Warrior Brotherhood rules opinion poll

[Ben]

According to the rules, how does Lightening Strike (Warrior Brotherhood) work. Please vote and comment. This be covered on Mondays Daily episode.

I will post my thoughts and also a full breakdown of all the relevant rules and FAQ's.

This is to gauge option on how people think the words as written work.  I'm not interested at this stage if you think that is too powerful/unbalanced/OTT/Silly.

 

[rokapoke]

1 minute ago, Ben said:

This is to gauge option on how people think the words as written work.  I'm not interested at this stage if you think that is too powerful/unbalanced/OTT/Silly.

I bet that won't stop discussion of exactly that, though! 

I'll take a look at it tonight and vote accordingly.

[Siegfried VII]

In the Warhammer TV games and I believe in the Heat 1 tournament it has been played so that the units can be deployed within 3 inches, so isn't this debate already solved?

Due to that I voted the first option, but as a Stormcast player I believe you should not be able to do it and I feel we could use stormcasts without it...

[Ben]

13 minutes ago, Siegfried VII said:

In the Warhammer TV games and I believe in the Heat 1 tournament it has been played so that the units can be deployed within 3 inches, so isn't this debate already solved?

Due to that I voted the first option, but as a Stormcast player I believe you should not be able to do it and I feel we could use stormcasts without it...

At blood and glory on the live stream in round 1 it was played the other way.   (outside 3") and then a blog post made about it showing 2 different ways that it worked!!!! (its like the hokey cokey!!)

 

[Nico]

Whichever way Warrior Brotherhood is ultimately ruled, for what it's worth, the important issue from my perspective is that a given player only needs to look at one of the two FAQ answers ( Setup or Move) to determine how to play a given rule.

Reading a rule, seeing the operative words "set up the unit" or "set up the models"; going to the set up FAQ answer; reading them; concluding that there's no express distance restriction, so you can set the unit up without any restriction; but then noticing (or not noticing) that the rule also ambiguously suggests that the rule might also be a move rule; and then having to read the Move FAQ; consider whether a single rule could be both a set up and a move and if it is both which prevails over the other; and finally concluding that you can set up, but not within 3" is convoluted. I would not envy explaining to a newer player using WB why they cannot deploy within 3" with the Azyros.

It's worth noting that the amended Move FAQ answer is really clear now.

I would suggest doing the following:

• Specify that any given rule must be either a set-up or a move (never both) and that the operative wording determines this (or include a list specifying which is which out of the ones which are open to confusion - cf. for example Clan Skryre and Skitterleap are not open to confusion - these are both undoubtedly set-up rules).
• Clarify if necessary that (given the point above) as a set-up rule is not a move; and a retreat is a move; a set-up rule is never a retreat (e.g. Vexillor's Pennant of the Stormbringer out of combat - can still charge and shoot).
• None of the above two points depends in any way on which phase this takes place in. This is already in the set up FAQ.
• Include in the FAQ an answer as a non-exhaustive list (e.g. it can be extended in future) of those rules that are amended by that FAQ answer so as to add an express 3" restriction (for example, it would have to say Warrior Brotherhood plus the Azyros's Leader of the Way ability). Anything not so listed, that isn't subject to this 3" restriction would be good to set up adjacent. Hence WB would still be a set up rule (and not a move), but would be subject to a newly added 3" restriction (which someone can point to in the FAQ in 5 seconds).

  

[Rob]

I'd say can set up in the because while there is ambiguity as to which section of faq applies, the set up one explicitly states lightning strike as an example ability that works that way.

[rokapoke]

To me, the Lightning Strike ability, when combined with the Knight-Azyros, allows you to place your models within 3" of the enemy. The bottom left of page 2 of the FAQ clearly indicates that setup isn't restricted to outside of 3" unless the relevant ability says so explicitly. The basic Lightning Strike puts you outside of 9" but the Azyros doesn't have a "stay outside of" clause. 

[buffalozap]

8 hours ago, Ben said:

how does Lightening Strike (Warrior Brotherhood) work

there is precedent in the rules for examples of things being permitted to set up within 3 inches like the picture I included here.  I think that unless it says in the unit ability that they can be set up within 3" of the enemy then they can not do so.

