dark elf assassin

[fued]

when he activates does he count as your activation for combat? or do you get his activation then his units before the enemies if you charge?

 

[Nico]

You activate all of your assassins at the start of the combat phase (note that it doesn't say you "select" them to activate), then you select your first unit to activate, then your opponent does so etc..

[Sarkazim]

Quote

Page 106 – Pitched Battles, Picking Your Army Change the last paragraph to read: ‘Once you have picked your army, record the details of it on a piece of paper (your army roster). The roster must include the units in your army, details of the upgrades they have, the army’s allegiance, and must say which model in the army will be the army general. If your army includes any units that are given keywords when they are set up, such as units with a Mark of Chaos, then these must be chosen and written down when the unit is added to the roster. You must record the allegiance abilities for your army when the battle begins, before setting up your first unit. You can choose to take either the allegiance abilities for the allegiance your army belongs to, or the allegiance abilities for the Grand Alliance your army belongs to.

I'm still seeing one or the other, but not both. 

Maybe I'm confused on the Battleline change?  Is counting Dark Riders as Battleline not an allegiance ability of 'Shadowblades'?

The other FAQ talks about Warscroll Battalions.  I'm under the impression that these are the formations that grant additional bonuses for taking the units listed on the scroll, which might have different Keywords.  The 'Ebondrake Warhost' is an example, and so would fit with what you're saying.  Shadowblades don't currently have a Battalion to get he benefit.

What am I missing?

[Sarkazim]

Yes.

Coming from 40k it was another uncomfortable thing, but so was shooting into and out of combat.  After slowing down and reading the 'When to use abilities', it really simplified everything, especially in the absence of any rule stating that we have to declare how many we have to activate.  Like the above example with the Skaven, it came back to bite me.  Once player A is done using any of his abilities, he's done for the turn.  So I cant interrupt player B from doing his thing, or even take action after he's done.  Forces us to move on to the rest of the game.

Another interesting effect with multiple Assassins was having to use them when there were two separate combats.  It makes sense, but noticed it was being done incorrectly in some Batreps.  Ex.  I have two units charge two different opponents on different sides of the board.  I got so excited about finally getting one of the Assassins in contact with a Hero, that I forgot to do the second one before moving on.  So it's not a true 'Interrupt' ability because once my opponent chose to activate his unit in contact with unreavealed unit, it was too late.  I'm sure most people know this, but for anyone reading, it's helpful to know, both for playing as and against stuff like this.

It's important to remember for things that do the same thing.  Using Fanatics as an example.  The player will choose to activate the first unit, place the models, roll charge distance.  After that is different done, he can then decide if he even want to activate another unit of Fanatics after seeing the result.  Maybe he rolled really good and decided to charge a unit that he didn't think he would.  Maybe he rolled bad, and now the first unit is in the way.  Either way, he has flex to make decisions based on when they happen, rather than be forced to execute an entire plan.

[Ratamaplata]

When you make your army you need to consider allegiance for qualifying battleline units.

When it comes to picking traits/artifacts if you qualify for two allegiances then you have to pick one. It doesn't affect your battleline choices.

[Nico]

Quote

Is counting Dark Riders as Battleline not an allegiance ability of 'Shadowblades'?

No.

The principle is of wider application than just Battalions. Trust me. This is old news. THe FB page has confirmed this multiple times as well. Ironjawz players have been using Destruction Allegiance abilities since day one.

[Sarkazim]

So even if I pick 'Order' and my allegiance is no longer 'Shadowblades', I still get to run the Dark Riders as Battleline because all of the units in the list have the Shadowblades keyword?   

[Nico]

Yes.

That's why they FAQed it.

[Sarkazim]

I had to search for the thread, but didn't see it in the FAQ.  I've read the whole thread, the FAQ, and then back to the GHB.  I'm just going to just restate it here in a way that makes sense to me, just to make sure I've got it right in my head.

