Strategic Genius says "you can re-roll any Reserve rolls (failed or successful)", not "your units can re-roll..." That's why that part works. It doesn't say "your units", it merely specifies the player. If you specify the units, then you're down at the unit level and have to consider the relationship between the unit and the warlord, as we are instructed to by allies of convenience.

You don't want to use what it says about allies of convenience because you say it's an example, not a rule. It is an example, but it's something that they clearly state applies. It's one of the specified applications (or consequences, if you prefer) of the rule, so you should treat it with the same weight as you would a rule itself. I don't see that there's interpretation possible there like you do.


I don't accept your argument about the Warlord not being involved when you are told that the power affects units, since we are told specifically that a.o.c. Warlord Traits don't affect units. That means if you're dealing at a unit level you HAVE to look at the relationship between the unit and the warlord. Conqueror of Cities doesn't say that the army gets Move Through Cover (which would bypass it saying units), it invoked "your units". If it said you give your units Move Through Cover that would be the situation you've described, but it doesn't say that.

Obviously our mileage varies on this topic, and I don't think we're going to convince each other. But, given that the interpretation differs like this, you would need to talk about this topic with your opponent first before trying to use a Warlord power on an ally of convenience, since he probably has a perfectly acceptable expectation that the statement in allies of convenience applies. You can't just assume that he'll be good with your interpretation without talking to him. He might be perfectly fine with it after you explain your reasoning, but it's best not to spring it on him in the middle of a battle.

One last important question that i think strongly backs up my belief that the example is refering to the interaction between a warlord and an a.o.c based on the rule that they treat each other as enemys .this is an example of them not treating each other as friendly models so friendly warlord traits dont work . This is also in keeping with the rest of the examples

ie are not counted as being friendly units for the targeting of psychic powers, abilities and so on .

ive just looked into at the defination of example which is

a thing characteristic of its kind or illustrating a general rule.


When you read the example which general rule is it illustrating ?

I wish i had looked up the defination earlier as i think it makes it pretty clear that the rule is a.o.c treat each other as enemys and the example is an illstration of this . Now i can not find a rule anywhere that states enemy units dont beinfit from warlord traits so it couldnt be illstrating that . And i cannot think of another way in which a warlord trait wouldnt work other the the way i have been explaining all along .

Forgive me if ive made a mistake with that ive just had a gut feeling all along that i have been reading it right

I guess it means that a characteristic of the warlord treating aoc units as enemies is that they don't benefit from warlord traits.

I thought you were arguing that you could use warlord traits universally on aoc units, this last post doesn't support that interpretation at all.

There is no rule that states warlord traits dont affect enemys . And an example is an illstration of a rule . Its not used to imply a rule .So far my eplaination that it is based on friendly warlord traits not working on an enemy model is the only one i can find that fits and is in keeping with the rest of the examples

My argument was based on all strategic traits working on a.o.c as they are based on your army . As there is no restrictions on warlord traits working on enemy models . So raw you just apply the trait to the whole army as thats what it tells you to do . It dosnt specify freindly or enemy units which it does on other traits . so the idea that its needs permision to work would mean that you couldnt use it at all .or you take the permission from the statement that it effects your entire army .so you just give the rule to all the models controlled by you

Actually, allies of convenience says you treat them as enemies and states that as one example of that they can't benefit from a Warlord trait. So, there is something that says that warlord traits don't work on enemy models, at least enemy models that are in your army. Note that Desperate Allies have the same restrictions as Allies of Convenience, and Come the Apocalypse as per Desperate Allies, but each of those with more restrictions, so all "enemy" units in your army that could be affected by your Warlord are covered by the statement.

 doctortom wrote:
Actually, allies of convenience says you treat them as enemies and states that as one example of that they can't benefit from a Warlord trait. So, there is something that says that warlord traits don't work on enemy models, at least enemy models that are in your army. Note that Desperate Allies have the same restrictions as Allies of Convenience, and Come the Apocalypse as per Desperate Allies, but each of those with more restrictions, so all "enemy" units in your army that could be affected by your Warlord are covered by the statement.

Ian is claiming that those rules do not apply to his argument.

Fragile wrote:

 doctortom wrote:
Actually, allies of convenience says you treat them as enemies and states that as one example of that they can't benefit from a Warlord trait. So, there is something that says that warlord traits don't work on enemy models, at least enemy models that are in your army. Note that Desperate Allies have the same restrictions as Allies of Convenience, and Come the Apocalypse as per Desperate Allies, but each of those with more restrictions, so all "enemy" units in your army that could be affected by your Warlord are covered by the statement.

Ian is claiming that those rules do not apply to his argument.

And I've pointed out why they do, despite his argument.

 doctortom wrote:
Actually, allies of convenience says you treat them as enemies and states that as one example of that they can't benefit from a Warlord trait. So, there is something that says that warlord traits don't work on enemy models, at least enemy models that are in your army. Note that Desperate Allies have the same restrictions as Allies of Convenience, and Come the Apocalypse as per Desperate Allies, but each of those with more restrictions, so all "enemy" units in your army that could be affected by your Warlord are covered by the statement.

Remmber that by its defination an example is a illstration of a rule. What your sugesting is more than an illistration its adding a rule.
J
examples from a.o.c

Cannot move with 1" of an a.o.c model ...........illistrating rule on pg 18 a model cannot move within 1" of an enemy model
Cannot benefit from warlord traits of an a.o.c ........illistrating the a.o.c rule that they are enemys so traits on pg 135 regarding friendly traits not working
Cannot be joined by independent characters that are a.o.c illistrating rule on pg 166 in order to join a unit a id simply has to move within the 2" coherency distances of a friendly model .
Are not counted as friendly units for trageting ext.... illistrating a.o.c are enemys
Cannot use special abilities to repair hulls points ect .....illistrating a techmarine rule unsure of pg but rule may choose to repair a single friendly vehicle
Cannot use modifiers and re-rolls ect ......orbtial relay Coordinate Reinforcements or once per game, call an Orbital Alpha Strike. To Coordinate Reinforcements, select one friendly unit that is is Reserves; that unit automatically arrives from Reserves. This was the only one i could find however im sure there are more .again illistrating the a.o.c rule of enemys hence it not working because of friendly requirement .

If you note every example is refering to a writen rule thats based on an intraction between a friendly model and an enemy and there not creating any rules that are not written down


It comes down to bad writing on gw behalf the example should have been worded like this to save all this confusion .

Cannot benefit from friendly warlord traits of an a.o.c warlord .

I have now given a very strong arguement based off of definations ,rules , and lots of context.

There are one of two things i think are needed to disprove my reasoning

1. That an example is not just an illstration of a general rule ,its also means it creates rules
2. Another rule that the example could be illstrating. ie ...warlord traits do not work on enemys

 doctortom wrote:

And I've pointed out why they do, despite his argument.

Yes, you are correct. He is not.

It doesn't seem to matter to him.

ian wrote:
There are one of two things i think are needed to disprove my reasoning

1. That an example is not just an illstration of a general rule ,its also means it creates rules
2. Another rule that the example could be illstrating. ie ...warlord traits do not work on enemys

I think you have this somewhat backwards. Your interpretation relies on the idea that there is a subcategory of the written rules you seem to describe as examples of rules, which you suggest lack applicability or strength versus other rules.

I'm not sure where you've proven this to be the case, so I think in fact we are simply left with Strategic Traits stating "your army benefits" versus Allies of Convenience stating "Allies of Convenience models don't benefit".

Sensibly I think it's fairly obvious to take the latter as an exception to the more generalist former.

I beg to differ its because everybody just reads it as a rule and to change the status quo normaly requires a great deal of effort and gets a great deal of resitants .

I will run through how i look at the situtation which is by asking question on how the
Example or by the defination "illistration of a genral rule" works

a.o.c do not benifit from warlord traits
Why dont they benifit ? What rule is it illistrating ?
Is it illistrating that they are enemys do any of the other restiction matter .
No but being treated as an enemy could have an effect
Why does being an enemy matter ? ( its at this point your saying because the examples says they dont benifit its got to be because there enemys .Which is just an assumption it does not state thats the reason and there is no evidence to surport this either.)

