Some basic rules questions

[LordRogalDorn]

1. Is the Death command trait, Red Fury, Subjected to the rule of 1?

2. If there are 2 Daemon Princes of Slaanesh within 3 inches of an enemy unit that activates, can both of the Daemon Princes activate in response to the enemy activation?

   1. There is a discussion on this question here

      The thing that this would imply is that there is a stack of activations. As in enemy unit activates, then in response Slaanesh Dp activates, then because the enemy unit is still waiting on the stack to activate, the second Slaanesh Dp can activate because an enemy unit within 3in is trying to activate. An alternative is that an enemy unit tried to activate and the first Slaanesh DP responds to that activation. And now there is no unit that just activated for the second dp to activate. The third alternative (which I think is the weakest) is that the 2 Dp's attack simultaneously. 

3. How do Battalion special deployments work if the mission also has special deployment rules (escalation)?

4. Can you have a battalion in your sideboard?
   1. Can you have the points for a battalion in your sideboard that you can swap in and out for other models and battalions? Or could you just swap 2 battalions that your force as the models for in your main army?

Thanks for all of your input.

[Sarkazim]

3 hours ago, Nico said:

I don't see there being 2 separate triggers.

There isn't 2 separate Triggers.  It's a return to the same trigger after the resolution of the first DP.  Something the OP mentioned.

The 'Hints and Tips' in the Death Battletome tells the player to choose the order the abilities are used.  I don't know if the Sylvaneth one says something different and I'll check next time I'm around.  I find it difficult, but not impossible, to believe that it would say something different. If it does, then GW will really need to FAQ it.

Going off the Death one, both DPs CAN activate off of the same trigger, then the DP players chooses the order they are USED.  This where a player actually declares the use of an ability, and immediately resolves it.  Then he USES the ability of any other Models.  There is no requirement to declare that both ARE going use their abilities, then choose the order in which they are RESOLVED.  That's the difference.

The DP situation has two outcomes (and a myth that he asked about).

Outcome A: A Unit activates within 3" of 2xDPs.  The DP player chooses the order in which to use each DP uses their ability.  He declares that DP1 will go, checks to see if it hasn't attacked, then piles-in, and attacks.  Like normal play, several things can happen as a result of that ability.  The target unit can remove casualties, die, or the Pile-in move from DP1 could make it impossible for DP2 to pile in or even attack.  After DP1 is done we return to the original trigger to check and see if DP2 is still valid to use his abilities.

Outcome B: A unit activates within 3" of 2xDPs.  The DP player declares that both DPs are going use their ability, and chooses to resolve DP1.  He checks to see if the model has has attacked or not, then piles-in and attacks.  As long as DP2 can still make contact then this Outcome isn't any different from Outcome A. 

Hopefully you can see how this creates potential problems.  How does DP2 get to attack if he can't get into range?  How does DP2 get to attack if the trigger unit isn't there?  Did DP2 count as having used his ability or can he still use it in response to a different Trigger later in the game?  Forcing a player to declare all abilities used before resolving any of them doesn't answer these questions.  Especially when there isn't a rule saying they have to.

Myth: Simultaneous resolution of multiple abilities.  Ive seen it done, and it makes sense when trying to come up with a solution that works for Outcome B.  When you force a player to use declare that he has to use all of his abilities, then you try to find a way that allows both abilities so that they aren't wasted.  So we end up with two DPs that both activate, both pile-in, then both attack.  Often times all of the dice are rolled before any casualties are removed, treating the two different units as one.  

On the surface it works because nobody is truly being prevented from using their abilities.  It's weird because it creates a situation that works against how the rest of the game functions. I.e., One unit at a time, alternating units attacks, etc.  A situation that is created by treating Outcome B as the rule, when there is no rule forcing a player to declare which abilities are being used before resolving any of them.

Outcome A has it all covered.

