• It's time once again to ferret out those murderous vampires in a new VAU - Vampires Amongst Us. A cross between Cluedo and a roleplay, sometimes gory and often hilarious! Find out more and sign-up! here.

LordTobiothan

Crypt Horror
May 6, 2014
582
By the definition of the word first, they'd lose hatred for the rest of the game because they used it on those dire wolves you threw at them to make them use hatred as that was THE first round of combat for that unit. There is no such thing as another first round, first by definition happens once.

Now common sense tells us this can't be right. They must mean first round of each combat right?

Turns out there is no definition for what constitutes as a "new combat". So saying the ironbreakers had already been in that combat for the round is 100% unsupported by the rules. It is just as valid a line of thought as saying that the zombies joining makes it a new combat as far as the rules are concerned.

Your personal definition of a "new combat" has been noted, but as I've told many others do not quote it as raw with out actually providing those rules. The greater conditioning in your area, much like this forum is not a RAW argument.
 

najo

Mortarch of the Dark Soul
True Blood
Dec 23, 2012
2,046
Oregon
By the definition of the word first, they'd lose hatred for the rest of the game because they used it on those dire wolves you threw at them to make them use hatred as that was THE first round of combat for that unit. There is no such thing as another first round, first by definition happens once.

Now common sense tells us this can't be right. They must mean first round of each combat right?

Turns out there is no definition for what constitutes as a "new combat". So saying the ironbreakers had already been in that combat for the round is 100% unsupported by the rules. It is just as valid a line of thought as saying that the zombies joining makes it a new combat as far as the rules are concerned.

Your personal definition of a "new combat" has been noted, but as I've told many others do not quote it as raw with out actually providing those rules. The greater conditioning in your area, much like this forum is not a RAW argument.
You are the only one making these arguments and you are repeating them, hence my over and over comment earlier.

1) A Combat is clearly defined in the rulebook as is combats being fought in rounds.
2) The game clearly describes mutliple combats occurring over the course of a game.
3) Hatred states that it lasts during the first round of combat.
4) all of these things are in context with each other and the grammar and terms used in the rules.

As I stated before, the rules do clearly put Hatred in context. You do not track or are directed to track a unit's first round of combat for the whole game. You don't reset a first round of combat for a already engaged unit when it is charged by a new unit. If you did, the rules would point this out. Therefore, by the absence of these scenarios in any form (i.e. examples or directives) they are unlikely to be how hatred is intended to play. Hatred then read as it is written, clearly is referring to the unit's first round of combat. Each time the unit becomes engaged, you can simple ask "Is this the unit's first round of combat", since technically it is each time it starts a new combat, Hatred triggers.

That's RAW and it doesn't need anything further to play that way. Another unit charging in and resetting the first round of combat is not RAW and neither is tracking each and every round of combat in a progressive count through the game as nothing in the rules supports this. You do not count rounds of combat by the basic rules.
 

LordTobiothan

Crypt Horror
May 6, 2014
582
"Since technically it is each time it starts a new combat..."

The fact you have to put technically there already removes it as a hard by the book RAW ruling.

Technically the first combat they fight is the first round of combat for that unit. After that as I've stated before and have to repeat myself because aside from you saying you personally cannot read it that way it has not been written out as a possible interpretation.

Yes a full reading of the rules supports your interpretation, as you and many others have repeatedly stated. And as I will continue to repeatedly state, multiple other interpretations are also fully supported within the context of the rules, meaning that it supporting your personal reading means very little in a rules thread.
 

najo

Mortarch of the Dark Soul
True Blood
Dec 23, 2012
2,046
Oregon
The issue here is Regis asked an honest question about how hatred plays and this thread has derailed into a debate on the philosophy and subjective writing style of GW's rules. This debate does not help him and most readers probably have checked out. Neither of which helps Regis and his situation.

You already stated yourself that a full reading of the rules supports my interpretation. Could GW learn something from Wizards of the Coast? Sure. Is it impossible to play GW games because their rules have occasional snags? No. Honestly this hatred debate is pointless and your posts aren't helping Regis and his friends play Warhammer correctly. Let's stop beating the dead horse please.
 
