Stuff to FAQ for Daemons?

[Sir_Prometheus]

Now I think she should be an ic, otherwise she's useless.

[Benjamin]

As page 22 states combat only allows I10-I1 to participate, but page 3 indicates you can have I0.

I understand both sides, but I believe the Page 3 argument to be wrong.

Do you mind quoting the source on Page 3 word for word?

If you're looking at the Zero-Level Characteristics paragraph, that rule does not call out Initiative specifically where it calls out other stats individually. I feel that's important.

I also feel like we'd be inventing a rule for Initiative Zero where there's already a rule indicating I1 is the bottom most initiative.

That's usually my litmus test. Are we making shit up, or applying rules already in the book?

[BrianP]

As page 22 states combat only allows I10-I1 to participate, but page 3 indicates you can have I0.

I understand both sides, but I believe the Page 3 argument to be wrong.

Do you mind quoting the source on Page 3 word for word?

If you're looking at the Zero-Level Characteristics paragraph, that rule does not call out Initiative specifically where it calls out other stats individually. I feel that's important.

I also feel like we'd be inventing a rule for Initiative Zero where there's already a rule indicating I1 is the bottom most initiative.

That's usually my litmus test. Are we making shit up, or applying rules already in the book?

While I fear we are going to be at an impasse until it is actually FAQ'd, I appreciate the civility and will certainly walk through the source citations. 

Page 2 -> At the top: "All but one of the characteristics are rated on a scale from 0 to 10. The odd characteristic out is Armour Save (Sv) which can run from 2+ through 6+ to - (for models with no Armour Save)."
Page 2 -> Modifiers: "Certain pieces of wargear or special rules can modify a model's characteristics positively or negatively by adding to it, multiplying it, or even setting its value. Attacks and wounds are the only characteristics that can be raised above 10. No characteristic can be modified below 0"

So, I think we will all be in agreement up to this point that I0 is explicitly possible.

Page 3 -> Zero-Level Characteristics: "Some creatures have been given a 0 for certain characteristics, which means that they have no ability whatsoever in that field (the same is also occasionally represented by a '-')."

It continues on with examples for most of the zero level characteristics. It does NOT include what happens at I0 (that would be too easy!). I think we will also be in agreement up to this point.

Page 22 -> Initiative Steps: "To represent this, a model's Initiative determines when he attacks in close combat. Work your way through the Initiative values of the models engaged in the combat, starting with the highest and ending with the lowest. This means each combat will have ten Initiative steps, starting at Initiative 10 and working down to Initiative 1."

This is where I think the disagreement lies. The way I (and to be fair, others) have read this is not that initiative is hard floored at 1, as that contradicts the clear rules on page 2. The "working down to 1" refers to the combat sequence, limiting fighting the combat phase to models with I10 through I1. I do not feel we are making up a rule, and I absolutely agree there is nothing explicit saying I0 models lose their attacks. However, if we go by page 22 and combat stops at I1, then there is no I0 initiative step and the models just do not get a chance to go. I am sure some will argue it is semantically splitting hairs, but it is very much the difference between making up a rule and just following what is in the book. Sorry for the slight aside, but I definitely do not feel any rules are being made up here, this is just where the interpretation part comes in and why things get ugly. Stating that being at I0 means models lose their chance to strike does slightly align with the fluffiness of page 3's "which means that they have no ability whatsoever in that field" comment, but that is hardly robust nor conclusive.

So the turn fiends charge (and only that turn I believe) the recipients of the charge are I0. I think we can all agree on this.

We are left to figure out what impact I0 actually has.

Also, who the heck is Simon? 

[Chase]

I think that's gonna be pretty tough to follow.

Seems pretty clear to me that I0 is a thing (page 2).  Coming to a different conclusion based on that text seems impossible.

I don't think the rule on page 22 contradicts anything at all.  You work down from high to low, starting with 10 and ending at 1, just like it says.  Have I0?  Sorry, homie.  You may have attacks, but you don't get to use them.

Maybe it's stupid, maybe it's not intended, but it's sure as hell what the rules say.... right?

If there is not FAQ by the 21st, I'll have Sam make his call.  Is this a practical thing, or does it involve a combination that no one is ever going to actually use?

[Benjamin]

I appreciate the response. I wish more people responded like this. Actually, I wish every rules argument was framed like that.

I still find room for disagreement, of course. At this point, I'm presenting arguments more for fun and practice, because the rules do contradict themselves (Page 2 and Page 22).

Page 3 -> Zero-Level Characteristics: "Some creatures have been given a 0 for certain characteristics, which means that they have no ability whatsoever in that field (the same is also occasionally represented by a '-')."...

