8th Ed. Bastiladon and You

If we start expecting our opponents to accept rules fudges/interpretations based on how powerful or not they are, I'm not sure we are in the best place.

Either we can show that we are entitled to do something or we cannot. If we cannot, no matter how small the perk, then the gentlemanly thing to do is to not claim the benefit.


Besides, if you do claim it under the idea that it's not really a big deal, just wait until the first time that S10 hit takes the last wound off a Steam Tank or character with a 1+ armor save. Then your opponent will let you know just how big a deal he thinks it is.

 

Debate? It's pretty strait forward, you get 1 S10 attack all the time, and +1 to hit with it when fighting to the rear. GW does write a lot of poorly worded rules, but this isn't one of them. I haven't seen any debate at all about the S10 attack.

You want a poorly worded rule, try and play with 6 razordons, and figure out when to take a monster reaction test, how many handlers can fight, and which razordon is losing which handler.
M&H is not written for a unit of multiple monsters, and the new lizard rules are poor application of that.

-Matt

 

One final point since the release of the dark elf book;
The bastiladon is a Witch Killer.
S3 poison with re-rolls to hit and re-rolls to wound, does tear up a lot of units, but T5 2+ armor isn't one of those.

I've been able to use my bastiladons to grab and pound witch units; either win combat or just hold them up until I want to flank.
A pair of Snake spewing bastiladons is a nightmare to MSU witches. S4 thunder stomp is enough, along with 1 S10, 2 S4 an 4 S3 attacks. And the pulse of 2D6 S2 actually hurts the girls.

The more dark elves I see, the more I want bastiladons.

-Matt

 

I can't find any way to read the wording on Thunderous Bludgeon that possibly indicates you should only get to make the S10 attack against models to the rear.

1) Nominate one of the Bastiladon's attacks.
2) This attack is S10.
3) This attack receives a +1 to hit bonus against models in its rear arc.

Are folks really debating this, and if so, what part is causing the uncertainty?

 

=> Before I respond to those two quoted, let me take a moment to make something clear. I am not, in any way, trying to insult the intelligence of either of you or to imply that you can't read/can't comprehend/etc. I do not want this to come across as a know-it-all sort of thing or to belittle you in any way.

That said, I have to say that the flexibility of the English language is both a blessing and a curse.

The way that GW has written the sentence, there are two completely equally valid readings, each of which grants different rules!

The book says

Note the depressing lack of commas or tighter structure.

It's entirely legitimate to read it as "This attack is (resolved at S10 and +1 To Hit) against models in the rear arc."
It's also entirely legitimate to read it as "This is attack is resolved at S10 and (receives a +1 To Hit against models in the rear arc)."

If one of the two were to be taken as "more" legit, it would be the first one since there would need to be a comma to break up the clauses for the second reading to have more weight. It would have to read "This attack is resolved at Strength 10, and receives...."

Note the comma after "10" in the above.

Should GW opt to ever give us FAQ/Errata document again, I would expect them to reword this more like

Does that help clear up the confusion?



If you have read it the way GW meant for it to be then congratulations! By sheer happenstance, you have been doing thing the "right" way. However, if your opponent wants you to play it the other way, or if GW meant it the other way and you've been playing it "wrong" then it's not really right to insist that your reading is the only correct one.


Just a thought - Are the two posters above using an English language version of the book? Does a printing in another language change the sentence structure?

 

I'm sorry, but I don't agree that the sentence can legitimately be read both ways. The statement "this attack is resolved at Strength 10" is a discrete clause. "And" is a conjunction, which joins two clauses. The two clauses are not dependent. I don't see a way around this.

If I wrote, "this car is painted red and gets 40 mpg on the highway," would you consider both of these legitimate interpretations?:

1) The car is painted red; when driven on the highway, it gets 40 mpg.
2) The car is not painted red; when driven on the highway, it becomes painted red and gets 40 mpg.

 

I think that is well put. Its two clauses. But I'm not gonna deny someone might questions due to the lack of commas. Time to email GW. Where the hell is my FAQ

 

"This Attack is resolved at Strength 10 and receives a +1 To Hit bonus against models in the creature's rear arc."

