I mean you brushed over that sentence about characteristics of 0 pretty quickly there, but how much clearer than “no ability whatsoever in what the characteristic represents” can it get? I0 is not last in the order, it’s outside of the order.
But OK, I don’t think we’ll get to an agreement here. Let’s all send GW those questions per mail and hope it gets addressed. Discuss with your opponent before the game if you equipped multiple stone mantles . If everyone involved agrees that I0 can still attack, you’re good to go.
But it doesn’t tell you what no ability whatsoever means in relation to Initiative. So whilst I agree their intent may be that they do not get to strike it is not stated anywhere. You are then told that all models strike in descending order with no exclusion relating to zero value.
I don’t think it is a cheap argument at all. I think it is a common example of an oversight from the rules writer. Hence why you see FAQs and erratas required after every publication by GW.
It also doesn’t specifically tell you what a movement of 0 means, but I’m pretty sure we all have an idea about that, right?
There was no need of specifically mentioning initiative 0 as they already stated at a previous point that 0 always means “does not exist the relevant context”. If a charateristic is 0, it is as if the model would not exist here.
But they do tell you what it means in relation to Strength and Toughness for example. Which is obviously required because a S/T value of 0 does not infer that the model would be dead in the same way as W0 does. A Movement 0 rule is almost not required since you would not be able to move regardless.
It does not have an initiative so automatically fails all Init tests. However striking in combat is not a test and such an exclusion from striking in combat does not exist in the rules. If anything the opposite exists because it tells you all models strike in descending order
0 is a number and it is lower than 1. That checks out within the parameters of the rule for initiative order.
“No ability whatsoever” is up for interpretation, but seeing as how M, WS, BS, S, T, and W gets special treatment, I’d say that initiative is indeed just a number between 0 and 10. I 0 even has the added misfortune to fail tests immediately, so go go tree whack
Also: strike last weapons don’t necessarily strike last on the charge, so the naming of that special rule is a bit misleading.
I brought this issue up with my local friendly tournament organizer (serious rules lawyer there), and he ruled it like this as well, with little hesitation.
Ok, I’ll stop now. Would have been nice to reach a consensus for posterity, though.
I had time to check the “Striking Last” Rule it says set I to 1 before applying any other modifier, then I checked the wording of the ” Mantle of Stone” and it speaks of a -1 modifier. So having a “Striking Last” weapon plus a negative modifier can bring you down to I 0. Next, I checked if there is any other special rule, magic item or special ability that can reduce initiative via an unrestricted modifier, and I found the Wood Elves with the " A Befuddlement of Mischiefs" ability that gives a -1 modifier for I and WS to a whole unit. And from here on I believe that I 0 takes part in the striking order, otherwise you could chancel any great weapon unit and so on.
Still a FAQ would be good, also to explain how to handle restricted (up to any value x) modifier and unrestricted modifiers that apply at the same time (maybe they are cummulative but the cummulative sum has to keep the restrictions). Cheers to all adding ideas and arguments.
We do have a unit with Initiative 0 in Fantasy - Zombies! At least in 6th ed they had that plus a clarifying special rule called Braindead which stated simply that the unit struck last no matter what, charges, great weapons, etc didn’t matter. A 0 did not take them out of combat altogether and the wording of Characteristics at 0 is essentially unchanged.
With this in mind I would take the position that you strike last and can not receive any initiative bonuses. The last part being crucial. The result of having no ability on the stat means you have removed yourself from the Initiative calculation and strike in the new You’re Fucked phase.
Strikes Last being I1 is simply bad rules writing - it can receive bonuses and therefore strike first. Similarly I wouldn’t take such a literal reading of “After all models fight”, there are certainly situations where you won’t be able to attack.
I would add that 0 is the lowest a stat can be in Fantasy so you would not be able to lower a stat below 0 intentionally. If something would lower it further it has no effect.
This has all been fascinating, but I would definitely stress through a lot of the cited language here, this is an edge case that I do not believe they were thinking about when writing many of the quotes given here. This is ironic because Init is one of the stats most often modified by weapons, spells and abilities.
The correct answers for now are:
Spam the wood elf version of the question to the FAQ email address
Reach an agreement with your opponent based on your preferred logic
Roll off a D6 coin-toss for that one game if you cannot reach an agreement in a timely way
So, with the updated legacy PDFs we see that the Vampire Count’s “Accursed Armour”, which grants +1 Toughness but confers -1WS and -1I has now a “to a minimum of 1” added.
Interesting. And that is for a faction, where no character was at risk of getting WS or I zero from it.
So, they clearly don’t want one of the VC characters to drop to WS0 or I0. OK. That single piece of armour was anyway not able to do that.
Chaos Dwarfs, however, have (a) an extremely common item which can be taken multiple times and (b) have much lower Initiative to begin with.
What are we supposed to take from this? Only logical conclusion is that Initiative 0 for us is acceptable. Maybe the VC item only has that added because it also affects WS? Who knows. And we still have no answer to what happens if a character has I0.
It makes no sense in my head that it could drop to 0 since it isn’t even established that initiative can go that low in the first place (or what it means for a model)
I think you are perhaps giving them too much credit in inferring that it’s deliberate we can drop to 0… the rules are their usual level of inconsistent. I would perhaps search for who the current rules people are at GW (I’m not up to date with who does what) and directly question them on social media. Worked for me with Matt Ward and the Dwarf Thane/BSB fiasco in 8th. Even if they don’t directly respond perhaps it might put it on the radar
So the rules state that the model with the highest Ld has to be the General, which some people argued, if you picked a Runelord (or any of the Ld9 chars) you couldn’t have a BSB unless you picked another character to be general instead of the RL. However I think this is not the case from how you select your army, the BSB would be removed from the pool of “who can be your general”
I ended up messaging him on twitter and he was kind enough to respond