Why does being an enemy matter .is there a specific rule on it ? Is there any other examples that help ?
Theres no rules saying warlord traits dont work on enemys
Most of the examples are refering to the intraction between enemy and freindly models .
Are there examples of warlord traits working on friendly models
Yes .
Could the example be refering to the situation where an a.o.c is trying to benifit from a friendly warlord trait
Yes
Does this fit with the other examples
Yes

why is everybody also ignoring that all the other examples are refering to frindly stuff not working on enemys . There has to be a reason for it

Until you stop looking at the example as a rule you will be stuck following it . And now the argument you seem to be presenting is pretty much because it says so . Or you just reframed it to sound right . An EXAMPLE is diffrent from a RULE a rule you follow and example illistrates a rule if that rule isnt clear you have to work out what its explain like i have done above

I dont think i can present my case any other way mybe its because ive spent my life working things out that i think the way i do but i glad i can think outside of the norm


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mr. Shine wrote:

ian wrote:
There are one of two things i think are needed to disprove my reasoning

1. That an example is not just an illstration of a general rule ,its also means it creates rules
2. Another rule that the example could be illstrating. ie ...warlord traits do not work on enemys

I think you have this somewhat backwards. Your interpretation relies on the idea that there is a subcategory of the written rules you seem to describe as examples of rules, which you suggest lack applicability or strength versus other rules.

I'm not sure where you've proven this to be the case, so I think in fact we are simply left with Strategic Traits stating "your army benefits" versus Allies of Convenience stating "Allies of Convenience models don't benefit".

Sensibly I think it's fairly obvious to take the latter as an exception to the more generalist former.

Ive just taken the defination of an example which is an illstration of a rule which means by default it cannot be a rule its there to explain not create


Automatically Appended Next Post:
For instances
Ive broken my leg
This means for example
i cant drive

This doant mean i will never drive or that i couldnt drive in a modified car this means as a genral rule i cant drive

I treat all cakes as fattening
This means for example
I dont eat cakes

This is just a genral rule this dosnt mean i will never eat cake again or on a specail day its means genraly i dont eat cakes .

Its the same with the warlord trait genraly warlord traites dont work on enemy models . That dosnt mean there arnt ocasion when it could work it just means they genataly dont .
Again the defination of the word example is

a thing characteristic of its kind or illustrating a general rule.

Ive done all.i can now feel free to take what ever you want from this

ian wrote:

a.o.c do not benifit from warlord traits
Why dont they benifit ?

Because there's a rule that specifically says they don't.

Every single other thing you said is pointless.

You may as well be asking with a save of 3+ works on a 4.

ian wrote:
Ive just taken the defination of an example which is an illstration of a rule which means by default it cannot be a rule its there to explain not create

The rule says, "This means, for example, that units:". It is giving examples of what the rule means. It is telling you the effects of the meaning of the rule.

For instances
Ive broken my leg
This means for example
i cant drive

This doant mean i will never drive or that i couldnt drive in a modified car this means as a genral rule i cant drive

Perhaps once your leg has healed you can drive again, but it means that while you have broken your leg you cannot drive.

The equivalent in this scenario to "having a broken leg" is "treating each other as enemy units".

Therefore while treating each other as enemy units they cannot benefit from the Warlord Trait of an Allies of Convenience Warlord.

That's all there is to it. Your own example has proven you wrong.

You say

It is giving examples of what the rule means. its telling you the the effects of the meaning of the rule

So effects in your context means a rule. your argument is saying that an example can create a rule ie because they are enemys an effect (rule) is they dont benifit from warlord traits . This does not fit with defination of an example . And the rules have stated that the statment on warlord traits is an example.

To put it bluntly your saying its telling you the rule of the rule is .... which dosnt make a lot of sense
The rule is a.o.c are treated as enemys an effect of this is they dont benifit from warlord traits . This statment is true but because im not trying to infer that an effect (cause (something) to happen ) is a rule it means causes warlord traits not to work. That is not the end of it because this is not a rule where its just a statment . This is an example which is there to try and help ypu understand a general rule , you still have to follow on and ask why dosnt it work .

My point about the leg is i could drive a car with steering wheel controls even with a broken leg but genraly you would say i couldnt drive as most cars dont have that. just like most warlord traits genral require a friendly model so you would say warlord traits dont work

An example is flexable its not the only way a it works . Other wise it would be a rule

and one last time to try and define what an example means backed up by evidence .At this point i feel like im writing an eassy explaining the defrence between a rule and and example.

Defination of words
Example :
illustrating a general rule


Illiustrating :

 to give examples in order to make (something) easier to understand

general
relating to the main or major parts of something rather than the details :not specific

Rule
: a statement that tells you what is or is not allowed in a particular game, situation, etc.


giving examples in order to make something ( being an enemy ) easier to understand. relating to the main or major parts of something (being an enemy ) rather than the details not specific.  a statement that tells you what is or is not allowed in a particular game, situation,. (The stament that a.o.c are treated as enemys the rule )

So please note things like easier to understand relating to the main or marjor parts ( not all parts its not fixed) not specific

The defination of a rule a statment (fixed) this is diffrent from an example which uses open words .

I think the problem here is that games workshop has written an example as a statment which is why its being confused for a rule . But because games workshop has labeled it an example it has to be treated as such .
Thus the example on warlord traits is
Making it easier to understand that because a.o.c are treated as enemys they dont benifit from friendly warlord traits just like every other example does


Now plese dont just respond by saying "but it is a rule "
At least try to prove that the defination of an examapl dosnt mean what ive posted

I had edited this a few times over the last hour so im sorry if you replying to an old version

ian wrote:
You say

It is giving examples of what the rule means. It is giving examples of the rule its telling you the the effects of the meaning of the rule

So effects in your context means a rule. your argument is saying that an example can create a rule ie because they are enemys an effect (rule) is they dont benifit from warlord traits . This does not fit with defination of an example . And the rules have stated that the statment on warlord traits is an example.

I don't understand your disconnect. "This means, for example" simply is giving examples of what the rule means.

My point about the leg is i could drive a car with steering wheel controls even with a broken leg but genraly you would say i couldnt drive as most cars dont have that. just like most warlord traits genral require a friendly model so you would say warlord traits dont work

Except here you're further qualifying what you meant, to clarify an otherwise (i.e. if it were not further explained) clearly absolute statement. The rules do not do this, so this argument is invalid.

The rules quite explicitly say that one example of the meaning of treating Allies of Convenience units as enemy units is they may not benefit from an Allies of Convenience model's Warlord Trait. They do not further qualify this, so why are you trying to?

An example is flexable its not the only way a rule works . Other wise it would be a rule

I think what you mean is that an example is not (necessarily) definitive of the entirety of what it is illustrating, i.e. the examples in this scenario does not by themselves necessarily tell you all the effects of Allies of Convenience treating each other as enemy units.

But you're grossly confused because it's simply not true to say examples don't mean every single case of what they describe. If the example is an absolute statement we are not entitled to imagine scenarios in which they might have meant, "except for this situation".

and one last time to try and define what an example means backed up by evidence .At this point i feel like im writing an eassy explaining the defrence between a rule and and example.

Defination of words
Example :
illustrating a general rule


Illiustrating :

 to give examples in order to make (something) easier to understand

general
relating to the main or major parts of something rather than the details :not specific

Rule
: a statement that tells you what is or is not allowed in a particular game, situation, etc.


giving examples in order to make something ( being an enemy ) easier to understand. relating to the main or major parts of something (being an enemy ) rather than the details not specific.  a statement that tells you what is or is not allowed in a particular game, situation,. (The stament that a.o.c are treated as enemys the rule )

So please note things like easier to understand relating to the main or marjor parts ( not all parts its not fixed) not specific

The defination of a rule a statment (fixed) this is diffrent from an example which uses open words .

I think the problem here is that games workshop has written an example as a statment which is why its being confused for a rule . But because games workshop has labeled it an example it has to be treated as such .
Thus the example on warlord traits is
Making it easier to understand that because a.o.c are treated as enemys they dont benifit from warlord traits just like ever other example does


Now plese dont just respond by saying "but it is a rule "
At least try to prove that the defination of an examapl dosnt mean what ive posted
Because i will lose all credit in your post

You've cherry picked a definition to suit your argument by containing the phrase "general rule". But even then, general rules are still only subject to exceptions where those exceptions are stated.

There is no exception stated here. You're trying to say that "your army benefits from the Warlord Trait" is an exception to "Allies of Convenience don't benefit from Warlord Traits" but that simply cannot be true because an army benefiting is a more general statement and "Allies of Convenience models (within your army)" is more specific.

Allies of Convenience models not benefiting is clearly an exception to the general rule of models in your army normally benefiting from Warlord Traits.

Except here you're further qualifying what you meant, to clarify an otherwise (i.e. if it were not further explained) clearly absolute statement. The rules do not do this, so this argument is invalid.

The rules quite explicitly say that one example of the meaning of treating Allies of Convenience units as enemy units is they may not benefit from an Allies of Convenience model's Warlord Trait. They do not further qualify this, so why are you trying to?

Its an explaination which means that you can further qualify it . I agree you cannot do that with rules .
Im trying to quailfiy this because the warlord traits rule states it effects the entire army . So i have to now quailfiy excatly what the example is refering to as there is a contractdiction between a rule and an example.