 

 

[Sarkazim]

9 hours ago, LordRogalDorn said:

2. I think the general consensus is that you would declare that DP1 is going to activate, and if it is still legal for DP2 to activate after DP1 finishes his attacks, then activate DP2.

Spot on.  Only thing that I would add is that DP2 doesn't count as having used his ability if DP1 changes that he could.  You'll find that the players that insist on this are in the extreme minority, or are still very new to the rules and are carrying over an old habit.  

[Sarkazim]

6 hours ago, Nico said:

I do think that against a player unfamiliar with them, it will help to walk through the whole process and then start doing it, so they aren't as surprised when a second Dark Aelf assassin pops out after the first.

Absolutely on point here.  One advantage I have in this regard is that I only have 2 Warscrolls.  I have a printout of both of them on one page and hand it to my opponents prior to the game.  It doesn't take long to read the rule and we have a brief discussion about it so there is no confusion during the game.  I use this to discuss the other unresolved issues like the double attack and stacking the Terror ability prior to the game.  
 

[Nico]

I think we're pretty close in terms of outcome on the assassins point.

I do think that against a player unfamiliar with them, it will help to walk through the whole process and then start doing it, so they aren't as surprised when a second Dark Aekf assassin pops out after the first.

[LordRogalDorn]

Wow, I was not expecting such thorough responses! Thank you all for your input. I was not expecting the daemon prince question to cause this kind of discussion, but it is interesting. From what you all have been typing, and conversations with others I feel that these are the conclusions I'm going to draw on these questions.

1. Red fury can only be activated once per turn. Otherwise, you could basically kill everything within melee range (because it doesn't allow for extra pile in moves) and then be done with it, which seems to go against all other versions of similar abilities and the spirit of the game. 

2. I think the general consensus is that you would declare that DP1 is going to activate, and if it is still legal for DP2 to activate after DP1 finishes his attacks, then activate DP2.

3. Makes the most sense that mission specific deployment types should trump battalion deployment types. 

4. Battalions in the sideboard are going to be tournament specific. If anyone has anything else to add, or disagrees with these interpretations I would be glad to hear it. 

[Sarkazim]

2 hours ago, Nico said:

So I'm checking the trigger for all 3 at the same time, but then I apply the body of the rule as per the Hints and Tips.

As I said, I'm pretty passionate about this subject.  Checking to see if a unit can even use it's ability (eligibility)is required before any of the units activate, or else there would be no way of telling if there were multiple units need to be assigned an order.  This is easier done with the Assassins vs the DP because there is no range element tied to the trigger.

Just focusing on the Assassins.  The trigger is 'the start of the combat phase', there is no question here. It remains clear that there is no requirement to declare that any/all Assassins will be activating their abilities beyond being a good sport.  Declaring that any/all Assassins will use their ability before any of them resolve doesn't qualify them to use their ability, that happens when the actual model uses it's ability, per the body of the rules.  On that same note, an Assassin isn't disqualified from using his ability if he never declared that it was going to be used. 

3 hours ago, Nico said:

On the assassins I would say that the trigger is the start of the combat phase, so you tell your opponent that you are now able to deploy 1-3 assassins (or whatever). However you then go on to use the first one's ability - so you decide whether to deploy, pile in and attack with it.

Having done all that, you then go on to make the same decision for the second one. So you can choose whether or not to deploy the second one (e.g. Based on how the first one performed).

That said, this example is still incorrect from a rules perspective.  I COULD tell my opponent that I'm going to activate 1-3 to three.  There is no requirement to activate the other two if the first one kills it's target.  There is also no penalty for only declaring that I'm going to choose one, then activate any others after that, because there is no rule requiring me to declare them in the first place.  

There are two issues that I have with the declaring abilities step.  The first is that the impression that because you and other groups like you choose to do it, that everyone must also do it.  In a public forum like this, it's hard to see if you're talking about the rules or your house rule when you do that.  The second is the 'poor sportsman' label shifts with the house rule.  If the house rule isn't used, then the player who likes to declare all units is the poor sport because he doesn't like the missing rule.  If the house rule is used, then the player who chooses to not use a Declared unit, or use an Undeclared unit becomes the poor sport because he didn't 'play nice'.  

