ASF vs ASF + ASL = ???

[stonecutter]

Translation of title: Always Strike First vs Always Strike First + Always Strike Last = ??

Well, as the title of this missive alludes, I encountered an unusual circumstance during Sunday's tourney while playing Jeremy and his high elves. The phoenix guard were in combat against executioners and we were trying to figure out if the PG should be getting re-rolls to hit since they have ASF + I6 vs an opponent striking in initiative order with I5. Under normal conditions, the PG would re-roll but since executioners also have ASF, we weren't sure and ended up going with no re-rolls as this apparently is a topic of much debate on high elf forums. After reviewing the special rules for ASF and ASL on page 66, one part of the ASL really jumped out at me:

"If a model has both this rule (ASL) and ASF, the two cancel each other out and neither applies so use the model's initiative."

Based on this, it seems quite clear to me that the PG should have been granted the re-rolls since the executioners effectively lose both ASF & ASL and simply strike in initiative order like any other model. Not sure if anyone else sees it differently but I will certainly be treating it this way in the future when the ex's go against ASF troops.

[Jack Shrapnel]

yep... seems pretty clear Frank... would agree with this interpretation myself...

[J4far]

I disagree with the above in terms of RAW, even though it would have netted me a nice advantage in that tide turning fight! It follows from the fact that the effect of the rules no longer applies, but the model still has the rule. The ASF vs ASF cancelling rerolls comes from HAVING the special rule, not having the EFFECT of the rule applied to your model. Think of it in terms of applying an additional instance of ASF via Timewarp to a unit of Swordmasters. Even though the effect of ASF is gone it is still part of the unit, and since you can't have the same special rule twice by RAW you can't give ASF to a unit that already has ASF and ASL.

RAI I think that Frank's interpretation is the correct one, but we should as a club reach a clear consensus on applying multiple instances of ASL and ASF to models that already have the rules.

It is yet another case of GW's imprecise wording. To make it clear I think that the interaction between ASL and ASF should read "the two cancel out and the model is treated as having neither special rule". That would fit with what would make sense and be completely clear in terms of intention and application of rules.

[davidp]

It actually says "an enemy with the same ability" as in the ability to strike first regardless of initiative. It doesn't say a model with the same "keyword" or "special rule". An executioner doesn't have the ability to strike first since it has been cancelled by his ASL. And since "ability" is undefined (?), interpreting the rules for ourselves is necessary from the very beginning.

Unfortunately one can twist the words to fit either side...

[stonecutter]

Even with RAW, I see the wording in the BRB about the rules cancelling each other out meaning exactly that, treat the models in question as though they don't have either rule although there are undoubtedly others in the world with a different view. The issue of combos like 2 x ASL + ASF or ASL + 2 x ASF due to exceptional cases like timewarp, frostphoenix or thundertusk isn't an issue at all since ASL and ASF don't stack. Unless an FAQ comes out to the contrary, my view is that models with any combo of ASF & ASL be treated as having neither rule. End result, those Phoenix guard are going to re-roll against my executioners whether they like it or not

[J4far]

Very true, we are free to make our own interpretation of the rules. Ability is also another undefined word in the BRB, but unless it specifically says that the rule is removed, they still have the special rule while its effects are not applied. The executioner doesn't have the ability to strike first but it still has the rule ASF whether it is being applied or not. I much prefer the interpretation that you guys seem to have agreed upon I'm just trying to show that it ambiguous enough that a general consensus must be reached. So far it seems like Frank's version, which I believe is how the rules are MEANT to be interpreted is correct, but I wouldn't be surprised if an FAQ said otherwise because of the wording, silly as it may seem.