1) The first part is Picking the army.  Once I've picked my army (and allegiance), I fill out the roster and all relevant information.  Since I'm not taking any units that already have the Battleline rule, I have to take X number of Dark Riders to be the fill the Battleline requirement.  Doing that restricts only my Army choice to taking units with the Shadowblade rules.  My options being 1-6 Assassins, and 1 Shadowblade (Character).

** After that is done, its locked in **

2) Prior to the the game starting, I look at all the allegiances I have available.  There are technically 3.  Order, Aelf, and Shadowblades.  I now have the option to choose which benefits to use on a game by game basis, because all of the units meet the requirements of all 3.

3) I now select that I'm using the Order Allegiance BONUS to apply to the army, which prevents me from using the Aelf, or Shadowblade bonuses.  This doesn't cancel any army building restrictions because I still meet the requirements of that Allegiance.

** There are currently no specific bonuses for either the Aelf or Shadowblades.  Allegiance bonuses using these keywords might get released.  If/when that happens, THEN I will be forced to choose between them or the Grand Alliance bonuses.  Until then, there is no reason to NOT take the Order Allegiance bonus.

** When hey do come out with rules for these other Keywords, I'll be able to choose between them from game to game?

Is this more or less correct?

[rokapoke]

12 minutes ago, Sarkazim said:

I had to search for the thread, but didn't see it in the FAQ.  I've read the whole thread, the FAQ, and then back to the GHB.  I'm just going to just restate it here in a way that makes sense to me, just to make sure I've got it right in my head.

1) The first part is Picking the army.  Once I've picked my army (and allegiance), I fill out the roster and all relevant information.  Since I'm not taking any units that already have the Battleline rule, I have to take X number of Dark Riders to be the fill the Battleline requirement.  Doing that restricts only my Army choice to taking units with the Shadowblade rules.  My options being 1-6 Assassins, and 1 Shadowblade (Character).

** After that is done, its locked in **

2) Prior to the the game starting, I look at all the allegiances I have available.  There are technically 3.  Order, Aelf, and Shadowblades.  I now have the option to choose which benefits to use on a game by game basis, because all of the units meet the requirements of all 3.

3) I now select that I'm using the Order Allegiance BONUS to apply to the army, which prevents me from using the Aelf, or Shadowblade bonuses.  This doesn't cancel any army building restrictions because I still meet the requirements of that Allegiance.

** There are currently no specific bonuses for either the Aelf or Shadowblades.  Allegiance bonuses using these keywords might get released.  If/when that happens, THEN I will be forced to choose between them or the Grand Alliance bonuses.  Until then, there is no reason to NOT take the Order Allegiance bonus.

** When hey do come out with rules for these other Keywords, I'll be able to choose between them from game to game?

Is this more or less correct?

Yessir, I'd say you've got the gist of it now!

[fued]

good trick I found was having the assassin as the general... suddenly he is 7 attacks with -1rend on 3+/3+ that does d3 on heroes, which is a lot scarier

[Sarkazim]

1 hour ago, fued said:

good trick I found was having the assassin as the general... suddenly he is 7 attacks with -1rend on 3+/3+ that does d3 on heroes, which is a lot scarier

Hah, after all that the OP returns to his thread.  Sorry for the Hijack, it wasn't my intent.

Since I'm going Shadowblades, Assassins are my only Hero choice that can be upgraded.  I'm not going to disagree with you on the first part of this.  The +1A is really the only good trait worth taking on the Assassin.  

There are 3 weapons that would work good.  I did consider the -1 rend, but at this point you'd still be taking a dumbed down version of Shadowblade.  Might be worth it for the 80 points for the Assassin compared to the 140 for Shadowblade now that I think about it.   A CLOSE call was the Relic Blade.  Having that +1 damage would be great against non heroes, which is where I find the Assassins hitting more often.  There is the issue about the wording when fighting Heroes though.  Would it still be the D3 wounds or would it be D3+1 vs. Heroes.  I chose to go with Hoarfrost though since our PTG campaign requires a Hero to be the general, and we can't change it up throughout the event.