Honestly, I'd rather just leave this mentality in 40k which has driven me away from tournaments, competitive play.  My local community has mostly adopted the ITC house rules, and you're considered a poor sport if you just want to play real 40k.  I've been VERY fortunate to have avoided this as I grow into AoS.  I occasionally run into players who will see something off, but the conversation has always been very 'sportsmanlike'.  

I DO want to thank you for reading all of that, and thank you for all of the answers you've helped me with so far.  I look forward to further conversations.

 

[Nico]

Thanks for your post. To respond briefly.

Ultimately the rules aren't precise enough to deal with nuances of triggers like this. Thank you for acknowledging the sportsmanship point.

On the assassins I would say that the trigger is the start of the combat phase, so you tell your opponent that you are now able to deploy 1-3 assassins (or whatever). However you then go on to use the first one's ability - so you decide whether to deploy, pile in and attack with it.

Having done all that, you then go on to make the same decision for the second one. So you can choose whether or not to deploy the second one (e.g. Based on how the first one performed).

So I'm checking the trigger for all 3 at the same time, but then I apply the body of the rule as per the Hints and Tips.

I don't think we reach a very different outcome (because the ability is discretionary).

[Sarkazim]

(A long response, but I hope you read it all, this goes beyond rules)

I think I see now what is being read differently.  Hopefully I can state it differently.

Strictly from a Rules point of view:

Does the 'Hint and Tip' tell us to choose the Order of Abilities that can respond to the Trigger?  Or does it tells us to choose the Order of Abilities that are responding to the Trigger?  There is a difference.  The second interpretation would require a declaration of all abilities intended to be used before any action is resolved.  Since there is nothing stating that a player must do it at any point in the Rules, telling everyone that they have to do it is where the problem lies.

The actual check to respond to a Trigger isn't performed until an ability is actually executed.  Obviously, eligibility must be checked.  The application remains a part of the ability when it's used, and can be eliminated before the next ability is used.  In the DP case it's one of the 2 conditions required when using 'Immortal Champion'.  Interrupting DP1 after qualifying it's Trigger to see if DP2 qualifies before finishing DP1 is expressly against the Tip telling us to 'choose the Order they are used'.  

If an allowance is made to break up multiple abilities and jump between resolving their triggers, then the 'simultaneous myth' becomes valid.  There would be nothing stopping the DP Player from using the same application to pile-in with DP1 then jump to pile-in with DP2, then back to Attacking with DP1 then jumping back to DP2, and so on.  For any of this to be the rule, the tip would need to be changed/FAQ'd to tell the player he gets to 'choose the Order the abilities are resolved' or 'choose the Order of how each ability will be used'.  

From a Sportsmanship point of view:

Extending your opponent the courtesy of announcing your intent is an excellent way to play.  Not only is it allowed, but it does avoid any surprises and really makes for a great playing experience.  You may even have to pre-measure like you said, to check to see if multiple models are even eligible before he even gets the option to choose the Order abilities are used.

The problem comes when that assumption is used to force a player to commit to that, and lose the use of the second  models ability for the rest of the turn. After re-reading your responses I feel I might owe you an apology here, because my initial impression was that DP2 counted as having used his ability for the turn, and couldn't use it again if the result of DP1.  When you said DP2 was out of luck, I interpreted that to mean he wasted his ability instead of simply losing his opportunity to use his ability.  (Based on the Assassin discussion). Oh the joys of forum debates.  

The Assassins are what is driving my passion against declaring before resolving abilities. From a Sportsmanship viewpoint I'm actually a bit jealous ofthe DPs, or any non hidden unit for that matter.  It's easier to extend the courtesy of announcing multiple abilities off of one Trigger because there is no reveal or placement involved.  This makes it easier for the opponent to be courteous in return, and allow things like DP2 to wait to use his ability when it's triggered.