I think what you mean is that an example is not (necessarily) definitive of the entirety of what it is illustrating, i.e. the examples in this scenario does not by themselves necessarily tell you all the effects of Allies of Convenience treating each other as enemy units.

I agree and thank you for being clearer but i would also add that it also dosnt tell you of any exceptions

You've cherry picked a definition to suit your argument by containing the phrase "general rule". But even then, general rules are still only subject to exceptions where those exceptions are stated.

i just googled the definations i am aware that there could be others however listing them all would requiry alot of work .

There is no exception stated here. You're trying to say that "your army benefits from the Warlord Trait" is an exception to "Allies of Convenience don't benefit from Warlord Traits" but that simply cannot be true because an army benefiting is a more general statement and "Allies of Convenience models (within your army)" is more specific.

Allies of Convenience models not benefiting is clearly an exception to the general rule of models in your army normally benefiting from Warlord Traits.

Why cant it be true . I have a rule that states it effects my entire army against a general statment provided as an example . Ofcourse that means you have to figure out what the example means

This seems like a pretty straightforward issue. Rudimentary reading comprehension shows that Warlord Traits, generally speaking, do not work on enemy models.

I can see why Ian is arguing semantics here... but he's arguing semantics. The intent is clear. His entire argument is predicated on the idea that an example just illustrates a rule and doesn't count as a rule. I disagree. I believe an example just rewords a rule so that it's easier to understand. At the very least, the example should provide confirmation that a rule exists. The argument then should be about where the rule is and not about whether or not the example is valid.

It's a very tenuous argument and I don't think he's going to get very many people agreeing with him.

An example is an instance illustrating the rule. If an example of "this is an enemy" is "this unit doesn't benefit from X," then "this unit doesn't benefit from X" is actually part of the rule "this is an enemy."

This whole argument is inane. Examples aren't rules, but they help to further explain how you use the rules, ergo you utilize the examples to help understand what the rule means, which OP is completely throwing out the window. You're not "changing the status quo," you're ignoring context so you can say something written explicitly doesn't mean what it means.

ian wrote:


Remmber that by its defination an example is a illstration of a rule. What your sugesting is more than an illistration its adding a rule.
J
examples from a.o.c

Being an illustration of the rule does not mean you get to dismiss it. An illustration that directly covers the situation at hand means that the rule it is illustrating directly applies. Therefore, it is not adding a rule at all.

I give up

Ive noticed nobody else has posted a defination of example there just saying that this is what they think it is . A poster already explained early

that an example is not (necessarily) definitive of the entirety of what it is illustrating, i.e.

So it could be illustrating my take on it


Everbody has still ignored the fact that all the other examples are based on friendly and enemys but who cares about that right

I give up

Everybody isn't ignoring it, they just realize that the example explicitly tells you how the rule handles Warlord traits in regards to a unit that is an Ally of Convenience to the Warlord. As an explicit statement for an example, it tells you in this case exactly how the rule works in relation to Warlord Traits - they don't work for units that are Allies of Convenience )because they are treated as an enemy unit). You keep wanting to ignore that and try to dodge around a clear statement so that you don't have to apply what it clearly says; that's the thing being ignored here, not everyone else ignoring what the other examples are based on.

ian wrote:
I give up

Ive noticed nobody else has posted a defination of example there just saying that this is what they think it is . A poster already explained early

that an example is not (necessarily) definitive of the entirety of what it is illustrating, i.e.

So it could be illustrating my take on it


Everbody has still ignored the fact that all the other examples are based on friendly and enemys but who cares about that right

I give up

Well, the rest of us are staying away from dictionary definitions because one of the forum tenets covers definitions...

"6. Dictionary definitions of words are not always a reliable source of information for rules debates, as words in the general English language have broader meanings than those in the rules. This is further compounded by the fact that certain English words have different meanings or connotations in Great Britain (where the rules were written) and in the United States. Unless a poster is using a word incorrectly in a very obvious manner, leave dictionary definitions out."

Nobody is using a word incorrectly in a very obvious manner, so we're leaving the definitions out. Common sense and basic contextual reading comprehension say that your interpretation is flawed. Ultimately, you don't need to convince us. You need to convince the people you play with. Based on the conversations so far, I think you're going to have a tough time doing so.

Thats my mistake for not reading the rules on the forum throughly but it was what i based my whole argument on . Which i am sorry for
So my common sense and contextual reading is

I read the rule that states it works on my whole army
I check a.o.c rules to me the statment lacks the same clarity as the other examples because the rule is contradicting it. so i apply the context of the other examples to it
I arrive at the view that the example is refering to the intraction between enemy and friendly and is not an example explaining that warlord traits dont work on enemys by default
So i can apply the worldtrait

Ive not used any words wrong and its perfectly fine to question what the example is meaning and to try and figure it out which is what ive done . to me it means somthing diffrent
So.whilst i cannot prove it it cant be disproved either

I already agreed not to use the rule within 1 min to carry on the game . I only brought it up as thats how i read it . I got asked to post it on fb during the game and get crap from them like read the rules or smack him in the head with the rule book this anoyed me . Im not that guy i coming from having to play against fortuned wraith knights and bigger eldar titan fortuned . I let rules go all the time like a warlock giving a wraithknight a 2+ save . Its Just this time having people flat out say that what im saying is wrong got my back up . And as you have now pointed out its pretty impossible to prove any thing on here that relys on the defination of the very words we use . It has to be based on how people interpret those word which will always involve a huge spectrum but one where the majority rule

Jacksmiles wrote:
An example is an instance illustrating the rule. If an example of "this is an enemy" is "this unit doesn't benefit from X," then "this unit doesn't benefit from X" is actually part of the rule "this is an enemy."

This whole argument is inane. Examples aren't rules, but they help to further explain how you use the rules, ergo you utilize the examples to help understand what the rule means, which OP is completely throwing out the window. You're not "changing the status quo," you're ignoring context so you can say something written explicitly doesn't mean what it means.

That is something I tried to explain to him. Examples in the rulebook are the equivalent of court room "case law". Case law isn't about the literal rule, but how the system interprets those rules. So, too, the examples provided in all of the Allies rules are not specific "hard rules", but rather the "soft rules" of how the system is to interacting with these circumstances.

ian wrote:

I read the rule that states it works on my whole army
I check a.o.c rules to me the statment lacks the same clarity as the other examples because the rule is contradicting it. so i apply the context of the other examples to it
I arrive at the view that the example is refering to the intraction between enemy and friendly and is not an example explaining that warlord traits dont work on enemys by default
So i can apply the worldtrait

That is quite a stretch, reading "Cannot benefit from the Warlord Trait of an Allies of Convenience Warlord" and coming up with the conclusion that you can apply the Warlord Trait. It suggests that your view is wrong. Yes, it's referring to the interaction between friendly and enemy - it's flat out stating as a case law example that if the unit is treated as an enemy by the alliance level with the Warlord, the unit doesn't get to use the Warlord trait. You don't get to dismiss the case law established here by ignoring the example, then stating "it's only dealing with interaction levels, so it doesn't matter." This points out that it does matter, and that Allies of Convenience don't get to have a Warlord Trait that affects units apply to them.

Ok to help me understand better could you please apply that to

Rule
A.o.c are treated as enemys
This mean for example
Warlord traits dont work on a.o.c

If find a rule that states a warlord trait works on an entire army dose this mean following the case law i cannot use warlord traits Or does it mean in order to use the warlord traits i would have to provide evidence of why i can ie that example is based on enemy freindly and based on that ruling a new case law would be created .
Which mite
Elaborate on the example
Friendly warlord traits dont work on a.o.c

And i have now relised that i am presenting a rai rather than a raw. Because we arnt allowed to create case law in this situation
I opligise for my confusion

From the Tenets of You Make Da Call:

3. Never, ever bring real-world examples into a rules argument.
- The rules, while creating a very rough approximation of the real world, are an abstraction of a fantasy universe. Real world examples have no bearing on how the rules work. So quit it.

He was using an example posted earlier by someone else, except that person was simply utilizing it to show how examples of RAW help show you RAW, not give a situation to say "Hey I found a way around that though!"

Because, yeah, in real life you can find ways around restrictions.

But in the game, there are no warlord traits with steering wheel controls.