Why would you want an Assassin to be your General though?  I'm only recently thinking about this since I was initially told that I couldn't use the Order stuff, but I can't see many advantages in having him as your general.  If there is another Hero on the board, surely there are better options to get these rewards.

Even in my Shadowblades, I'm considering running a Herald as my General. I can easily see anything with a Dark Shield work well with the Phoenix stone, especially the Dreadlord on Black Dragon.  Inspiring Presence and Reckless can actually be used since the general would be on the table from the start, which Assassins aren't.  

Having the Herald as a General looks like it's a very good option, at least for me.  I'll actually get a Command Trait in the army, and it will be usable in game.  Having that on an Assassin means that the Assassin has to survive the turn he pops out to even be able to use it, and he probably won't be around much longer after that.  In addition for me, my army is so mobile that they won't be around to use it.  It also makes it difficult for my opponent to get a Sudden Death victory but cutting down his options.

Having Reckless makes sense just to get that additional edge on controlling charges.  I really like Inspiring Presence, but the Herald isn't a Hero so he might be ineligible to use the rule since it extends the current alliance rule, and doesn't grant it.  Can't go wrong even with having an additional wound on him, but you can just keep him in a larger unit to increase the number of wounds needed to kill him.  Since the Heralds have a +1 to hit, the other artifacts become more attractive since they'll be around longer than the Assassin will.  

Anyways, just a few thoughts going through my head right now.
 

[fued]

ah im running a skink army with assassin in my ripperdactyls... skink heros are all support heroes, so an assassin is perfect as a general.

 

Shadowblade would be better, but needs to be in a dark elf unit, assassin can be any unit.

[Sarkazim]

I didn't even catch that.  

In matched play, I cant really run him since there aren't any EXILES in the army to put him in.  Not an issue with normal games where there is less of an issue.

-----

So you're in a similar situation.  Your choice of army leaves you kind of lacking in options for a good general.

Nico - I need a link or reference to where it says I HAVE to deploy/reveal all of my Assassins/Fanatics at the same time and then go back and resolve each of them.

[Nico]

You've got there re allegiance abilities.

There's no particular link for such a specific point. It's just a consequence of playing a game (1) step by step and (2) doing all the simultaneous things in one step in an order of your choice - point (2) is in the Hints and Tips section of any Battletome. Point (1) is really down to personal interpretation - you can subdivide the Assassin's rules into two steps or just one. It doesn't matter that much.

[Sarkazim]

'Two Assassins Walk into a Bar...'

On 10/17/2016 at 1:15 AM, Nico said:

There's no particular link for such a specific point. It's just a consequence of playing a game (1) step by step and (2) doing all the simultaneous things in one step in an order of your choice - point (2) is in the Hints and Tips section of any Battletome. Point (1) is really down to personal interpretation - you can subdivide the Assassin's rules into two steps or just one. It doesn't matter that much.

As I don't currently own a Battletome, I had to find one and look it up.  I pulled this one from the Death battletome, and I'm going to assume that they're all copy/pasted, so if they're different then I'll need to know.  From what I read there, it tells us to do the EXACT opposite of what you've been saying.  I'll agree that it doesn't matter much as long as neither player has conflicting abilities.  In a recent game against Skaven, it became important because he also had an Assassin. 

Quote

When To Use Abilities:  Abilities that are used at the start of a phase must be carried out before any other actions. By the same token, abilities used at the end of the phase are carried out after all normal activities for the phase are complete.

If you can use several abilities at the same time, you can decide in which order they are used.  If both players can carry out abilities at the same time, the player whose turn is taking place uses their abilities first.

The first line in there states that the abilities must be 'carried out before any other actions'.  We are advised to carry out abilities before moving on.  Once we declare that an Assassin is going to be used, we don't interrupt it.  ie. Once we say we're using 'Hidden Assassin', we complete the entire ability before moving on to the next.  Placing multiple Assassins goes against the 'carried out before' line.