It's something that doesn't happen with hidden units.  From the Sportsmanship view, announcing to your opponent how many hidden units that are going to use their ability off of the 'Start of the turn' Trigger isn't an issue when there is only one hidden unit in a parent unit.  So it's VERY easy to get into the habit of doing it, even treating it as the rule as long as it doesn't create any problems.  It even made sense to me when I was learning the game and was simply told that I had to declare all abilities and then resolve.  Until I found a casualty of playing that way.

Multiple Hidden units suffer from having to declare their use in response to a Trigger before they are resolved.  Why? Because you are revealing to your opponent the location of the hidden models.  In the Assassin thread, we both learned that Assassins are placed, pile-in, and attack before moving on to placing the next one.  It sounds like you're still telling the Assassin player he still has to place the second Assassin because he declared that he was going to use his ability, and that he is 'out of luck' if there is nothing there to complete the rest of his action. (Again, accept my apology if this isn't what you were saying)

Its entirely possible for my opponent to again, give me the same courtesy like the DP, by allowing me to keep my second Assassin hidden instead of wasted.  It only took ONE game after our discussion to see the problem with that.  I had already revealed the location of the Assassin.  While it was nice to still have the ability to have him pop out, the knowledge my opponent gained from the action by knowing the location drained that 'Surprise' factor.  A factor that adding a Declaration of Abilities step to the process removes for the sake of Sportsmanship.

So it comes back to player Sportsmanship on how to resolve it.  The difference is that enforcing the Declaration of Abilities turns into poor Sportsmanship when it is used to either prevent a model from using his ability, forcing a model to count as having used his ability when it doesn't have the desired impact, or simply gaining knowledge of where an ability is when that ability is designed to prevent that very thing.  Especially when there is no rule forcing a player to do it.  The problem becomes worse when one player is informed that it is simply a drawback of using multiples of the same ability.

I consider myself quite fortunate to have several groups that recognize this problem and allow the strictest application of the rule apply so that I can choose to reveal each Assassin after seeing the results of the one before it.  They prefer the Declaration like you do, and I accommodate them when I split my Assassins up, and revealing one won't have an effect on what the other one does.  They also recognize that I am already limited in my army because I lack any Magic, Rend, access to Battalions, or anyway to deal mortal wounds.  Forcing me to handicap myself further by revealing the Assassins is really just a TFG move.

The response when I make this point to several different groups has been phenomenal, and something I wish communities in the other systems would adopt.  The ease in accepting the debate leads me to believe that there are going to be more players that will not force it.  Just like the other thread, @LordRogalDorn is really going to have to decide in his own group how they want it to be played, just like my group understands my situation, and doesn't enforce a house rule. Or like @Nicogroup and require it.  Either way is fine so long as both players are aware of which rule is going to apply before going into it.

 

 

[Nico]

Quote

THIS is incorrect.  There is nothing in there to state that both DP's, or any unit, have to declare their ability at the moment of the Trigger.

There's probably nothing express here, because this goes without saying (or at least does to me and people at my club). If something triggers multiple abilities, you would naturally announce this fact to your opponent at the same time, e.g. if a single enemy charge triggered a stand and shoot from a number of your units, you would measure all of them to check which ones have been triggered.  There are then simultaneous stand and shoots for each unit in an order of your choice.

Partly this is just courtesy to your opponent - as it's easier for them to follow what's going on if you outline all of it before starting - e.g. "So this event triggers Rule A, Rule B and Rule C, which are simultaneous, I'm free to choose the order and I'm going to choose to do Rule C, then Rule B, then Rule A". This seems self-evident to me and explains why the Hints and Tips explains how to deal with "abilities at the same time".   

You do have a discretion to wait for the second DP (as it's a "can" ability) in the hope that another enemy unit triggers the ability later in the turn by piling in.