[Zen]

4 hours ago, buffalozap said:

there is precedent in the rules for examples of things being permitted to set up within 3 inches like the picture I included here.  I think that unless it says in the unit ability that they can be set up within 3" of the enemy then they can not do so.

Not necessarily true: the Shadowstrike specifies within 3" because the Tenebreal Shard specifically must be set up within 3" (ie. in combat).

 

[Turragor]

5 minutes ago, Zen said:

Not necessarily true: the Shadowstrike specifies within 3" because the Tenebreal Shard specifically must be set up within 3" (ie. in combat).

 

Yeah, the ability in Silver Tower is a teleport into combat or from one combat to another combat specifically. So perhaps not comparable?

[Nico]

Quote

there is precedent in the rules for examples of things being permitted to set up within 3 inches like the picture I included here.  I think that unless it says in the unit ability that they can be set up within 3" of the enemy then they can not do so.

This doesn't follow.

Read the set-up FAQ again, it puts the burden of proof on the person saying that the rule doesn't allow you to set up within 3" to show express wording that stops you ("unless noted otherwise").

There are a few rules which are completely silent on restrictions regarding enemy models and hence you can deploy irrespective of the enemy models.

As I've said above, whichever way WB is ruled (have the models, but am extremely unlikely to ever play the list - unless someone wants a practice game against it), the better solution is to spell out which ones can and which ones cannot deploy within 3" (and to keep a bright line between moves and set ups and to amplify this by providing that any given rule can only be one or the other).

[Jontypython]

I went for option 1 in the poll as I believe this is what the current FAQ wording allows. However I personally don't like doing it and tend to set-up outside of the 3" and roll the charge. Yeah I run the risk of failing but it makes the game more dramatic/exciting as getting that double 1 at a crucial time is always a good talking point/tactical challenge to turn around.

[buffalozap]

6 hours ago, Zen said:

must be set up within 3"

this is true, they can't be set up further than 3" but the point is that the ability to break the 3" buffer is granted by the ability and when it isn't specifically granted I think it is not allowed.

 

6 hours ago, Turragor said:

from one combat to another combat specifically

Nope. It can be used when not in combat too in order to enter combat anywhere.

 

5 hours ago, Nico said:

puts the burden of proof on the person saying that the rule doesn't allow you to set up within 3" to show express wording that stops you

I don't agree. My opinion is that abilities only grant what they specifically grant so if they don't specify that they get to break the 3" buffer then they can't. The fact that the shadowstrike ability makes this distinction implies intent in its case where that intent is missing from the stormcast ability language.

[Turragor]

6 hours ago, Turragor said:

Yeah, the ability in Silver Tower is a teleport into combat or from one combat to another combat specifically. So perhaps not comparable?

Is the full quote from me so I think I got your interpretation covered:

3 minutes ago, buffalozap said:

Nope. It can be used when not in combat too in order to enter combat anywhere.

With shadowstrike the difference is that you must end up in combat. Lightning strike (at least minus debate) has entering combat as optional.

[buffalozap]

9 minutes ago, Turragor said:

With shadowstrike the difference is that you must end up in combat. Lightning strike (at least minus debate) has entering combat as optional.

The fact that the shadowstriking unit must end up in combat is not the point. The point is that when GW intends to allow the 3" buffer to be disrespected they word the ability to make that distinction, as in the case with shadowstrike. In the absence of specific language allowing the buffer to be disrespected I believe the intent is for the buffer to be respected.

[Turragor]

Gonna have to disagree that they can be connected at all, the wording:

"Set it back up anywhere within 3 inches of the enemy"

To me is just specifying that it's a setup into combat only.

I suppose it's an agree to disagree situation.

[buffalozap]

3 minutes ago, Turragor said:

Gonna have to disagree that they can be connected at all, the wording:

"Set it back up anywhere within 3 inches of the enemy"

To me is just specifying that it's a setup into combat only.

I suppose it's an agree to disagree situation.

I agree that a permissive reading of the rules could imply setting up anywhere includes within 3" of other units, "anywhere" being interpreted very liberally.

A more conservative take on the rules as written (my leaning) applies some common sense from context that the "anywhere" has some limits.

The context that I believe gives restriction to "anywhere" are the precedents in the rules where when the intent is to disrespect the 3" buffer that language is specifically included. In the absence of permitting language to that effect I tend to conservatively assume the intent is that the buffer should be respected.