I am including 'before any other actions' to also mean any other abilities that are also used at the start of the phase.  In addition to keeping things simple, it fits in with the first line of the next entry, where the controlling player decides on the order they are carried out.  No mention has been made of having to declare any/all abilities before deciding the order.  So it's quite legal (although maybe a bit scum-ish) to pop one Assassin out, and if you fail to kill the Target, then decide to activate another one.  They are Assassins after all, but it's incorrect to force a player to reveal all of the Assassins he intends to use.

The last line was the interesting one to me.  The current player doesn't get to choose when he's going to allow the opposing player to use his abilities.  It flat out states that the current player uses his first.  This is kind of huge for three reasons.  One, my opponent CAN'T stop/interrupt me from using my abilities.  Two, while my opponent can't stop me he'll potentially have more options, since my abilities will have already been carried out and on the board.  Three, I don't have the option to activate any abilities AFTER he has chosen to activate his.  

-----
Game Rundown:
So after discussing allowing the Assassin to attack twice, he wanted try it out with his Assassin as well.  We had to stop the game and figure all this out, since he also thought that all of the Assassins had to be revealed and then the order chosen by the current player (me).  If both players reveal all the models they intend to use, then his Assassin is down on the table where I can choose to hit him with mine before he gets to swing.  So we agreed that it was a reveal-carry out process.  

So I chose to activate my first Assassin, then he tried to interrupt that by trying to use his Assassin to murder my Assassin.  Since we had already determined that the Assassin would have to finish using his ability I resolved my attacks against the intended unit.  

Then he decided to Activate his Assassin and tried to kill my Assassin.  This was a bold move on his part, since he knew I had Priority and could just select my Assassin to kill his if he didn't kill me.  Well, he DID manage to kill my Assassin.  In response to that, I decided to activate my second Assassin try and do the same thing, which caused us both to look at the rule, and learn that I COULDN'T, and his Assassin got to attack that turn against the Dark Riders.

Sidenote:  SERIOUSLY on the Skaven Assassins?  Even they have a 4+ Save, and while they only have 3 Attacks, they come with the -1 Rend, a flat D3 Wounds, and full re-rolls against Heroes.  All for just a 20 point difference.  In the next Combat Phase, I activated my 2nd Assassin to try and take him out and failed.  He activated his Assassin first and spanked mine.  For fun, we rolled my Attacks a second time to see what would happen, and he still didn't die.
-----

Anyways, long read, and I'm not trying to prove anything.  If the other Battletomes are different, then please let me know.  It seems to me that I've got it pretty clear, and others may disagree.  I just feel it's incorrect to present the rule as fact stating that players must reveal all their Assassins/Fanatics/etc. then choose the order in which to resolve them, when there is a rule/tip stating the exact opposite.
 

[Nico]

Interesting. Perhaps it does make sense to read the whole of Hidden Assassin as a single ability. So you would pop out and attack with one assassin, then (still in the start of the combat phase before the selections happen) pop out the second one and have it pile in and attack.

[Nico]

Look they have clarified this in the FAQ for the GH - happy days for you. You get the Order Allegiance Abilities. You can use Shadowblades for army building, but before the game you can still pick Order.

[Sarkazim]

When an army meets the qualifies for multiple allegiances, you have to pick one.  You don't get both, that's straight out of the GHB.

So my army has both the 'Order' and 'Shadowblades' key words.  I have to pick one or the other.  If I pick Order, I don't get the Shadowblades allegiance, and all of my Dark Riders won't fulfill the Battleline requirement.  Because of my choice of army, I have to choose 'Shadowblades' to get the have the Dark Riders count as Battleline.  So I don't get the benefits of re-rolling Battleshock, Trait, or Artefact.  They're restricted to an Order Allegiance.

My GHB is at home, but I'll double check later. Unless you've got a page reference that I missed on the whole thing.