There are warlord traits that state it effects your enitire army because in the game you can also dind your way around restictions

Rule
A.o.c are treated as enemys
This mean for example
Warlord traits dont work on a.o.c

If find a rule that states a warlord trait works on an entire army dose this mean following the case law i cannot use warlord traits Or does it mean in order to use the warlord traits i would have to provide evidence of why i can ie that example is based on enemy freindly and based on that ruling a new case law would be created .
Which mite
Elaborate on the example
Friendly warlord traits dont work on a.o.c



However


And i have now relised that i am presenting a rai rather than a raw. Because we arnt allowed to create case law in this situtation . I have been coming from the point of view that debating on a forum can create case law . But unfortunatly case law for use in raw debates can only be created by games workshop
Im sorry for the confusion and my stuborness and thank everybody for sticking with the dabate so i could finnaly figure out why it kept bugging me.

That's okay, Ian - glad it worked out in the end!

You might convince your opponents before a game that RAI (or at least HIWPI) would be to let something that says it affects the entire army to do that, even with what it says in Allies of Convenience. If they feel strongly about that, though, I'd say just let it slide.

Just remember that this would apply to a single person's army that has Allies of Convenience (or an even worse ally condition in it) as much as trying to adjudicate when you have 2 players on a side (where you should be making house rules anyway). It might be hard to convince somebody who is going to play against an army of Grey Knights that has an allied detachment of Tyranids to accept that the Tyranids are going to benefit from any trait coming from the Grey Knight Warlord. (More likely they just go "nom nom nom" while eating the Warlord innards)

Ok cool didnt relise there where more warlord traits that didnt say friendly . It wouldnt make sense for grey knights to help nids lol

ian wrote:
There are warlord traits that state it effects your enitire army because in the game you can also dind your way around restictions

Yes. Where it tells you that you are allowed to, not simply where you wish. It has to be something like "Ignores penalty for X" or "Ignores [special rule 27]."

I'm not saying there can't be exceptions, but the rules need to tell you the exception is there, you can't just decide one exists like with the car scenario.

But yeah, if you can convince people of your interpretation, cool, if not, throw down and have some fun anyway!

ian wrote:
Its an explaination which means that you can further qualify it . I agree you cannot do that with rules .

On what basis? What gives you the authority to expand on something the rules give as one example of a consequence of a rule's meaning?

Im trying to quailfiy this because the warlord traits rule states it effects the entire army . So i have to now quailfiy excatly what the example is refering to as there is a contractdiction between a rule and an example.

But we know exactly what the example is referring to, because it says so. It's referring to Allies of Convenience models. Implicit in "Allies of Convenience models" is "within your army" because Allies are relevant to the interaction of models of different Faction within your army.

Therefore we know that the Allies of Convenience example is specific to certain units or models within your army versus Strategic Warlord Traits which, like normal Warlord Traits, as a general rule apply to your whole army, which unless otherwise stated generally contain units and models considered friendly by each other.

Simply put, Allies of Convenience is a specific exception to the general Warlord Traits ruling. You have it backwards in trying to claim Strategic Traits are a more specific exception to a more general Allies of Convenience ruling.

I agree and thank you for being clearer but i would also add that it also dosnt tell you of any exceptions

I don't understand what you mean here. The examples themselves are illustrations of exceptions to other rules caused by the Allies of Convenience rules.

i just googled the definations i am aware that there could be others however listing them all would requiry alot of work .

Sure. And I Dictionary.com'd the definition and neither "general" nor "rule" came up anywhere on the page. Point being that you've chosen a dictionary definition specifically to support your argument when seemingly the overwhelming majority of other definitions are not consistent with that.

Why cant it be true . I have a rule that states it effects my entire army against a general statment provided as an example . Ofcourse that means you have to figure out what the example means

Because you have it backwards. Warlord Traits normally affect all units they say they affect. Allies of Convenience is an exception where models within an army may need to treat each other as 'enemy' models and one consequence of that is not benefiting from Warlord Traits.

It's like saying that you have the rule stating models may normally move 6" in the Movement phase, then saying that Difficult Terrain, which reduces normal movement to D6", must not be referring to Eldar models, so Eldar models can still move 6" even in Difficult Terrain.

Exceptions necessarily must override general rules, or the rules would not function. Being an example simply means it is one illustration of potentially many. It doesn't mean you may make further examples up as you please just because the examples given are not exhaustive.

Cool noworrys ive changed the title. i think rai was for the example to have been like the other ones based on friendly warlord traits not working on enemys and i think there is at least some credit to that based on the other examples. But as raw stands it dosnt work because the example is basic , i was trying to provide evidence of my belief though my explanation in the hope of a case law being made. And then the statment would be looked at like a.o.c cannot benifit from friendly warlord traits .

But it cant be the case
Cheers for the debate

To be honest, I don't think it's even RAI - I don't think they intended for Tyranid "allies" to benefit from non-Tyranid Warlord's Warlord Traits. you cite Allies of
Convenience, but it would also apply to Comes the Apocalypse

I think you've really got more a case of How I Would Play It rather than Rules As Intended.

Ok seeing as its being implied that its not even rai i will explain.

Firstly i think i have been mislead by the use of the word case law which i believe is being used wrongly ,which is why i will post a simple definition i have read more detailed ones but they all imply the same thing
...."case law
....noun
....the law as established by the outcome of former cases."
Saying an example is precedent is also misleading we have no evidence that there has been a case heard for the different view points of the meaning of the example.
The closes thing we have to case law is a faq as this is rules that have been released into the public which has highlighted issue and then has had a judgment made by the highest authority (games workshop).
Bringing the term law into a rules debate is misleading we are dealing with rules of a game not laws.

"Tactical traits are abilities that affect how your warlord interacts with battlefield objectives . they represent how he can influence the goals of the battle and adapts to new tactical challenges"

i dont think it has been disputed Allies of Convenience models are still allowed to take objectives ect .But by your reasoning once a warlord has a trait applied to him it becomes his trait
ie my space marine warlord rolls 3 on tactical traits and draws an extra card so why should my tyranids care about a space marine objective

This brings up my point early about the you and yours rule on pg 14
"Some models have abilities which are written as if speaking to the controller of the model. When a model's rule refers to 'you' or 'yours' its refers to the player currently controlling the model
The player is effectively a higher power for the lack of a better word .The warlord has spotted the objective but its the player that knows that the extra objective card is needed so he sends the tyranid models over to it . its not the warlord issuing the order its the player

"strategic traits are skills that affect your entire army, representing tricks or gambits that your warlord sets into motion long before the battle"

master of ambush
Your warlord and 3 non-vehicle units of your choice have the infiltrate special rule
The warlord has set up secret hiding spots or cleared some ares to hide (fluff interpretation) but its the player (higher power) that knows about these spots and it is him who sends the tyranids there

Think of it like this the warlord is just a pawn for the players will and anything he has done is there for the player to take advantage of. When i play tyranids and space marines together they not working together but they are doing the players bidding which is one goal so i send the nids to use the hiding spots because as a "higher power" i know what both armys are doing.
The rule on pg14 has been put there to help us understand that its not the model issuing the order its the player.

your warlord has furious charge ..... He has it and he gives it to his unit
your units has furious charge ...... the player chose which of his units has it . the warlord is irrelevant here

It states the model when it wants it to be his power and yours when its intended to be the players power to give
Am i not understanding the rule on pg 14 does it mean something different ?

I think strategic traits are not there to represent the warlord issuing commands etc that's what command traits are for. They are there to represent tricks and gambits like for instance he sent some guard as bait so the nids would be where he wanted them when the battle started its that sort of
thing its refering too. Its meant to represent stuff that's happened before the battle not during which is why i think its rai for strategic traits to work

seeing as i have been drawn in again i would like to refer people to pg 14
The spirit of the game
This does give me permission to ask the question what is this an example of ?. Is it example of friendly warlord traits not working because a.o.c are treated as enemies . Is there a rule stating warlord traits don't work on enemies so that's what the example is. is it an example of a.o.c being enemys and then also an example that because of that they don't benefit
however they are all plausible interpretations if you ask the question what exactly is it referring too (spirit of the game).
And the notion thats its case law does not fit . it is an example and its based on your view of an example as to how much authority you give it . i personally think its open to interpretation based on the other examples. other do not which i accept .

I personal love the idea of my warlord luring in nids with guardsmen meat sacks . or that he has spent months reinforcing buildings and providing clears paths as he knows he will be working with squishy eldar on his next battle. or a farseer has called upon the warp to give the enemy a strange glow to help the guardmans shoot in the dark because they have a hard enough time in the day.
Im not trying to say a hive tyrant can polity ask a tau fire warrior to set up in the building over there as that would go more like arggg ...pew.... grrrrraaaah......crunch..... nom nom nom or actualy as nids aren't that great any more it would be more like lol ....bring it on nid ......overwatch my fellow fish people......que ton of fire power ......................................................................................arghhhhhh........arg....ar....a..................

I really hope that clears things up here

Boy this thread title isn't loaded at all.