Sep 26, 2014
95
Don't get to worked up najo, I've seen LordTobiothan derail threads before. Your explanation is very logical and it is how I interpret. I actually talked about it with my group this weekend and they were all OK with it.

I have never seen anyone play hatred like Lord suggests. Like you point out, if that was the case then that would have been mentioned somewhere in the rules.
 

estwheadn

Black Knight
Jun 4, 2014
301
Yeah we've all seen it lol. Lord, if the unit is engaged in a combat then it's first round will be affected by hatred. If the unit ever becomes unengaged then re-engaged it will reset hatred. Fully supported by the rules, well worded by gw. You are just not understanding.
 

owain_b

Ghoul
Feb 3, 2014
176
Oh I think lordtobiothan fully understands and plays it the way we all do, I think he is just playing devils advocate :tongue:
 

LordTobiothan

Crypt Horror
May 6, 2014
582
The issue here is Regis asked an honest question about how hatred plays and this thread has derailed into a debate on the philosophy and subjective writing style of GW's rules. This debate does not help him and most readers probably have checked out. Neither of which helps Regis and his situation.

You already stated yourself that a full reading of the rules supports my interpretation. Could GW learn something from Wizards of the Coast? Sure. Is it impossible to play GW games because their rules have occasional snags? No. Honestly this hatred debate is pointless and your posts aren't helping Regis and his friends play Warhammer correctly. Let's stop beating the dead horse please.

I haven't derailed the thread. I'm just not forcing my idea of the rules on anyone that asks, and have kept it on topic. It's a rules thread about hatred and I'm talking about hatred. Just objectively.

I'm damn sure you read what I've posted but entirely ignored portions of it which is where I'm forced to assume you've missed anything you didn't respond too, which leads to that repeating myself I'm always told I'm doing. In other words, it's easy to make someone sound like a broken record if you respond to "what kind of sandwich would you like?" With "yes, I'd like a sandwich"

As you noted and I noted. Your interpretation is fully supported by the rules. What literally no one has noted, except me, is that it also fully supports a couple other interpretations. The question I'm here repeating and getting no answer to is what makes one interpretation more right then the other, NOT whether or not yours is right at all.

Hell the only reason I was inclined to rule it the way mentioned by the forum, is literally because I read it on the forum, not because it made the most sense within the rules. If someone said a new unit entering a combat activated hatred, I have absolutely no way of refuting that with the rules outside of stating a different reading that in no way invalidates or is more valid then theirs, and it appears no one else does either.

Whether or not anyone actually has any response to this I'll assume my piece has been read instead of assuming I need to repeat myself again. So no response from me after this unless new information is posted. Until then this question has gone unanswered as far as I'm personally concerned.
 

najo

Mortarch of the Dark Soul
True Blood
Dec 23, 2012
2,046
Oregon
@Regis Von Carstein I'm not getting worked up, I am ok. But thank you for the concern.

@LordTobiothan I mean this constructively. You have derailed the thread. Regis simply asked how he should handle a situation and you answered him right out of the gate with the devil's advocate answers that aren't supported by the spirit nor whole of the rules. Also, I've been replying to every post of yours, so don't state I missed something and you had to repeat yourself. When we go through this debate, and by the end of it you and I both agree that the way everyone has been saying the rule is played is what the rules as a whole supports and the other variants are just ways some players might interpret them, then you are derailing the thread. Just vampire up, own it, and let's move on with our lives. We all still love you. Now, do you need to hug it out? :P
 

LordTobiothan

Crypt Horror
May 6, 2014
582
That's where we disagree najo. I don't see the other options as other interpretations, I see them being just as in the spirit of the rules and fully supported by the letter of them as your ruling and have seen no evidence to prove otherwise.

And ya jerk, ya made me respond again with the promise of a hug ;)
 

About us

  • Our community has been around for many years and pride ourselves on offering unbiased, critical discussion among people of all different backgrounds. We are working every day to make sure our community is one of the best.

Quick Navigation

User Menu