[Nico]

Quote

It's hard enough knowing that I've disqualified myself from getting the 'Order' Allegiance bonuses.

You haven't - you can still choose the Order Allegiance Pack while maintaining another allegiance for the purpose of Battleline units. You can take the weapon that gives extra rend or +1 damage on at least one assassin.

[Sarkazim]

Not familiar with the Hurricanum.  The bigger issue I have with adding anything to my list is that Dark Riders lose being Battleline, so I'm very restricted there.  It's hard enough knowing that I've disqualified myself from getting the 'Order' Allegiance bonuses.  Something I thought had had when I got into it.  Seeing as I just shelled out for 12 boxes of Dark Riders, I'm at 2k, and now have a huge project that I'm going to stick with.  So both time and money wise, I'm covered for a while, and the focus is now on how to play the army and make it work.

You've been an immense help in making the case for this debate, and I'm refreshingly surprised at the reception I've gotten once you ignore the nay-sayers.  Even the Local Warhamer Manager LOVES the idea of a pure Shadowblade army, if for nothing more than it's uniqueness, because who actually does that?  The games that I've played have been on the level of fun that I haven't experienced since I learned to play Blood Bowl.

-----
Some things I'm looking forward to/dreading fighting.

- One of the Assassin models that I own is the actual Shadowblade model.  So I've got this 3rd Warscroll floating around as an option for the army.  He re-rolls attacks and has a -1 rend are the key differences.  His Mortal wounds that he inflicts as he goes out is more humorous than practical. He's also the same cost as a unit of Dark Riders.  Even with the bonuses, I don't think he'll be that impressive if we end up deciding that Assassins can't attack a second time.  

- One group just started a 'Path to Glory' type campaign where we're building our lists using the Pitched Battle rules, but not requiring Battleline.  The advantage here is that I get to see how running the 'Order' Allegiance is going to work, mainly having the Battleshock bonus once the Assassins are down.  Slightly afraid of getting used to it, since I won't have it in Matched Play.  The upside is that I get a trait and artefact.  I've gone with the +1 Attack and Hoarfrost on my General, so I have a 7 Attack Assassin with a weapon that makes it hard for my opponent to hit him back.

- Mortal Wounds.  I have no way of dealing these with my current setup.  While I'm not worried about it, there are armies out there that have 2+ re-rollable saves.  Armies with -1 or -2 Rends have a hard time with this.  With no rend on anything, I'm going to struggle with these and even the Assassins don't help.  My hope is that I can play to the Scenario.

- Running into another mobile army.  They're rare, but a mirror-match type game of cat and mouse actually has me a bit nervouse.

Thanks again for responding, nice to know that someone is reading all this.

 

[Nico]

What would be good would be sticking them in a Hurricanum - not just for the surprise value but also for the +1 to hit buff.

Anything with 3+, 3+ and a low volume of attacks is a recipe for disappointment I'm afraid.

[Sarkazim]

5 hours ago, Nico said:

The logic is the simple fact that the assassin has in fact attacked. You are pinning a huge amount on the word selected in the general rule about not attacking twice in one combat phase. It's a 4 page ruleset, not an exhaustive Codification of the many rules. The point of the rule is to override timing restrictions, so that your assassin or in this case all your assassins get to attack first in a special window at the start of the combat phase. There's nothing to suggest that the purpose of the rule was to allow them to attack twice in the combat phase.

This is what my original thought was when I looked at the rules.  Our instinct is telling us that since the model has made it's attacks via a special rule, that it has attacked.  It's sound reasoning.  When I came to do a search on it, I found this thread.  So I'm not the only one who is questioning this, and it turns out that it's not logical to assume that it has made it's attacks for the reasons listed.

I'm not going to try to convince you that I'm right, but I'm not settled on you being right either.  It's incorrect to dictate how a rule is played when we don't have any clear direction.  Treating the Assassin as having attacked for the turn goes AGAINST how the 4 page rules interact with every other Warscroll that I've seen.  All of the 4 page rules are applied to every model in the game, and without an explicit exemption from them, logic dictates that we must still apply them.