I know i originaly wanted to provoke strong reactions to get a rigorious debate. But will amend it now.

ian wrote:
Firstly i think i have been mislead by the use of the word case law which i believe is being used wrongly ,which is why i will post a simple definition i have read more detailed ones but they all imply the same thing
...."case law
....noun
....the law as established by the outcome of former cases."
Saying an example is precedent is also misleading we have no evidence that there has been a case heard for the different view points of the meaning of the example.
The closes thing we have to case law is a faq as this is rules that have been released into the public which has highlighted issue and then has had a judgment made by the highest authority (games workshop).
Bringing the term law into a rules debate is misleading we are dealing with rules of a game not laws.

Then you are missing the point. We are associating it with the concept of case law in that these examples presented by the rulebook provide the specific rulings of the rule writers before an FAQ needs to came out. They are specific official pronouncements regarding the authors' intentions behind the rules. To ignore them would be the same as going to court while ignoring every other case decision that had went on before.

Now, you may choose to interpret those specifics of those decisions differently, that can be understood (sometimes, some people's interpretations tend to ignore their language), but do not just ignore them "because they are only examples".

That is why I tried to get you to focus on trying to define the Strategic Traits as providing a case on the possibility of a contradiction in that the "your units" and "your army" may possibly override the relationship consideration between the Warlord and enemy units.

As a more genral discussion on case law rather than warlord traits .

I did consider these points that's its the writers rulings but this does imply that they have actually realised there could be a conflict and ruled on it

I would consider the rule book to be a new set of "laws" that have been written as best as possible but as yet are untested on the general public . Case law would then be established after this .
Once the new edition is created the old one and old case law stop having any relevance.

This is also different from real world laws which are old and there is a huge amount of case law that's established over a long time .
And implys that games workshop have spent months looking at every rule debating every out come .

The rules are even written with the intention of being open
They aren't written with the intention of being as strict as laws so won't be as robust
This is why i think it can be misleading as it is applying a real world example of how something works to the game.

ian wrote:
As a more genral discussion on case law rather than warlord traits .

I did consider these points that's its the writers rulings but this does imply that they have actually realised there could be a conflict and ruled on it

I would consider the rule book to be a new set of "laws" that have been written as best as possible but as yet are untested on the general public . Case law would then be established after this .
Once the new edition is created the old one and old case law stop having any relevance.

This is also different from real world laws which are old and there is a huge amount of case law that's established over a long time .
And implys that games workshop have spent months looking at every rule debating every out come .

The rules are even written with the intention of being open
They aren't written with the intention of being as strict as laws so won't be as robust
This is why i think it can be misleading as it is applying a real world example of how something works to the game.

And you are looking too deeply in to all the aspects of the reference instead of only the aspects being pointed out as being relatable. It is akin to only using one definition of a word while ignoring the context of the sentence or paragraph which provides the proper definition to use.

The example tells you how to use the rule and the ramifications of the rule, just like case law will tell you how a judge is going to interpret the law to see if they will rule in your favor or not. Don't look any further than that comparison, otherwise you will miss what I am trying to say to you.

but case law does not tell a judge how its going to be used . it is given as evidence for consideration as case law can change based on a number of factors.
Its this part i think is misleading by saying it relates to case law is giving to impression that it is the only way to read the example a definitive answer being fixed if you like. and like pointed out to me early just because its relatable doesn't mean a real life example should be used in rules debates

ok simply put
i am looking at the example in the context of the other examples on the same thing. i am not looking at it from the point of view that the example is written as fact i see it as omitting the word friendly due to poor writing by games workshop.
And because the rules are written on the basis of being free and open
This is not the same as me just wanting the rule to have the word in it for my own benefit
i see the example in question as being the odd one out as all the other ones are referring to the interaction between a friendly and enemy model with clear rules behind them

ian wrote:
i am not looking at it from the point of view that the example is written as fact i see it as omitting the word friendly due to poor writing by games workshop.

This is the crux of your problem right here. Being told by the rule that Allies of Convenience treat each other as 'enemy units' (with limits on attacking them, etc) and then thinking that the example is wrong for omitting the word "friendly" for enemy units seems a bit illogical and not in line with what we are told in the rule and examples.

Cannot move with 1" of an a.o.c model ...........illistrating rule on pg 18 a model cannot move within 1" of an enemy model
Cannot be joined by independent characters that are a.o.c illistrating rule on pg 166 in order to join a unit a id simply has to move within the 2" coherency distances of a friendly model .
Are not counted as friendly units for trageting of physic powers abilies and so on .... illistrating a.o.c are enemys
Cannot use special abilities to repair hulls points ect .....illistrating a techmarine rule unsure of pg but rule may choose to repair a single friendly vehicle
Are affected by attacks special rules or abilities used by allies of convenience that affect enemy units within a certain range or area of effect illistrating that a.o.c are enemys

All of the above examples do not use the example its self to infer a rule each one of them is referencing a written rule in the brb bar one but does referenc the only example i know of where a model can repair a hull point ect

There is no written rule in the book that states that warlord traits cannot affect enemy models
So why is it that there is only example that is being presented as a rule in its self

Well enemy units can be affected by warlord traits. There are a select few that specifically say they do though. The one that comes to mind is the space marine one that messes with leadership test. So there is precedence for it. But in this case you are being explicitly told that they can affect enemy units.

I would like to point out there is no written rule in the book that states I win every game I play no matter what. There is one about having fun though. I only have fun when I win. Guess thats me never losing a game now.

As a good rule of thumb, you have to be given permission to do things in the 40k rule set. Just because it doesn't say you can't do a thing, doesn't mean you are able to do it!

Ok cool dosnt change the fact that it is the only example thats being used as a rule




Automatically Appended Next Post:
Which is why i don't just blindly follow the rule . i ask the question what is actually trying to be explained here.

Which is why i come to the conclusion that the example should be :

Cannot benefit from friendly warlord traits of an allies of convenience warlord

Then it fits with all of the other examples

Which is why im saying its a rai argument



Automatically Appended Next Post:
i bring up the spirit of the game because the rules where never even written to stand up to this level scrutiny which is why the more i post the more i realise how pointless it is.
Ive explained my logic of why i have questioned the rule i have given my reasoning of why i think its what was intended ive explained how i think it would work in game

If i'm not just following the rules and i am adding my own ideas drama and creativity (meat sacks to lure nids etc)

Then i guess im playing the game just like it was intended

ian wrote:
Ok cool dosnt change the fact that it is the only example thats being used as a rule

I just went through the electronic version of the rulebook searching for, "for example" and came up with 100 hits. Probably give or take one or two, being in a hurry.

I'd contend that all of these should be followed as they are stated.

i bring up the spirit of the game because the rules where never even written to stand up to this level scrutiny which is why the more i post the more i realise how pointless it is.
Ive explained my logic of why i have questioned the rule i have given my reasoning of why i think its what was intended ive explained how i think it would work in game

If i'm not just following the rules and i am adding my own ideas drama and creativity (meat sacks to lure nids etc)

Then i guess im playing the game just like it was intended

Provided your opponent agrees, sure.

It's a bit meaningless to come into a rules discussion, phrased in terms of a rules discussion, and then bring up that the rules actually say you can do whatever you want to just have fun and be creative, though, isn't it?

ian wrote:
but case law does not tell a judge how its going to be used . it is given as evidence for consideration as case law can change based on a number of factors.
Its this part i think is misleading by saying it relates to case law is giving to impression that it is the only way to read the example a definitive answer being fixed if you like. and like pointed out to me early just because its relatable doesn't mean a real life example should be used in rules debates

Incorrect. If a judge ignores case law, a higher court can (and usually will) throw out his decision. The more often this happens, the greater likelihood of that judge retaining his seat is in jeopardy.

So, too, ignoring the examples provided in the Allies section, or any of the rest of the rulebook, will have people deciding that you will only play by the rules you want to play with. This will cause you to lose gaming opportunities and/or be thrown out of a tournament.

Either way, it is your choice to proceed as you wish, but do not be so quick to ignore examples just because they are not the hard rules. If you find another person willing to play to those same standards for you, great. In other forums, those are called "House Rules", and here it is called "HYWPI" (How You Would Play It). Just recognize it as such when you present such things here and it will help keep the discussion focused on the actual rules you want to address instead of getting side-tracked like this.

Just to make this clear i only gave my opinion on the rule at my local gaming club the i agreed to just play it without the rule pretty much straight away ( i then got dragged into posting it online mid game ). It wasn't even me that would have benefited from the rule really it was my friend playing a cc chaos army . our opponent was 3k of eldar with fortuned wraith knight and a fortuned Revenant titan,

So please take that into context

Incorrect. If a judge ignores case law, a higher court can (and usually will) throw out his decision. The more often this happens, the greater likelihood of that judge retaining his seat is in jeopardy.