[Blish]

22 to 23. 
Might vote just to make it an even split. 

[Nico]

Quote

The context that I believe gives restriction to "anywhere" are the precedents in the rules where when the intent is to disrespect the 3" buffer that language is specifically included. In the absence of permitting language to that effect I tend to conservatively assume the intent is that the buffer should be respected.

This is called handwaving.

Read the Set Up FAQ Answer - it could not be more explicit that if the rule is silent, then you can setup adjacent/within 3".

The only issue in question is whether the WB's ambiguous wording makes it a "move" as well as a "set-up", which then tacks on an additional restriction at the very end of the thought process. 

Quote

I don't agree. My opinion is that abilities only grant what they specifically grant so if they don't specify that they get to break the 3" buffer then they can't. The fact that the shadowstrike ability makes this distinction implies intent in its case where that intent is missing from the stormcast ability language.

You're opinion is just to put the 3" rule on an imaginary pedestal.

The Camo Skinks are probably the most obvious example of a unit that can setup anywhere and that doesn't require special wording to allow it to do so. The whole point of the Setup FAQ answer was to firmly reject the idea that the 3" rule is up on a pedestal. It does so at length and with examples.

[buffalozap]

8 minutes ago, Nico said:

handwaving

you're being aggressive and passionate about your opinion. I agree that the rules can be interpreted in the way you're advocating like I said here:

1 hour ago, buffalozap said:

I agree that a permissive reading of the rules could imply setting up anywhere includes within 3" of other units, "anywhere" being interpreted very liberally.

There is no need to be hostile towards someone who is just voicing his opinion.

[rokapoke]

1 hour ago, buffalozap said:

There is no need to be hostile towards someone who is just voicing his opinion.

There's also no need to imply that people who don't share your opinion haven't tried common sense...

2 hours ago, buffalozap said:

A more conservative take on the rules as written (my leaning) applies some common sense from context that the "anywhere" has some limits.

Ultimately, as the title of the thread clearly states, this is an opinion poll. There is enough gray area in the rules that people have found justifications for both sides. That's why we discuss it. At some point GW may clearly land on one side or the other of this argument (and we have people in this thread that already feel that GW has landed on different sides!). Regardless, all opinions are valid and we shouldn't be casting down the people who feel differently. If there is something that is 100% clear cut (for instance, I cannot take two Nagash models in matched play), corrections should be (appropriately) made. When it's opinion, we can gently try to sway the other party but let's keep it civil!

[Grailstorm]

To be clear, we're discussing Lightning Strike in combination with the Knight Azyros, right? Because if landing next to an Azyros, you can clearly land within 3 inches.

However, if someone is trying to land within 3 inches without an Azyros nearby, they are breaking the rules.

[Requizen]

18 minutes ago, Grailstorm said:

To be clear, we're discussing Lightning Strike in combination with the Knight Azyros, right? Because if landing next to an Azyros, you can clearly land within 3 inches.

However, if someone is trying to land within 3 inches without an Azyros nearby, they are breaking the rules.

Actually this is the crux of the argument. The Knight-Azyros's "Leader of the Way" ability does not mention move or the move phase. It simply says Set Up, which is covered in the FAQ. 

[buffalozap]

1 hour ago, rokapoke said:

When it's opinion, we can gently try to sway the other party but let's keep it civil!

Instead of directing this towards me you'd have been better to direct it towards @Nico .  Like you said:

1 hour ago, rokapoke said:

this is an opinion poll. There is enough gray area in the rules that people have found justifications for both sides.

That's why I couched all my statements in passive voice, careful to explicitly state my statements are only opinions. I even articulated why I see the opposing argument as completely legitimate.

[Grailstorm]

28 minutes ago, Requizen said:

Actually this is the crux of the argument. The Knight-Azyros's "Leader of the Way" ability does not mention move or the move phase. It simply says Set Up, which is covered in the FAQ. 

So, forgive me, but what is the crux of the argument? Because I'm really failing to see one...

There is no mention of move or move phase... But does there need to be? The FAQ explains that units can be set up in the movement phase, which is exactly what happens when Stormcast units land. Units being set up near the Azyros can be within 9" of the enemy. That's all there is to it, surely?

The fact that it's the movement phase, and whether or not it "counts as a move" has no bearing on it.