Ok, so yes, we have two clauses, BUT the second close is dependent, as it doesn't have a stated subject performing the "receiving." The first is independent, as it contains both subject and verb.

That leads me to believe that the second clause is meant to be read as a part of the first clause, therefore both may be subject to the prepositional phrase, "in the creature's rear arc." This, along with the lack of punctuation, leads me to believe that the S10 hit only resides within the rear arc.

That's how I interpret the rule, as much as I'd love a forward-facing S10 hit. However, opposing arguments are equally valid, in my mind. Such is the curse of linguistic fluidity. Let's just hope for a FAQ sooner rather than later.

 

The second clause is not dependent, it just has an implied subject (in this case, the attack). This is extremely common. The sentence "Go to the store and get me some orange juice" also has an implied subject (in this case, "you"). But it doesn't magically change the meaning of sentences that came before it just because the subject is inferred from context rather than explicitly stated.

Both the first and second clauses are independent. The full structure is [subject] [verb] [object] [conjunction] [implied subject] [verb] [object] [preposition]. There's only one way to read that.

> That leads me to believe that the second clause is meant to be read as a part of the first clause,

Sorry, but this part is just gibberish. The second clause is meant to be read as part of the first clause? I mean sure, they reference the same subject, but the verbs, objects, and associated prepositions are clearly different. You're not trying to suggest they're some sort of bizarre, stitched-together franken clause with multiple verbs and unclear objects, are you? Because that seems a little silly when compared with the option of just agreeing that it says exactly what it appears to say.

 

You know, as a guy that deals with legal speak everyday, I would support this dissection of the rules wording if and only if it was prepared by a lawyer. but its not. Its prepared by some fellow nerd that has an idea and puts it to paper. These ideas are rarely spelt out and generally have conflicting grammar. I look at what is written and what the intent of the rule may be.

 

Which attack?
You Always split off one attack. Not just when you're fighting to the rear, but always.
If the attack was only S10 to the rear, the direction to isolate one attack would only be when you are fighting to the rear.

Context of the whole rule makes it clear.

-Matt

 

Unfortunately, "context" is one of those funky subjective thingamabobs.

Fact is, I believe that the one attack is always S10. This attack is +1 to hit if it is directed at a target in the rear. That's what I believe the intent to be.

Fact also is, the sentence certainly can be parsed to be read both ways, and in the absence of documentation to prove my belief of intent to be correct, it would be very, very poor sportsmanship on my part to impose my belief on someone else's equally valid reading. When in doubt, and two options are valid, it's only right to take the less beneficial path.

 

Good use of thingamabob, I am also a fan of doohickey

As to the second, is it not still general practice to roll off in the event of a tossup over the rules like this?

 

The Rule makes no sense at all if you don't have a special attack to separate out.
Usually when I see people getting confused about simple rules, it's because they are only reading part of the rule.

-Mat

 

Hey Lizardmatt,

Not sure i follow that. Was there a suggestion here that you don't single out the one Attack? Or am I just being daft and not getting what you are saying?

 

Before rolling To Hit, nominate one of the Bastiladon's Attacks as the Thunderous Bludgeon (a different coloured dice works best). This Attack is resolved at Strength 10 and receives a +1 To Hit bonus against models in the creature's rear arc.

If you believe that the Strength 10 is only to the rear, you have no reason to nominate an attack 90% of the time. Yet, you are told to nominate before attacking, and that the nominated attack is the Thunderous Bludgeon.

So you have 2 options.
1) You always nominate, and you're always S10.
2) You always nominate, and you're S10 to the rear, meaning that most often you are nominating for no reason.

Which makes more sense?

-Matt

 

Ah, ok. So you made an assumption because "90% of the time" it wouldn't matter. Fair enough, but let me state that I, for one, never indicated, implied, or meant that you don't separate the attack. Of course you do, because it tells you to.

What "makes sense" or only would apply 10% of the time has, frankly, no bearing here. The rules are what matter, and this rule is written ambiguously.

 

Thanks ver much for this post, I was really looking forward to using this model in my upcoming games and has given me some good ideas on how to employ him. Also the model is just awesome, I really dig the fact that it looks like an Ankylosaurus. Happy gaming.