I don't think this is inconsistent (certainly not in the practical outcome) with the assassins, the start of the combat phase triggers all of them, but as you say, the ability is discretionary - so you can deploy, pile in and attack with one, then deploy, pile in and attack with a second one ("abilities at the same time") in an order of your choice; and then you can decide whether or not you want to deploy, pile in and attack with a third one - then the combat phase proper starts. What I don't follow (and maybe this is almost like a convention or house rule that seems so self-evident that it goes without saying) is that you would check the trigger for the first assassin, then decide whether to do the ability for that assassin; then check the trigger for the second one, then decide whether to do the ability for the second one.  

 

[Sarkazim]

6 hours ago, Nico said:

This is wrong - you check the trigger once for both DPs. If they are both within 3, then both DPs can do it. The Hints and Tips discusses "abilities at the same time" i.e. simultaneous abilities. The DP player decides which DP to go first as per the Hints and Tips. If the first DP kills all the models within 3 inches of the second DP, then unlucky for that second DP. 

THIS is incorrect.  There is nothing in there to state that both DP's, or any unit, have to declare their ability at the moment of the Trigger.

I believe we're even on the same page with there only being the one Trigger.  Where we are dividing on is how we respond to that Trigger.  You seem insistent that a player MUST react simultaneously to a trigger before any of them resolve.  There really should be something in there to support that, and there isn't.  The bigger problem is we're both using the same rule to argue our point of view.  Now I went and checked the Sylvaneth Battletome, and it's an exact copy of the one in the Death Battletome so there isn't an issue there.

Here is the rule AGAIN, in it's entirety.  It's in the 'Hints and Tips' section of the Battletomes, and is the same in both books:

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.

Focusing on the second part, it only tells us that if a player can use several abilities at the same time, the player decides the ORDER they are used.  There is no simultaneous anything.  So back to the DP scenario, the unit goes to activate, the DP player has two DPs that can use their ability.  He chooses DP1 and resolves it.  There is nothing in this entire Tip to state that he has to state/declare/react/inform his opponent that he'll be using both and then decide the order in which they are resolved.  

As is, it tells us to do the exact opposite of what you're trying to do, and it's really simple.  The minute you ask/force a player to choose IF he is going to use the second unit's ability, you're breaking the instructions listed here.  He is no longer choosing the order to use the abilities.  You're changing the rule, not interpreting, it to say that he gets to declare the order they are resolved.  There is a difference!  Your interpretation requires that a player respond to the trigger with all available units before anything actually gets resolved.  There is nothing in that entire section to back this up.    

The DP player has two abilities to choose from.  He simply chooses to do the first one and resolves it.  After that is done he simply gets to use the second DP after the first.  There is no penalty for DP suddenly being unable to use his ability as a result the actions of the First one.  This fits in with how normal combat works.  You pick a unit within 3", pile-in, and attack.  Without any rules telling us to resolve it differently, the same applies to the use of abilities.  After DP1 is done, there still has to be an enemy unit within 3" of DP2 attempting to use his ability at the time it is used, which is all the tip says.  

It's the same for the Assassins.  If I have two Assassins in one unit then I get to 'choose the order they are used', at the start of the Combat phase.  The rule does NOT tell me to choose how many I'm going to use, place the models, then choose the order I resolve them.  If I get a unit into a Hero, I choose to use first Assassins ability, and resolve it.  If the Hero, or any unit in contact with my unit isn't there, I'm not required to reveal, or use the second Assassin.  
Why?  Because there is nothing instructing me that I have to state that I'm using the second Assassin before finishing with the First.  Just like there are no instructions ignoring the original Trigger for the second model.  Nor are there any instructions on what to do with the second unit suddenly can't use his ability.  Stating that the second DP is out of luck as what happens isn't covered anywhere.

In YOUR defense, there has been a debate about still being at that same trigger point after the first models ability is used.  We simply don't know, because the above Tip is all we have to go on.  It could very easily be argued that after the first Assassin/DP has gone, then we are no longer at the Trigger.  Without any specific wording to go on, then doing so would break the Tip and choosing the Order would be irrelevant, and the rule would have to be changed to say 'choose which one is used', which would change the whole game mechanic effectively making abilities also follow the 'Rule of 1'.  