The best example I can give is the same as above with the Executioners.  When they roll a 6 to wound they generate 2 mortal wounds because of their ability.  IF the rule had ended there, then we run into the exact same problem that we have with the wording on the Assassin.  Is it implied that those Mortal Wounds are in place of the normal roll to wound?  We're fortunate enough to have the additional exception to the normal rule with the inclusion of the words 'Instead of it's normal damage'.  If that were not there, then both the implied interpretation of 2 Mortal wounds instead of normal damage and the interpretation that counts a normal wound in addition to the mortal wounds would both be accurate.

What this does tell us though, is that the models are still subject to all of the normal rules, unless stated otherwise.  So coming back to the Assassin, we have a very similar situation to the executioners, where the wording exempting them from being able to attack normally is missing, creating the exact same situation we have here.  This is something that has been understood by everyone that I've explained it to.  They've come to the conclusion that the Assassins do get to attack as normal, or that there is enough evidence to allow it and see if it really is op/broken/unfair/abuse/etc.  No one else has dictated as an absolute that he cannot attack.  That's really saying something about how they also see they rules applying to models.

-----

As for Tactics, you've got some valid points.  I can put the Assassin in any unit, even non Aelf units etc.  I'm not currently running any of those.  I'm going straight Shadowblades.  So I'm only running Dark Riders with Assassins in them.  I'm going to see the uncommon situations more than the common ones because of my army choice.  

I'm going to be the one charging more often than my opponent because of my mobility, which will make it harder for foot units to charge me.  In a diverse army, getting charged will be more common.  It will also be easier for my opponent to control where his HERO models attack, and he'll have the advantage of having the initiative more frequently.  On the turns that I get charged, the Assassin will pop out and try to kill the HERO before he swings.  Since my opponent has the initiative, just like playing any other army, will have to decide if he wants to kill the Assassin before he gets to attack.  

That won't happen as often with my current setup.  With a 16" move, I will often be the one charging, but my opponent will still make life difficult for me to get at his heroes.  Your advice to hold off for a turn until I have the initiative is an option, and being able to activate the Assassin and use 'Hidden Murderer' and then select him as a normal attack might be uncomfortable.  However this is the EXACT same thing that the CEH is doing when he charges, so it's not impossible, or even broken since there is another unit that does the same thing.

I'm still only 3 games in.  I'm still popping the Assassins out at every opportunity to see how they work, and I'll eventually learn to keep then hidden for later turns.  Both for practicality and psychology of leaving my opponent guessing WHERE the Assassins are.  What I am finding is that the Assassin is HORRIBLE at killing things.  He has a 3+/3+/-/1 on his profile which looks scary at first.  So far I've only seen him take one or two models down, with even the Dark Riders doing more damage.  His trade of rend for the D3 wounds vs. Heroes seems really good, and it might be.  I just haven't seen it yet.  
I understand the fear of the potential that Assassins can do.  12 Attacks is really good.  In comparison to other heroes having rend or causing multiple wounds, I'm kind of disappointed in him so far.  I'm going to keep running them because I've invested in the Army and they really fit the theme.  From a strictly competitive standpoint, it looks like using the points on more Dark Riders would be more consistent in it's performance. 

I've no doubts that the Assassins will have their moments.  My first game saw one Assassin going up against a Tzeetch Herald and it took 3 turns to kill him.  Admittedly it was on the low end with bad rolls.  I've only managed to get the Assassin against one other HERO, and he had a 4+ save.  Only did 2 wounds to him WITH the double attacks on the turn I revealed him.  What made it worse, is that his HERO ignored the Assassin for the next two rounds, seeing the Dark Riders as the bigger threat.  In those two rounds I'd only managed to put 2 more wounds on him before he was forced to turn around an kill the Assassin.

