Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Hello Dakka! Me and ChrisCP are having a little rule clarification disagreement on if a Space Wolves player may deploy 4 Choosers of the Slain before the game or just one.
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/343882.page#2399036 Help us out on deciding who is right.

I have read it as 1 only, but then I read WTT the same way.

/shrug

So precisely, where do you find only a singular token? As I read the rule's infiltrate sentence uses 'a' not 'the'. Nowhere in the Chooser of the Slain paragraph does it say singular nor does get limited in the Army list entry.

Jagermeister wrote:As I read the rule's infiltrate sentence uses 'a' not 'the'. Nowhere in the Chooser of the Slain paragraph does it say singular nor does get limited in the Army list entry.

If you have a Chooser of the Slain, you place a marker.

Once you place a marker, the rule saying to place a marker has been fulfilled no matter how many more times you read it.

Many disagree, but that is how I have read it.

Editing to add:
If it had said "For each Chooser of the Slain, place a marker" it would read very much differently.

For 'a' Rune Priest, so if I have 4 Rune Priests with Chooser of the Slain they each place a marker. Where is the restricting sentence, phrase or word?

Jagermeister wrote:For 'a' Rune Priest, so if I have 4 Rune Priests with Chooser of the Slain they each place a marker. Where is the restricting sentence, phrase or word?

Where is the word "each" in the rules?

kirsanth wrote:

Jagermeister wrote:For 'a' Rune Priest, so if I have 4 Rune Priests with Chooser of the Slain they each place a marker. Where is the restricting sentence, phrase or word?

Where is the word "each" in the rules?

How many nob units can be bought as troops choices when you have 2 warbosses?


edit:
Dammit; I should have double-checked the Chooser rules before posting this. Kirsanth is correct the chooser rules themselves only allow for 1 chooser to be placed. The rules do not care how many rune priests are there, nor how many Choosers were purchaced just so long as the army includes a Chooser, 1 marker gets placed.

"An army that includes a Chooser of the Slain may place a Chooser anywhere upon the battlefield before the enemy is deployed."
It doesn't mention RPs. Just:
- Do you have a CotS?
If Yes, place a marker.
If No, don't place a marker.

pretre wrote:"An army that includes a Chooser of the Slain may place a Chooser anywhere upon the battlefield before the enemy is deployed."
It doesn't mention RPs. Just:
- Do you have a CotS?
If Yes, place a marker.
If No, don't place a marker.

This.

Kommissar Kel wrote:How many nob units can be bought as troops choices when you have 2 warbosses?

Before the FAQ adjusted it, how many Lictors can give a +1 to reserve rolls?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kommissar Kel wrote:edit:
Dammit; I should have double-checked the Chooser rules before posting this.

Even so, it really is somewhat debatable, thus my WTT reference.

(Like my rather silly Lictor one)

So by the logic of only one Chooser token may be placed as wargear of a Rune priest, I can only have one rune priest. WRONG. It is wargear of each and every Rune Priest without restriction.

p.s. the Lictor's ability was not a wargear choice. A Saga is very specifically limited in special rules and the Army list sections, the Chooser of the Slain has no such restrictions.

Jagermeister - no, that isnt hte conclusion at all.

Multiple RP may choose it, but only one token gets placed,as that is what the rules for the tokens states.

Jagermeister wrote:So by the logic of only one Chooser token may be placed as wargear of a Rune priest, I can only have one rune priest. WRONG. It is wargear of each and every Rune Priest without restriction.

What? How did you get that conclusion from what we wrote?

You can have up to 4 rune priests. You can buy up to 4 choosers. You can place one chooser marker. Read the above/below (requoted) again which is again a quote from the Chooser entry on Page 36, aptly named 'Chooser of the Slain'. The benefit of buying 4 is that all 4 rune priests get the bonus BS.

Pretre wrote:
"An army that includes a Chooser of the Slain may place a Chooser anywhere upon the battlefield before the enemy is deployed."
It doesn't mention RPs. Just:
- Do you have a CotS?
If Yes, place a marker.
If No, don't place a marker.

The rule is written as if a single Rune Priest is in the Army. Each time I buy a Rune Priest that rule applies unless there is restriction. No stated restriction exists on page 36. It is a perceived restriction by those of you who don't like the concept of having your infiltrators restricted. Give one example of WARGEAR that is relevant. Wargear is the operative definition here.

Jagermeister wrote:The rule is written as if a single Rune Priest is in the Army. Each time I buy a Rune Priest that rule applies unless there is restriction. No stated restriction exists on page 36. It is a perceived restriction by those of you who don't like the concept of having your infiltrators restricted. Give one example of WARGEAR that is relevant. Wargear is the operative definition here.

lern 2 logic. If the army includes a chooser of the slain, then a marker can be placed on the battlefield. Yes, the people who say it is a restriction perceive it as a restriction because that's what the codex says. It doesn't say, "if the army includes a chooser of the slain, place a marker on the battlefield for each chooser."

"If your wallet includes $20, then put $20 on the table." If you had $200 in this example, would you put all your money on the table? No, for the same reason you only put one COTS marker on the battlefield.

Jagermeister wrote:The rule is written as if a single Rune Priest is in the Army. Each time I buy a Rune Priest that rule applies unless there is restriction. No stated restriction exists on page 36. It is a perceived restriction by those of you who don't like the concept of having your infiltrators restricted. Give one example of WARGEAR that is relevant. Wargear is the operative definition here.