Since I'm being thorough, the one thing that is clear is that once the initial trigger is back to being resolved, the opportunity to use any abilities has passed.  So if DP1 prevents DP2 from using his ability, the trigger unit gets to finish his activation without being interrupted, even if it brings the unit within range of DP2.  DP2 can still use his Ability if a different unit then meets the criteria, as he never got to use his ability in the first place.

 

[Nico]

Quote

After DP1 is done we return to the original trigger to check and see if DP2 is still valid to use his abilities.

This is wrong - you check the trigger once for both DPs. If they are both within 3, then both DPs can do it. The Hints and Tips discusses "abilities at the same time" i.e. simultaneous abilities. The DP player decides which DP to go first as per the Hints and Tips. If the first DP kills all the models within 3 inches of the second DP, then unlucky for that second DP. 

Quote

Yet you are making attacks, which you would not otherwise have made, which are "added to an existing or usual amount or number", ie. "extra", which you gained by using Red Fury.

An extra attack is "I am within 18 of a Bloodsecrator - therefore I gain an extra attack." This increases the number of attacks on the weapon profile - this is very specific.

An extra pile in is distinct from this.

[Squirrelmaster]

3 hours ago, Squirrelmaster said:

It applies to any ability that generates extra attacks, hit rolls, or wound rolls.

25 minutes ago, Nico said:

No it doesn't.

It refers to hit rolls, wound rolls or extra attacks.

Sorry, but what? How are these two statements different? Am I missing something?

26 minutes ago, Nico said:

You might be able to argue that Red Fury gives "extra attacks", but it's probably different - it's an entire new pile in and attack.

Yet you are making attacks, which you would not otherwise have made, which are "added to an existing or usual amount or number", ie. "extra", which you gained by using Red Fury.

Nowhere do the rules indicate that "extra attacks" is a special term with its own non-dictionary meaning.

[Nico]

Quote

The third rule of one doesn't have to be a hit roll generating extra attacks. It applies to any ability that generates extra attacks, hit rolls, or wound rolls. 

No it doesn't.

It refers to hit rolls, wound rolls or extra attacks. 

You might be able to argue that Red Fury gives "extra attacks", but it's probably different - it's an entire new pile in and attack.

As discussed though, GW clearly indicate no more infinite loops and there's nothing that expressly says that Red Fury Chains, so we reach the same destination.

[Squirrelmaster]

Actually, now I think about it, the rule refers to attacks, pluralised, not individually. So even if we take “themselves” to mean “by themselves”, it would not be clear whether that meant “individually”, or “among themselves” (e.g. without combining with any other attacks from outside that group).

It could be read to imply “a group of attacks, generated by an ability, cannot itself generate additional attacks”.

[Squirrelmaster]

If it said “by themselves”, I would agree with you. As it's currently worded, I would say “themselves” is, in this context, merely superfluous wordage that doesn't really change the meaning of the sentence. There are times when this construction would clarify some potential grammatical ambiguity, even if it is a tad archaic, so I suspect the writer included it out of habit or a desire to sound correct, more than to add any particular meaning.

But as I said before, the wording is somewhat ambiguous.

[BaldoBeardo]

The third rule of one doesn't have to be a hit roll generating extra attacks. It applies to any ability that generates extra attacks, hit rolls, or wound rolls. Red Fury is an ability. It generates extra attacks. Therefore, those attacks cannot generate extra attacks. In other words, they cannot trigger or count towards any ability that generates extra attacks. Which means they can't trigger or count towards Red Fury.

Uh... No. You're missing the word 'themselves' from your analysis of the rule of one.

Red Fury is limited by the interpretation of whether you roll after each round of attacks, or just the initial one.
GHB refers to individual rolls/results generating additional whatevers.
Red Fury is triggered by a sum condition.