It wasn't until the 3rd game that I got my first complaint.  I put 2 Assassins in the one unit and had them both pop out.  The 12 Attacks and the Dark Riders managed to take out the Khorne Demon mounted unit (not sure on name) and my opponent was upset.  Until I pointed out that I had just used 440/1000 points to take out his unit before he got to swing.  With the Assassins out, he just ignored them for the rest of the game and destroyed me slowly.  Which is how it should be.

When compared to other heroes, I'm fully aware that I'm trading the the consistency of something more reliable for the potential to outright destroy something.  My opponents are learning that the Assassins aren't terribly impressive at the same rate that I am.  Maybe I'm just lucky.  I'm in a position where I have 3 different groups that I can attend.  I prefer to play at my local Warhammer store, there is another group closer to my house, and there is a league that I've joined that is closer to my work.  I'm the only Dark Aelf player, and they're just happy to have one represented.  None of them have said that he can't attack a second time, or have dismissed it outright. 

-----

I've gotten two more games lined up this week against players who want to see it played out before they make up their mind, so I'll report back then.  I've gotten way off track and topic here, but I'm going to stand by allowing it for now.  There is stronger evidence to support that it is allowed, and enough evidence to at least try it out.  The best answer that I can give the OP at this point is 'make up your mind, and ask your group'.  

As with any game, it'll be up to a TO anyways, but I'm starting to feel like not allowing it on principle is alienating players for disagreeing with an interpretation that is required to make them moderately useful.

 

 

[Nico]

Quote

I understand that completely and the argument rests solely on whether or not 'Hidden Murderer' counts as having attacked.  If using 'Hidden Murderer' doesn't take up the players selection (should the player have the current turn), then there is no logic following that he would also count as having attacked.

The logic is the simple fact that the assassin has in fact attacked. You are pinning a huge amount on the word selected in the general rule about not attacking twice in one combat phase. It's a 4 page ruleset, not an exhaustive Codification of the many rules. The point of the rule is to override timing restrictions, so that your assassin or in this case all your assassins get to attack first in a special window at the start of the combat phase. There's nothing to suggest that the purpose of the rule was to allow them to attack twice in the combat phase.

The fact that there are other abilities that allow you to attack twice in the combat phase actively goes against your viewpoint, because these other rules make expressly clear that you can do so (unlike the assassin rule). What you're trying to do is use high literalism to get around the rule around not attacking twice in one combat phase. Yes -it does work if you accept hyper-literalism and pin your hopes on the word "selected", but don't expect it to be ruled that way at a tournament.

I'm pretty sure the assassin can hide in any of your units - it could be in a hero who teleports or in a movement 16 flying unit. Bear in mind that this assassin could be hidden in a unit of 10 (or even 20) Retributors 3 inches away. The best bet might be to hold back a turn, let the Retributors melt stuff and then pop the assassins in your opponent's turn when a hero counterpunches - knocking him down a few pegs before he can attack. Some things (Durthu) drop effectiveness dramatically once you knock 3-4 wounds off them.

Quote

The players will be able to see my list, and the simple knowledge that there are 4 Assassins in the army is enough to adapt tactically anyways.  

This is a huge part of the value - your opponent is having to misdeploy to counter you. This might keep his hero away from an objective or out of combat for a turn - that's not insignificant.

[Sarkazim]

I understand that completely and the argument rests solely on whether or not 'Hidden Murderer' counts as having attacked.  If using 'Hidden Murderer' doesn't take up the players selection (should the player have the current turn), then there is no logic following that he would also count as having attacked.  What I'm also seeing in AoS in general, is that the normal rules still apply to the Assassin, and nothing in 'Hidden Assassin' prevents that from being applied.  Like it does with most of the other Warscrolls which have the wording to exempt them from doing things.  I would expect to see language that prevents the normal attack step applying to him.