The Chooser Rule is for wargear. And you are correct, each time you buy a rune priest, the rule applies. Unfortunately, because of how it is written, no matter how many times you apply it, you still only get to place one chooser.

Does your army have a chooser in it?
Yes? Place a chooser
No? Don't place a chooser.

Snip. My bads. Sorry, I.

pratell wrote:lern 2 logic.

pretre wrote:Read the rule.

In the interests of keeping things civil, please avoid comments like this. They don't add anything to your argument, and just annoy people.

Gentlemen, since Nightwing is not a chooser of the slain but uses the chooser of the slain rule and is not a marker, would I get to use the chooser rule within 18 inches of Njal Stormcaller and one from the generic Rune priest?

Jagermeister wrote:Gentlemen, since Nightwing is not a chooser of the slain but uses the chooser of the slain rule and is not a marker, would I get to use the chooser rule within 18 inches of Njal Stormcaller and one from the generic Rune priest?

Unlikely.

'P53: Nightwing follows all the rules for a Chooser of the Slain.'
'P36: An army that includes a Chooser of the Slain may place a Chooser anywhere upon the battlefield before the enemy is deployed.'

He allows you to reference the rule for CotS, which says if you have a Chooser, place a marker.

So, using the logic of the naysayers if a rule uses singular rather plural when referring to any army there can be only 1? Am I getting the thought train here?

Every rune priest with the "Chooser of the Slain" option gets the bonus if it can see the marker, but you still place one marker per army that includes a chooser.

Get a second army and you can get a second token.

Jagermeister wrote:So, using the logic of the naysayers if a rule uses singular rather plural when referring to any army there can be only 1? Am I getting the thought train here?

No, that's not the claim being made at all.

What's being said is that the specific wording being used here makes the Chooser's marker a binary effect. If you have a chooser, you get a marker. It doesn't say you get a marker for each chooser, so you don't... you just apply the effect that kicks in if you have a chooser.

Jagermeister wrote:So, using the logic of the naysayers if a rule uses singular rather plural when referring to any army there can be only 1? Am I getting the thought train here?

No.
Let me contrast this with a similar rule:

'P48 - Tyranid Codex:
After both sides have selected their deployment zone, but before any units are deployed, all of your spore mine clusters must deep strike onto the board.'

See how they include the fact that you could have multiple? Now compare that to the chooser of the slain, notice how it does not say:
"An army that includes Choosers of the Slain may place them anywhere upon the battlefield before the enemy is deployed.'

I'd be leaning towards the one Chooser per army interpretation myself.

Then again I'm not going to sit here and argue the toss; it's a badly-written fudge of a rule. Say it IS one Chooser per army, what would be the point of buying more? What's to stop me sticking it in the middle of the table where all 4 of my RPs can see it and giving them all BS5?

"It says 'the' Rune Priest; not 'a' Rune Priest, you silly billy!"

Thing is, singularly, they're all THE Rune Priest. This is the Rune Priest that is making a shooting attack; that dude in the Rhino is the Rune Priest who is casting Tempest's Wrath, etc etc. It doesn't say 'the owning Rune Priest' or 'the Rune Priest to whom the Chooser belongs'; just says THE Rune Priest.

I think it was supposed to say that, but it doesn't. So, BS5 LL all round. For 10pts. Cool beans.


Badly written rules fail; you can't extrapolate anything from such fudge in my view, so the best bet is if you can't agree, compromise.

How is that similar? It is clearly plural and talks of ammunition and in each part of the rules it is plural, wherein the rule SW 36 the discussion about a piece of wargear of an independent character, not ammunition for an artillery piece.

p.s. the rule states an army that contains a chooser place ..... yadda, yadda My understanding of English is 'where an army to contain choosers (plural) it would place a token for each chooser in the army. Once again, I would venture a guess that all of the naysayers use infiltrators and don't like logic that would affect their game.

Jagermeister wrote:How is that similar? It is clearly plural and talks of ammunition and in each part of the rules it is plural, wherein the rule SW 36 the discussion about a piece of wargear of an independent character, not ammunition for an artillery piece.

It is similar because it puts model on the board that are not part of the deployment process. It is different because one is plural and tells you what to do when you have multiples and one is clear that you just get one.

The Tyranid example is listed in the Wargear/Rules section on P48. It isn't 'ammunition' it is a separate choice and model.

Exactly, pretre, each Rune Priest gets one as war gear and the the rule is applicable to each Rune Priest that has one. The chooser is under the wargear of a RP and spore mines are their own entry. Very different!

Jagermeister wrote:Once again, I would venture a guess that all of the naysayers use infiltrators and don't like logic that would affect their game.

Or maybe we play by the rules, and a fair portion of us refrain from insulting people who disagree. Especially when we understand logic, and 'logic'.

How is that an insult?

Jagermeister wrote:p.s. the rule states an army that contains a chooser place ..... yadda, yadda My understanding of English is 'where an army to contain choosers (plural) it would place a token for each chooser in the army. Once again, I would venture a guess that all of the naysayers use infiltrators and don't like logic that would affect their game.

Could you stop insulting everyone who disagrees with you? It would make people want to listen to you more.

The rule "Chooser of the Slain" only allows you to place A marker. Nothing more, nothing less. Playing otherwise is to play a houserule.