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

[Squirrelmaster]

8 minutes ago, Nico said:

As I've said earlier - Red Fury isn't subject to the Rule of One - it has nothing to do with a hit roll generating extra attacks.

The third rule of one doesn't have to be a hit roll generating extra attacks. It applies to any ability that generates extra attacks, hit rolls, or wound rolls. Red Fury is an ability. It generates extra attacks. Therefore, those attacks cannot generate extra attacks. In other words, they cannot trigger or count towards any ability that generates extra attacks. Which means they can't trigger or count towards Red Fury.

[Nico]

As I've said earlier - Red Fury isn't subject to the Rule of One - it has nothing to do with a hit roll generating extra attacks.

That said, it's silent as to whether it chains, so the natural assumption is that it doesn't chain. It would also be absurd for GW to ban infinite chains with the left hand and create a new one with the right hand in the same book.

[Nico]

I think @Crispen is right here. The one trigger event triggers both DPs. That player therefore has two simultaneous abilities to use - he can then determine the order of these (which one piles in and attacks first). See the Hints and Tips section e.g. on page 131 of the Sylvaneth battletome.

I don't see there being 2 separate triggers.

It is like the assassin in the sense that there a single trigger (the start of a combat phase) allows the player to activate the Assassin abilities of all his assassins, these are simultaneous abilities and so that player can choose the order in which to do them. Only after all of the assassins have attacked does the start of the combat phase end and the combat phase proper begin - alternating selections of units to activate.

[Squirrelmaster]

Regarding the first question:

Yes, Red Fury is subject to the third rule of one. It is an ability that generates extra attacks. This means you're getting extra attacks from some other source (eg. Righteous Smiting) you need to ignore them when calculating the roll you need to trigger Red Fury. It also means that those extra attacks generated from Red Fury cannot generate any further additional attacks (so no Righteous Smiting on the second round of attacks). Most importantly, it means Red Fury can only trigger once per player turn. You cannot just keep attacking indefinitely.

The wording is a little loose on this, so it's debatable, but I've yet to meet anyone who thinks that Red Fury should generate extra attacks.

[Sarkazim]

1 hour ago, Crispen said:

With the daemon princes they would both activate if you activated a unit within 3 of them. You would roll them both separately though as they're separate units. once they were done dishing out the pain the unit you activated would then pile in and attack.

I believe he was asking HOW the DP's activate, and he gave situations that are being discussed in that other thread.  The first of the three he listed is currently the most correct.  I just don't think the 'Stack' mentality is accurate, because there is no rule stating that a player has to declare any/all the units he wishes to respond with to an action.  

I've run into the same issue with running multiple Assassins.  I hide two of them in a unit, I then choose to activate the first one and resolve it's ability before performing any other action, as stated in the Battletomes.  After I have completed the first Assassin, I can then choose to use the second Assassins ability just like the first.  I was told for the longest time that I had to declare how many Assassins were going to activate before resolving any of them, even when the rule quoted above tells us to do the exact opposite.

The difference for the DP's is that they get to activate in response to a specific action.  Unlike the Assassins ability which has to be done at a specific time, we don't have any specific direction if the same order of events applies, which is still under debate from the looks of it.  With nothing else to go on, resolving the DP's just like the Assassins is the strongest resolution we have without complicated the game with additional 'HIWPI'.  

It's really going to come down to his group and how they choose to play it.

 

[Crispen]

Hey there!

With the daemon princes they would both activate if you activated a unit within 3 of them. You would roll them both separately though as they're separate units. once they were done dishing out the pain the unit you activated would then pile in and attack.

Usually only the general can use command traits in an army unless you have Archaon on horse. I believe only spells are effected by the rule of one as far as casting or applying goes. Units I believe though can only be effected by a spell or ability of one type once. So if you had two red fury you could use that ability on two separate units, but it wouldn't stack on a single one (hopefully that makes sense).