All irrelevant though.  What I've loved about the AoS groups that I've come across is that they've accepted my viewpoint and we're going to play some games before making the final decision.  I managed to speak to members of the second and third groups that I will be playing with.  They either agree with me, or they're going to allow it to find out if it really is broken.  You're not the only one who has said that it counts as having attacked, but I've found that your solution is the minority of players that I've come across.  So I'll be able to find out for myself, and decide if it is too powerful and go from there.    
-----

One of the group members gave me a head up though.

https://www.games-workshop.com/resources/PDF/AoS_Warscrolls/aos-warscroll-chaos-exalted-hero-en.pdf
 

Here is another model that gets to attack twice, so it's not as broken or impossible.  That and it's not just in the same phase, but on the same activation, each time he charges.  The Assassin can only do it on the turn that he is revealed, and has to be selected in order to get his second round of attacks.  Once that is done, he's done for the rest of the game.  The CEH, has a rend and the possibility to double his number of attacks.  If the CEH is going against a hero, he has the same hit and wound rolls as the Assassin.  The Assassin only gets the possibility of switching from 1 wound to D3 IF he manages to direct his attacks against a HERO, and the save is failed. 

Both Heroes are quite comparable with the exception that the CEH gets random attacks.  The CEH does have the 4+ save compared to the Assassin who has a 5+, which most other heroes have some sort of Rend.  Both heroes also happen to be the same point cost.  The CEH appears to come out ahead as far as what it can do, with the only exception being rolling low on both attacks.  He also has to charge to get the 2nd round of attacks, and being on foot causes some problems, but after he's out of combat, he gets the option to do it again.  The Assassin doesn't.

So in order to be really OP, the following conditions would have to be perfect.
1) It would have to be my turn.  For the ability to pick the Assassin to attack after resolving 'Hidden Murderer'.  Since I'm running Shadowblades, I have a bit more control here compared to running a mixed army where he can hide in a broader variety of units.
2) The unit would have to successfully charge.  Again, I have a slight advantage here because of the Dark Riders movement and ability to re-roll one of the dice on the charge.  
3) That unit would have to make it into combat with a Hero.  While I do have the ability to maneuver, I'm finding this difficult to accomplish, as the heroes are usually protected by ground units.  The bigger models are fast enough to or resilient enough to survive, and turn around and kill the Assassin anyways.  The players will be able to see my list, and the simple knowledge that there are 4 Assassins in the army is enough to adapt tactically anyways.  
4) The opposing HERO would have to be in a situation where shooting him wouldn't be easier.  THIS is the biggest struggle I'm seeing with trying to get Assassins to do their thing BECAUSE I'm running Shadowblades.  While it's only happened once, and the above 3 conditions are aligned, the Hero is exposed to all of the Shooting that I have.  

It hasn't happened yet, but the Assassin would be security at this point to make sure that the Hero died after the charge, which is possible if the hero is down a wound or two before popping 'Hidden Murderer'.  If he dies, then I don't see him being close enough to pile in at a later phase anyways since he'll most likely be outside of 3", there will be non-heroes around if there is some within 3", and he won't generally survive the attacks back.  

With no backup plan, I'm going to have to learn when to and when not to use the Assassin.  I'm only 3 games in, and while I enjoy the guessing game, I've had the Assassins pop out, do their thing (usually against line troops), and then he just shrugs.  After the games, my opponents commented that if there are cheap troops around, they'll probably even ignore him after seeing how mediocre he is.  

We'll see how it goes after a few more games.
 

[Nico]

I'm taking the "No unit can be selected to attack more than once in each combat phase." and reading it purposively to say cannot attack twice (even if the first time was a special attack which doesn't involve a selection step), generalising this principle.

I would expect to see language saying that the unit can be selected to attack again as normal later in the combat phase to override this. I don't doubt that you could read it your way, but prefer the less overpowered approach.

The rest of the discussion is about detailed sequencing and really just depends on whether you divide a rule into two steps or not ((1) deploy and (2) pile in and attack) - you could play it either way. There's a small information advantage to playing it your way, but it doesn't make much difference in most cases as far as I can see.