact that you maximised the amount of attacks you had meant that he probably has probably very little left by turn two of the combat.

On the one time I did charge with it, which I concede, I probably shouldn´t have been able to do, it was a slaughter. This was using Ungrim with a horde of 40 slayers.  and the beauty was that not only did the slayers strike at the same time as his guys but they got to make the deathblow directly afterwards.

#44 Gormadon


    Dwarf Warrior

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 88 posts

Posted 17 January 2015 - 03:00 PM

I agree and had the sense that contact can be an active or passive verb, and so I think that us charging them satisfies the requirement for contact. 


I also don't really understand this argument that the word "should" means it is dependent on something else. The way I read it, it is practically interchangeable with "if". The word's "if" and "should" aren't dependent on some prior context. We can have a sentence of "If X, then Y", like we have this sentence "Should X happen, then Y". Both create their own dependency. It is not "Should the unit be charged" as in the context of the previous runes, but rather "Should a foe contact (active or passive) the bearing unit..." The phrase should is creating it's own situational dependence, not relying on anything previously.

#45 Tah Kazak Rik

Tah Kazak Rik

    Scion of Grimnir

  • Brewery Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,161 posts

Posted 17 January 2015 - 03:31 PM

Once again, keep things civil. If you are wondering about what posts in this thread I am talking about, please send me a PM. 

The next time someone is rude to another member they will receive a temporary suspension on their account.

There have been several public warnings against rude behavior and personal insults. So I would appreciate, and I know everyone else would, if those involved in this thread would be civil.

Also can you guys please try to not multi-post? That also is against forum rules. 

Is that understood?

#46 Balric Fireforged

Balric Fireforged

    Dwarf Longbeard

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 587 posts

Posted 17 January 2015 - 03:40 PM

If you are going to interpret 3xRoSlowness as being independant of the previous two, and through that rule that any enemy gains ASL regardless of who charges, fine.

But, if you're going to do that, then you also have to take 2xRoSlowness in isolation, which basically means that ANY enemy ANYWHERE on the table top that charges ANYTHING (not even your own units!) rolls 2d6 and subtracts the highest, since it doesn't say anything about the preceding effect, or even mention the bearing unit.

One banner with 2xRoSlowness anywhere on the table and Dwarfs are invincible.

#47 Montegue


    Dwarf King

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,756 posts

Posted 17 January 2015 - 03:50 PM

Eh, I think that might be a bit of a stretch. Clearly we're talking about being in contact with the unit in question. 

#48 Balric Fireforged

Balric Fireforged

    Dwarf Longbeard

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 587 posts

Posted 17 January 2015 - 04:14 PM

Well, clearly we are also talking about when they are being charged by a foe, but since people are arguing that we can simply drop that portion of the rule due to the fact that it's not specifically restated in 3xRoSlowness, I just applied the same logic to 2xRoSlowness.

Given that that results in something obviously ridiculous, it seems pertinent that we apply that lesson when analyzing 3xRoSlowness.

#49 Swordthain


    Dwarf King

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,004 posts

Posted 18 January 2015 - 04:45 AM

That's a good point, Balric. I concur.

Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: slow, bsb, rune

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users