I see a difference between a model given Init 0 and a model whose score is modified during a game. To me, that's the difference whether a model is intended to attack.

Here's another rub. If models were meant to lose attacks, there are other mechanics that state when an effect reduces attacks (usually, but not always IIRC, to a minimum of 1). But consistent language for GW has always been a problem... even 20 pages later in the same rulebook.

Then there's the implication of what -5 Init means on the table. Fiends swing at I5. Anything less than base Init 10 is swinging after the Fiends. Right?

To Games Workshop,

Why not say, Fiends swing always swing first, OR Fiends count as Init 10 in close-combat, OR enemies engaged with Fiends in assault have their Init reduced to Init 1, OR enemies engaged with Fiends in assault always swing last, even after Init 1?? FOUR fairly clear examples of how the rule could be written more clearly.

To Chase,

If the ruling comes to mean enemies cannot swing back in assault, it's a safe bet someone will try to play with Fiends. It's still far from a bad thing if ruled the other way.

[Sir_Prometheus]

Also, who the heck is Simon?

I thought you were.  Sorry. 

Changing topic:

I honestly believe that RAI > RAW in many cases.  I do not believe GW has given much thought to what happens if an initiative goes down to 0.  Previously there was no mechanic for that happening.

You could also argue that counting down from I 10 to 1 was merely illustrative, as that was all the initiative steps that were possible.

I mean the answer is pretty clear:  Do you, in any way, actually think that GW meant 95% of things charged by seekers to be unable to attack, at all?  No?  Well, then there's your answer. 

[andalucien]

I think that the RAW is that when seekers charge anything with I less than 6, they lose their attacks.

RAI?  Who knows.  My bet is that there is no intention at all, because no one at GW thought of it.

RATSB (Rules as They Should Be) in my opinion is that they strike at I1 instead.

[andalucien]

That being said, I kinda hope that they intended, and issue an FAQ saying that the victims lose their attacks.  Otherwise, I think my fiends (maybe my favorite daemon conversions / paint jobs in my army) aren't going to come out of their display case much.

[PhoenixFire]

RATSB (Rules as They Should Be) in my opinion is that they strike at I1 instead.

This makes the most sense to me as i'm a makes sense kinda guy.

I look at it as are there any other things in the 40k world that lower attacks to I1? sure lots.

Is there anything that stops your melee death star from being able to attack completely? not that i'm aware of


Hopefully this is how Sam rules and we can just go from there until a FAQ comes out and either confirms, contradicts, or ignores the problem

[Sir_Prometheus]

RATSB (Rules as They Should Be) in my opinion is that they strike at I1 instead.

This makes the most sense to me as i'm a makes sense kinda guy.

I look at it as are there any other things in the 40k world that lower attacks to I1? sure lots.

Is there anything that stops your melee death star from being able to attack completely? not that i'm aware of


Hopefully this is how Sam rules and we can just go from there until a FAQ comes out and either confirms, contradicts, or ignores the problem

Pretty much my thinking. 

[Sam]

Oh look, one of these. I guess it's inevitable with a new codex. Once again, we're at a textual ambiguity, so we enter the realm of "what's reasonable?" In this case, the rules explicitly mention several cases in which a characteristic of zero has specific consequences (for strength, attacks, and so on). No such mention is made of initiative. Also, in the initiative section, it says (in bold text) that you work from highest to lowest. Then, in non-bold text, it explains that you will thus have ten steps, from 10 to 1.

My inclination is to go with the bold text, and take the "10 to 1" bit as a general rule, which can be altered by the specifics. So in the absence of an FAQ, I'd allow Initiative 0 models to strike, just after power fists and the like. This is, of course, subject to change if Games Workshop clears up the textual ambiguity.

[BrianP]

Perfect, thanks Sam!

[Benjamin]

My inclination is to go with the bold text, and take the "10 to 1" bit as a general rule, which can be altered by the specifics. So in the absence of an FAQ, I'd allow Initiative 0 models to strike, just after power fists and the like. This is, of course, subject to change if Games Workshop clears up the textual ambiguity.

So to be clear, this ruling places all models whose Initiative would be brought below zero to this new "Initiative zero"?

[Sam]

No characteristics can be modified below zero. Page 2.

[andalucien]

Hey Sam... you just made my day (or, all the days until I fear that the FAQ will come in and say that the affected models just go to I1)...  since charging through terrain only makes you go down to I1, this means that when fiends charge something through terrain, they strike first since 1 > 0.   Maybe I'll get some mileage out of my fiends for a bit.