So, too, ignoring the examples provided in the Allies section, or any of the rest of the rulebook, will have people deciding that you will only play by the rules you want to play with. This will cause you to lose gaming opportunities and/or be thrown out of a tournament.

Which is why i am here debating it not in game or at a tournament . And if nobody ever question rules we would still be living with laws that make it illegal for black and white people to marry.

Just because something goes against the common belief dosnt mean you shouldn't question it . Case law can be ruled against and has been. which is my point about it being misleading because it implies that the majority of people wont even consider your argument so it must be wrong.. We used to think the world was flat right .
Again the notion of case law is a real world example which i was told i couldn't use.

i have just skimmed though the rule book and so far every example i have found goes into detail about the rules its referring too.

i cannot find another example that is just a statement inferring a rule can you ? because that would help alot.

The spirit of the game does not just allow you to do what you want . (TMIR is the one that allows you to do what you want)
It puts the rules into context that they are not ment to be taken at face value . meaning you should explore what the rule is actual trying to accomplish check that it fits with other rules in the book ect.
Which is why i'm here debating but so far its been pretty much read what it says and don't question it ,which is why i said its pointless

So far my point about the context of the example has been ignored ? Its the fundamental reason why ive question it.

So far everybody is just saying an example is a rule and you have to read it at face value

i disagree the rule book is full of examples only referring to and explaining a written rule. The rules writers themselfs have stated that they have not been written with the intent of being rigorous ( to just read exactly what it says)

So if anybody can give evidence that you have to take an example at face value, and evidence of another example given as a statement inferring a rule that would really help this debate

Because if it is the only example that infers a rule then that's a pretty strong reason to question if that's actually what it was intended to do

Why are we required to draw an inference?

You keep saying you have to infer that the reason for Allies of Convenience not benefiting from each other's Warlord Traits is because they are treated as enemy models.

I don't need to know what the specific mechanics of the rule and example are, however, when it is crystal clear what the rule and example are saying, which is that Allies of Convenience simply do not benefit from each other's Warlord Traits. No inference required to be drawn.

Again ignoring the context that that example is in . I'm not saying you have to ask questions .if you want to blindly follow rules that's fine and completely up to you but also against the way the rules are intended to be read , thats why im debating if that's what the ruled was intended to do , because so far the example is out of context with the other examples on the same subject being a statement . and i can not find another example that is not referring to a written rule
Games workshop errata so they do get things wrong

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Can somebody please address why that was the only example in the paragraph that was not referencing a written rule that can be found and quoted



Automatically Appended Next Post:
I also have one more question that mite help which rule overides which

command traits
2. intimidating presence
enemy units within 12" of the warlord must use their lowest leadership value not the highest

Cannot benefit from the warlord of an allies of convenience warlord..

ian wrote:
Again ignoring the context that that example is in . I'm not saying you have to ask questions .if you want to blindly follow rules that's fine and completely up to you but also against the way the rules are intended to be read , thats why im debating if that's what the ruled was intended to do , because so far the example is out of context with the other examples on the same subject being a statement . and i can not find another example that is not referring to a written rule
Games workshop errata so they do get things wrong

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Can somebody please address why that was the only example in the paragraph that was not referencing a written rule that can be found and quoted



Automatically Appended Next Post:
I also have one more question that mite help which rule overides which

command traits
2. intimidating presence
enemy units within 12" of the warlord must use their lowest leadership value not the highest

Cannot benefit from the warlord of an allies of convenience warlord..

General versus specific is a core concept in these types of rule sets. A general permission can be overridden by a more specific restriction, or vice versa. So...

1. Generally speaking, Warlord Traits affect models in your army.
2. More specifically, Warlord Traits cannot affect models in your army that share an Allies of Convenience allied relationship with the Warlord.
3. Even more specifically, the Intimidating Presence Warlord Trait can affect enemy units.

Ok thank you

So if a traits states a spcific it comes after the example on a.o.c

So specificly enemy. friendly. Your enitre army ?


Does anybody have any views on why that example is the only one creating a rule that isnt writen down as i cannot find another example of that happening i the rule book

ian wrote:

Incorrect. If a judge ignores case law, a higher court can (and usually will) throw out his decision. The more often this happens, the greater likelihood of that judge retaining his seat is in jeopardy.

So, too, ignoring the examples provided in the Allies section, or any of the rest of the rulebook, will have people deciding that you will only play by the rules you want to play with. This will cause you to lose gaming opportunities and/or be thrown out of a tournament.

Which is why i am here debating it not in game or at a tournament . And if nobody ever question rules we would still be living with laws that make it illegal for black and white people to marry.

Just because something goes against the common belief dosnt mean you shouldn't question it . Case law can be ruled against and has been. which is my point about it being misleading because it implies that the majority of people wont even consider your argument so it must be wrong.. We used to think the world was flat right .
Again the notion of case law is a real world example which i was told i couldn't use.

i have just skimmed though the rule book and so far every example i have found goes into detail about the rules its referring too.

i cannot find another example that is just a statement inferring a rule can you ? because that would help alot.

But you are ignoring them here after they have been presented to you here. These rulebook examples are cases in point provided by the authors, not just our presentations presented by other players.

And the point we keep trying to bring to you is that if you want to change things locally, that's fine, but to ignore these Ally Examples here is saying that you do not care what the rulebook actually states. I know there are people here who put how the game feels over what the book actually says, and treats them as literal law. Ignoring those examples because they are examples is literally doing the same thing.

The issue then becomes you are trying to have your answers of HYWPI while asking for RAW. The Written Rules are the only consistent thing between all of our disparate groups, so that is all we can really put in to assurance behind things. The rulebook literally states that units do not benefit from AOC Warlords. That should be fait accompli instead of trying to ignore it here.

ian wrote:
The spirit of the game does not just allow you to do what you want . (TMIR is the one that allows you to do what you want)
It puts the rules into context that they are not ment to be taken at face value . meaning you should explore what the rule is actual trying to accomplish check that it fits with other rules in the book ect.
Which is why i'm here debating but so far its been pretty much read what it says and don't question it ,which is why i said its pointless

TMIR was put in to represent the spirit of the game. So, yes, the spirit of the game is for two players to get together to have a good time. If that means chucking half the rulebook out for both players, great. But for the purposes of this forum, please refer to the top linked post and review points #4 and #7.

i really don't think the spirit of the game rule is saying chuck out half the rule book at all ? .im saying that it is stating that the rules should not be view as rigorously tested and as such we shouldn't assume "these rulebook examples are cases in point provided by the authors" i don't think raw should be viewed higher than rai or hywpi but that's just my opinion.

I have also already stated further up that because the statement is so basic. that it has to be raw . i also apologized for the confusion .another post was made and i then stated my case for rai and changed the title . perhaps you missed that post. and apologize again.

i do also have to concede that i have found another example written as a rule

Cannot use modifiers and re rolls that apply to reserve rolls that are granted by an allies of convenience model
and i cannot find another explanation that this could be referring to. so this would support the argument that the warlord one is intended as the "rule" as well

i still question weather it was there intent to stop the strategic traits from working and this was an oversight on there behalf like super heavy walkers and difficult terrain. where everybody i know just ignores it . i have since found the errata

One last idea

1. Generally speaking, Warlord Traits affect the warlord of your army
2. More specifically, Warlord Traits cannot affect models in your army that share an Allies of Convenience allied relationship with the Warlord.
3. Even more specifically, strategic traits affect your entire army

I hope i haven't come across as creating an argument i was genuinely using this as a sound board for my ideas

ian wrote:
i

I hope i haven't come across as creating an argument i was genuinely using this as a sound board for my ideas

The problem is that you are mostly ignoring the arguments of others when you are reiterating your own point over and over. The single sentence you claim gives you your interpretation can be read a variety of ways in simple English.

would like to think i have explored multipul ways of looking at it .and i have been trying to provide supporting evidence though out .I even gave evidence of another example thats a rule adding strength to the opersit argument . and had this not exsisted then my point about the example being the only one in that format would have been strong .i just think its important to have as much supporting evidence as possible .it was never my intention to appear as if i have ignored people, i can confirm that i have read everybodys post in detail and fully taken there ideas on board when trying to prove my idea.

So i would thank everybody for there input .