Escalation deployment rules as far as I know overrule the deployment rules for a battalion as far as I know. Thats just how its been played in the games I've played.

Not too sure about sideboards as I've never been to a tournament where they've used them.

 

[Sarkazim]

I'm still new, but I'll chip in where I can.

34 minutes ago, LordRogalDorn said:

1. Is the Death command trait, Red Fury, Subjected to the rule of 1?

I'm not sure I understand this question.  Are multiple models getting the 'Red Fury' Trait?  Or are you asking if you can chain the ability, and keep rolling after using it?

36 minutes ago, LordRogalDorn said:

2.  If there are 2 Daemon Princes of Slaanesh within 3 inches of an enemy unit that activates, can both of the Daemon Princes activate in response to the enemy activation?

The thing that this would imply is that there is a stack of activations. As in enemy unit activates, then in response Slaanesh Dp activates, then because the enemy unit is still waiting on the stack to activate, the second Slaanesh Dp can activate because an enemy unit within 3in is trying to activate. An alternative is that an enemy unit tried to activate and the first Slaanesh DP responds to that activation. And now there is no unit that just activated for the second dp to activate. The third alternative (which I think is the weakest) is that the 2 Dp's attack simultaneously. 

Having recently gone through all of this with my own army, it's surprisingly easy and clear.  I had the same issue to be honest because I was trying to bring over habits from previous games, and the answer is found in the Battletomes themselves.  The best way I can describe it is that there are triggers.  A 'stack' isn't entirely accurate, because that would require all units reacting off of a trigger before any resolution.  There is still some disagreement on minor points, but until we get an official answer, players will still butt heads.

In the Battletomes, there is a tip.  I found this one in the Death book:

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.

Abilities used at the start/end must be carried out before/after any other actions, which would include activating another units ability.  *There is still some ongoing debate about whether or not this applies to non Start/End abilities.  There seems to be a group of players who are stating that when multiple units activate off the same trigger, that they must all be declared before resolving any of them.  There is no rule enforcing this.  You simply pick your unit, then resolve that ability, then resume play.  The only thing we know for sure is that owing player chooses the order in which to resolve them, not that he has to declare which ones are going to be used.

So back to the example with the Demon Princes.  The correct order should be.
- Enemy Activates a unit to pile-in and Attack. (Trigger)
- DP 1 uses its ability and resolves it.
- Enemy returns to Activating his unit. (Trigger)
- DP 2 uses its ability and resolves it.  

There will be players who will debate that once it goes back to the initial player that it's too late to choose the second DP to attack since it was never declared.  If they're like me or a MTG player, then they expect that but I don't believe it exists.  After resolving DP1, the initial player is still attempting to Activate a unit, which allows DP2 to still use his ability if you want, but you aren't forced to.  

While it MIGHT not seem like much of a reason to get bent out of shape in game the effect is potentially huge.  Let's say DP1 kills the unit it's with it's Activation.  DP2 hasn't used his ability, and would still be available.  If you had to declare, then you'd run into players who would prevent DP2 from going because he had already used it on a dead unit.  If that were true, then you'd end up in a stickier rules situation where the original player nominated a dead unit, and would also forfeit his choice of Activation.  I can't think of any player that would actually tell the Initial player that he couldn't choose to activate another unit if the first one died.

1 hour ago, LordRogalDorn said:

3. How do Battalion special deployments work if the mission also has special deployment rules (escalation)?
4. Can you have a battalion in your sideboard?

1. Can you have the points for a battalion in your sideboard that you can swap in and out for other models and battalions? Or could you just swap 2 battalions that your force as the models for in your main army?

I'm afraid I can't help you here.  I don't have any options for Battalions currently, so I haven't run into to this issue in my games.  I do remember seeing a post either here or in the Order forums regarding Stormcast and this very thing.  I couldn't find it before posting, but I know it's around.  

As for the Sideboard thing, that sounds more like something that you should ask a TO for an event your attending, as Sideboards aren't really used in the game.