I would like to ask if anybody has a view on the order of permission i have given based on kriswalls explaination

1. rules general effect models in your army
2. More specifically Warlord Traits affect the warlord of your army 
3. More specifically, Warlord Traits cannot affect models in your army that share an Allies of Convenience allied relationship with the Warlord. 
4. Even more specifically, strategic traits affect your entire army

based on the explaintion that the most general goes first

3 is before 4 as it is a general rule about all warlord traits . 4 is a specific rule about stratigic traits

I am presenting this as an idea based of kriswals idea

ian wrote:
I would like to ask if anybody has a view on the order of permission i have given based on kriswalls explaination

1. rules general effect models in your army
2. More specifically Warlord Traits affect the warlord of your army 
3. More specifically, Warlord Traits cannot affect models in your army that share an Allies of Convenience allied relationship with the Warlord. 
4. Even more specifically, strategic traits affect your entire army

based on the explaintion that the most general goes first

3 is before 4 as it is a general rule about all warlord traits . 4 is a specific rule about stratigic traits

I am presenting this as an idea based of kriswals idea

I think basically everyone else here is of the view that 4 and 3 should be around the other way, because Strategic Warlord Traits are still Warlord Traits, Allies of Convenience is an exception to all Warlord Traits and Strategic Traits are not an exception to Allies of Convenience.

Ok but if its that way arounded wouldnt that also stop Intimidating Presence Warlord Trait from working

No because intimidating presence adds 5 specifically stating it affects enemy models.

Ok so stratigic traits is a specificly stating it effects 6 traits .just like intimidating presence is specificly stating it for one trait

Either way they are more specific than "all" traits
Im trying to take everything at face value

 intimidating presence is still a warlord trait im trying to understand why it is put after the a.o.c rule and stratigic traits is not

Because it specifically states in the trait itself not as a general rule. The same for the one about reseves, specifically tells you that this one affects enemies. And the pinning one. The trait itself has to mention it affecting enemy units. Not just a general overarching statement of traits.

When you look at warlord traits, it's first assuming your army is drawn from one codex/faction. So the traits are written with that in mind. When you start to add in allies you then have to go with the restrictions presented in the section about allies, such as abilities and such not being able to work.

Im away from my books just now but the text at the top of the strategic traits, is it in italics? Pretty much stuff in italics is just flavour text and not to be used as rules. I don't think it is or someone might have brought this up

Automatically Appended Next Post:

When you look at warlord traits, it's first assuming your army is drawn from one codex/faction. So the traits are written with that in mind.

pg 117 choosing your army gives an example of an army including 2 different armies and how to choose the warlord. it would then be inaccurate to state that they are assuming its drawn from one codex as choosing a warlord comes after choosing your army.


i can confirm that the strategic traits is not written in italics.

So based on everything i have learned in this debate

1 .order of permissions goes from most general down to specific
2. you cannot infer or ignore statements they have to be taken at face value.

Cannot benefit from the Warlord Trait of an Allies of Convenience Warlord ( A statement affecting every single warlord traits )
Strategic traits are skills that affect your entire army, representing tricks or gambits your warlord sets in motion long before the battle begins (a statement affecting 6 warlord traits)

you cannot ignore that the statement on strategic traits makes it more specific then the one on warlord traits

RAW? No, Strategic traits do not affect Allies of Convenience.

RAI? They don't either.

HIWPI? Nope.

Glad to see you backed up your argument there ,

I don't feel like I need to, considering how many other people have posted the arguments.

If you really want, I'll find the same quotes on the same pages, but honestly, you can just read through the thread.

Everybody pressed home that you cannot ignore the statment in the example . And now i bring up the statment in the stratigic traits which isnt being treated the same .


Automatically Appended Next Post:
My last posts have been based of everybody elses ideas not mine so your dismissing there ideas aswell

But also there is even more specific in warlord traits within that tree that states they affect enemy models. Meaning that the general statement for all six of those is not specific enough for it to apply to models treated as enemies.

Yes, it is. Just like the statement about allies of convenience, however, you want to ignore people's statements about how the Allies of Convenience interaction with Warlord traits is more specific than Strategic Traits. Strategic Traits are a subset of traits in general, but that does not make them advanced. The allies of convenience interaction between units and warlord traits are more specific than that. To treat it otherwise would be the equivalent of trying to gaming the rules by saying that a nova power is more specific than a psychic power, and therefore would be more advanced than a rule that negates psychic powers.

Im sorry but what does it being a subset of rules have to do with it . If anything a subset implies that is even more specific My whole argument early was about the example not being as firm as a rule . Why is the statment on stratigic traits now being class as a subset ? And not a statment of fact . If you read it as a statment thens it more specific than the a.o.c statment

ian wrote:
Im sorry but what does it being a subset of rules have to do with it . If anything a subset implies that is even more specific My whole argument early was about the example not being as firm as a rule . Why is the statment on stratigic traits now being class as a subset ? And not a statment of fact . If you read it as a statment thens it more specific than the a.o.c statment

Strategic traits are still more general than the interaction between Warlord Traits and allies of convenience.

Note my psychic power example. That's essentially what you're trying to argue here.

I will to have a look at the nova power . I still dont understand how somthing that effects 6 things isnt more specific than somthing that effects all .that dosnt seem right but will look when i get back

Ian... I think you're misunderstanding what everyone means my specific versus advanced.

This is how I think about it. Please realize that I don't have my rule book with me, so my wording might be a little off, but the spirit is correct...

A permissive rule set is based on a series of permissions and restrictions. The rules, at a high level, tell us what we can do. That's why we call this a permissive rule set. We're being told what we have permission to do. Now, sometimes there are situations where we were told that we had permission to do something, but that permission needs to be revoked. We call that a restriction. Restrictions and permissions are inherently conflicting, so we have a further concept called specific versus advanced. Whenever there is a conflict between two rules, the rule that is more specific wins out.

As an example, let's say I'm told that I have permission to eat any kind of fruit I want. Immediately afterwards, I'm told that I can't eat apples. I have a general permission to eat fruit and a more specific restriction against eating apples.

There can be multiple layers of permissions and restrictions, with each layer becoming more and more specific.

To continue our example, let's further say that we are then told that we can eat Red Delicious apples. We have a general permission to eat fruit. We have a more specific restriction against eating apples. We then have an even more specific permission allowing us to eat a specific kind of apple.

In our debate topic, I would say that you have the following situation...

1. At the highest and most general level, we have permission for Warlord Traits to affect models. Some Traits affect friendly models and some (such as some Strategic Traits) affect enemy models.
2. At a more specific level, we have a restriction telling us that models who are in your army and are treated as enemies, such as Allies of Convenience models, are not affected by Warlord Traits. This restriction overrides the more general permission.
3. At an even more specific level, we have a few specific Warlord Traits that tell us they can affect enemy models. This is more specific as it deals with only the Warlord Trait in question. This more specific permission would override the more general restriction discussed in point #2.

ian wrote:
Ok but if its that way arounded wouldnt that also stop Intimidating Presence Warlord Trait from working

Intimidating presence is not a benefit. Allies of Convenience only mentions benefits, not negative effects.

this is my understanding of the nova power

you have psychic power
a more specific psychic power nova
and a rule that states it blocks psychic powers
it blocks the nova power because the nova power is still a psychic power but doesn't have a specific rule making it immune to the block

you have a warlord trait
a more specific warlord trait strategic traits
you have a rule blocking you from using the trait
it dosnt block the power because altho it is still a warlord trait it has a specific rule stating that it effects your whole army

effectively each trait in the strategic traits has the rule it affects your entire army included in it. as it is stated directly before the rule. so just like having it effects an enemy models allows you to use the trait so does it affect you whole army allows you to use it

im not saying this is fact i'm presenting it as an alternative way of looking at it


Automatically Appended Next Post:
thank you kriswel that made a lot of sense i read this after my last post

my point is that the statement of entire army is like the red delicious apple .

and a benifit is subjective as i could think of a number of reason of why i would like a negitive modifier on a unit .ie shooty unit in combat with terminators falling morale check

I'm glad you're presenting is as an alternate view and not as fact, because it isn't. Strategic traits are to Warlord traits as witchfire powers are to psychic powers.

You acknowledge that witchfire would be blocked by a rule blocking psychic powers, but you have the same situation here with warlord traits. Strategic traits would not be more advanced than a rule prohibiting warlord traits from being used any more than a nova power would be more advanced than a rule blocking it.

ok i see that

could you help explain
why is it when a trait states enemy it works
and when a trait states affects entire army it dosnt

as i cannot see the distinction maybe its just me but in my mind every time i read a strategic trait i have the rule it affects entire in my mind as part of the trait

ian wrote:
ok i see that

could you help explain
why is it when a trait states enemy it works
and when a trait states affects entire army it dosnt

as i cannot see the distinction maybe its just me but in my mind every time i read a strategic trait i have the rule it affects entire in my mind as part of the trait

'Affects all models' is more general because it's talking about all of the different models types.
'Doesn't affect enemy models' is more specific because it's talking about only one type of model... models that are considered enemies.

I think the issue is as you said... you have the rule that the Trait affects all models in your MIND. It sounds like you've made up your mind and are now looking for reasons to show that you're right. This is a concept called confirmation bias. We all fall victim to confirmation bias from time to time. If the rules text of a specific Warlord Trait doesn't specifically say that it can affect models in your army that are considered enemy models (such as models allied in at an Allies of Convenience level)... then it doesn't. It doesn't because this is a permissive rule set. We know that generally speaking, Warlord Traits affect models in your army, but don't affect models in your army that are considered enemies. If you want the Trait to be able to affect models in your army that are considered enemies, you need rules text that unambiguously says the Trait will affect models in your army that are considered enemies.

Thank you that makes a lot of sense and the penny has finally dropped.

Who would have thought that i would learn something about myself on a deeper level on a rules forum

Thanks again

ian wrote:
and a benifit is subjective as i could think of a number of reason of why i would like a negitive modifier on a unit .ie shooty unit in combat with terminators falling morale check

Such a situation may be subjectively beneficial to you, or to other parts of your army, perhaps arguably subjectively to your view of the model (though that I would say is clearly trying to twist semantics to suit) but not objectively for the model. I believe objectively we can all agree a negative modifier to a statistic which determines a unit's success or ability is not a benefit.

could you help explain
why is it when a trait states enemy it works
and when a trait states affects entire army it dosnt

Simply for the reason above. Allies of Convenience relates to benefits, so unless it's somehow a Warlord Trait that explicitly or directly benefits enemy models, it's irrelevant.

I think benifit is an unfortunat choice of word to use for a rule in 40k as it is a very subjective by its very nature. I am not trying to twist it .

Ie . If my warlord was within 12" of an a.o.c unit in close combat with terminators. The warlord trait provides a restriction
On the terminators to use there lowest leadship .

How would you descibe the effect that this has on the a.o.c unit?

I would say somthing like that warlord trait saved my bacon . Im so glad that they failed there moral check becuase i ran them down . My unit would have been wiped out if they had passed there moral check

Another way would be to say the a.o.c unit benifited from the effect of that warlord trait .
Objectivly it reduce the oppenets level of success but it also directly beninfited the a.o.c unit
Which is why i used it as an angle in the debate.

I think the example could have been tighten up had it been presented as a restriction on all warlord traits regardless of weather its a benifit or a detriment. The impact of the word beneifit isnt important when you have a rule specificly stating it overrides it .

It's not a benefit because having your a.o.c. unit's also having to use its lowest leadership, and if the terminators win your a.o.c. unit is making the morale check with their lowest leadership. They're more likely to run off and die. That's certainly not a benefit for the a.o.c. unit.

In that situation its not a benifit. I agree but in my situation it was a benifit as if the a.c.o wins combat they dont even have to take a ld test , its very subjective im sure if i was inclined i could fined lots more examples where you could benifit from a warlord trait but i dont think it would change anything

That's a penalty to the enemy terminator unit, not a benefit to the a.o.c. unit. There is a distinction between the two. You shouldn't try to mix the two together.

Yes its a penalty to the terminator unit . Which affects the a.o.c

How would you describe the effect that has on the a.o.c ?

Yes there is a distiction and Its cause and effect the cause is the terminators have a penalty the effect is the a.o.c benifits . Its not the best word to use for a rule as its a desciptive word which brings about problems when using raw which relys on tight wording .

Saying that the a.o.c benifited from the warlord trait is complety accurate way of descibing what happened.

ian wrote:
Yes its a penalty to the terminator unit . Which affects the a.o.c

How would you describe the effect that has on the a.o.c ?

Yes there is a distiction and Its cause and effect the cause is the terminators have a penalty the effect is the a.o.c benifits . Its not the best word to use for a rule as its a desciptive word which brings about problems when using raw which relys on tight wording .

Saying that the a.o.c benifited from the warlord trait is complety accurate way of descibing what happened.

Where does it state in the rulebook that "benefiting" includes a deficit to someone else?

Many of the "gray" areas of English come from people altering meaning to suit their own purposes. You want "benefit" to include "indirectly benefit" as well as "directly benefit", when the base definition without qualifiers is "directly benefit".

ian wrote:
Yes its a penalty to the terminator unit . Which affects the a.o.c

How would you describe the effect that has on the a.o.c ?

Yes there is a distiction and Its cause and effect the cause is the terminators have a penalty the effect is the a.o.c benifits . Its not the best word to use for a rule as its a desciptive word which brings about problems when using raw which relys on tight wording .

Saying that the a.o.c benifited from the warlord trait is complety accurate way of descibing what happened.

The effect it has on the unit is harmful as it is forced to have use the lowest leadership in the unit when appropriate, not a highest. You can't spin that into a benefit. It equally affecting an opponent's unit does not matter when you are looking at the alliance effect on your units. As Charistoph points out, you would have to point out where in the rulebook "benefitting" includes a deficit to someone else. The effect on the unit itself is the opposite of a benefit. Saying the a.o.c. benefited from the warlord trait is completely inaccurate, and is in fact trying to game the system so that you don't have to worry about applying the deleterious effect of the Warlord trait to units in your army which you are told to treat as "enemies". If you are not applying that warlord trait that negatively affects him, then you are not treating them as enemies and therefore are not following the rules.

My point is that its a poor choice of word to use.

Im sorry but the a.o.c did benifit from that rule. Thats how you would describe the effect that the warlord trait had on there cc phase there chance of success was enhance by the rule. Im not saying they where the target of the trait.
Its the same as if my opponent failed there gets hot roll and there plasma guy died . I can say i benifited from that rule . Thats normal plain english used to descibe how my armys chance of success was increased . Its more specific with the cc as its my unit that is affected . Its the direct opposite of a detriment so if the terminators had a detriment thats means the a.o.c unit benifited

How do you discribe what happened to the a.o.c unit ?



Im not trying to game the system im just pointing out that its a really poor word to use and just proves the point that raw really isnt the best way to solve rules

I say they were penalized for having to use their worst leadership. Anything affecting another unit is not a direct benefit to the unit allied to the warlord; it's a hindrance to the other unit. There's a distinction there. In rules terms when they're saying benefit they mean a direct benefit, not something indirectly that might or might not help. If the termies won the round of combat, it wouldn't be a benefit to them because they're rolling with a worse leadership number. That penalty applies all the time to them wiht that warlord trait, it's not just trying to cherry pick an unlikely situation.

The trait helped them win combat in your scenario, but if you look at the direct relationship between them and the trait, it causes them to take leadership tests on their lowest leadership. The direct relationship is all the rules refer to.

You're focusing on the outcome instead of the process. Both units actually received a penalty, it's just that in your scenario the unit owned by you ended up winning, so you're calling the trait a bonus. If the terminators had won combat, your unit would be the one suffering under the warlord trait.

ian wrote:
My point is that its a poor choice of word to use.

Im sorry but the a.o.c did benifit from that rule. Thats how you would describe the effect that the warlord trait had on there cc phase there chance of success was enhance by the rule. Im not saying they where the target of the trait.
Its the same as if my opponent failed there gets hot roll and there plasma guy died . I can say i benifited from that rule . Thats normal plain english used to descibe how my armys chance of success was increased . Its more specific with the cc as its my unit that is affected . Its the direct opposite of a detriment so if the terminators had a detriment thats means the a.o.c unit benifited

How do you discribe what happened to the a.o.c unit ?



Im not trying to game the system im just pointing out that its a really poor word to use and just proves the point that raw really isnt the best way to solve rules

You're sort of right. The best way to resolve rules for a SPECIFIC game is to talk to your SPECIFIC opponent and make sure you both agree on how the rules work. The best way to resolve rules for AN AVERAGE game is to bring up any issues in a community forum and come to a consensus. This usually involves debating the rules as written and trying to come up with a reasonable, generally accepted interpretation of any ambiguities.

It is fair to work from an assumption that the authors wrote the rules to reflect how they wanted us to play the game. In that sense, RaW should be the absolute answer in every case. The issue with that statement is that GW isn't great at writing clear, unambiguous rules. Compare this to companies like Fantasy Flight Games, where the rules tend to be very well written and receive regular updates and answers to questions via FAQ.

Using the word benefit probably isn't the best word to use. Given that there is some ambiguity, you talk it over with the community (as we're doing here) and the community decides they probably meant DIRECT benefit and not "bystander" benefit. At this point you can still hash out the issue with a specific opponent for a specific game, but you should reasonably expect that an average opponent will assume benefit means direct benefit.

I agree , and these forums are great for that even in my case where i got stuck on what i thought was the result and tryed my hardest to prove my case in the end i had to agree with every one but along the way i learned alot about rules intractions ect