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.

The stratagem says use at the beginning of the turn to improve a GK units Inv save by 1. Can you use this at the top of turn 1 on a unit that is in the teleportarium?

I can't see any rules that specifically allow or deny this but it seems counter intuitive to be able to use a strat on a unit that isn't on the board.

So far I've been automatically using this on my GMNDK at the beginning of every game.

If you can't affect something in a Transport seems crazy to affect something up in space.

Intent seems to clearly be 'no' but the RAW At All Costs brigade will be along shortly...

 JohnnyHell wrote:
If you can't affect something in a Transport seems crazy to affect something up in space.

Agree with this.

 JohnnyHell wrote:


Intent seems to clearly be 'no' but the RAW At All Costs brigade will be along shortly...

Not sure I agree on the intent part. While I don't disagree I think the intent is unclear

This was discussed several weeks ago. https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/736082.page#9548742

My answer is no, you cannot use a stratagem on a model not on the table, for the following reason:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Aha, I knew I had seen something that reinforced my point (somewhat).

The CSM Relic "The Murder Sword" has the following special ability.

Page 162 Codex: Heretic Astartes wrote:Abilities: At the start of the first battle round but before the first turn has begun, you must nominate one enemy CHARACTER to be the target of the bearer of the Murder Sword (this can be a character that is not yet set up on the battlefield). Remember to tell your opponent which character you have nominated.[...]

I would contend that, because it explicitly calls out that "this can be a character that is not yet set up on the battlefield", while the Grey Knights Stratagem does not, this shows that there is a need to specify that you can select a character not on the battlefield, because if you could anyway there would be no need to explicitly allow it.

My instinct was to say no but there is precedent when you think of other situations

Could i use the basic re-roll a dice stratagem to re-roll a dice on a lascannon shot coming from a dude inside a bastion or a Baneblade transport (and thus not on the table) I've seen it happen a number of times and never seen anyone argue.

What about on an assassin that needs to roll for how close it can deploy to the enemy (its being deployed so hasn't been deployed and is thus not on the table yet) I've seen that re-rolled in a tournament and no one complained

Then there are stratagems like clandestine infiltration (stygies viii) which tell you to use them during deployment and targets a unit that hasn't been deployed) are we saying that strategem does nothing because it cant target the unit as it is not on the table. In that case RAI and RAW its obvious its meant to.

There is no rule directly against it and there are precedents in terms of RAW and RAI on stratagem effecting things not on the table normally you wouldn't because buffing a unit that hasnt arrived does nothing if it doesn't arrive but I cant see anything against it.

As to the murdersword yes that extra bit of wording makes it clear kudos GW for the rarity of clarifying a rule to make it clear. However this does not mean you can extrapolate from it that everything without that wording cant target a unit off the board I go back to the stygies stratagem doesn't say explicitly you can target one that hasn't been deployed (its obvious you need to though)

U02dah4 wrote:
Could i use the basic re-roll a dice stratagem to re-roll a dice on a lascannon shot coming from a dude inside a bastion or a Baneblade transport (and thus not on the table) I've seen it happen a number of times and never seen anyone argue.

What about on an assassin that needs to roll for how close it can deploy to the enemy (its being deployed so hasn't been deployed and is thus not on the table yet) I've seen that re-rolled in a tournament and no one complained

Neither of those things are affecting models not on the table, they are affecting dice rolls.

Might as well say you can never shoot that lascannon even though the special rule allows it to because the base rule forbids it.

So your contesting that you can use a stratagem to target the dice roll of the ability of a model not on a table but not that model?

That's quite an arbitrary difference without citing intention can you give me a reason for one being permissible and the other not.

U02dah4 wrote:
So your contesting that you can use a stratagem to target the dice roll of the ability of a model not on a table but not that model?

That's quite an arbitrary difference without citing intention can you give me a reason for one being permissible and the other not.

Not really, because one is a dice roll and the other isn't? Stratagems affecting dice don't take into account where the model is. Stratagems affecting models do (as I have proven in previous posts).

I can see your reasoning but that distinction has no basis in the raw. Which is why you struggle to back it up without using intention.

In the previous discussion you cited

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/736082.page#9548742

Yakface did a very nice summary of the situation and why your argument doesn't work

However since then other examples such as the stygies viii have arisen which under your distinction literally can't target anything.

So we come back to intention and as with most intention based arguments its subjective you can argue that it was not the intention to allow targeting of units off the board but you can also argue its written that way so you can.

Which is why for rules answers we tend to stick to RAW and raw there is no rule saying you cannot target a unit off the board with a strategem and example's where you can only target a unit off the board (which yes could be argued are special exemption's due to intention but that is back to being an intention based argument)

and I think Yakface is incorrect in his argument

'I think' is not an effective counter argument because it's not grounded in the rules and ''yakface thinks your wrong' would be an equally weighted counter argument and equally subjective.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
It should also be noted that yakface doesn't claim to be right he just points out the flaws in your argument (which you might not like but it doesn't mean that those flaws go away)

Use this Stratagem at the start of your turn. Pick a GREY
KNIGHTS CHARACTER and add 1 to its invulnerable
saving throws until the start of your next turn.


I fail to see where this says pick a grey knight character on the Battlefield.

Since it does not say battlefield i think you can use this on any character in space or in a vehicle.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
If you can't affect something in a Transport seems crazy to affect something up in space.

Intent seems to clearly be 'no' but the RAW At All Costs brigade will be along shortly...

Johnny won YMDC today!

Except he lost by claiming intent was clear when it is not.

Damn those people that read the rules and base rules answers in whats actually written in them when you can just answer any rules question by making up what you think it should be and claiming intent.

U02dah4 wrote:
Except he lost by claiming intent was clear when it is not.

Damn those people that read the rules and base rules answers in whats actually written in them when you can just answer any rules question by making up what you think it should be and claiming intent.

Except that's not what I'm doing, so please don't be disingenuous. I read the rules. I follow RAW as I interpret it, and in the grey areas RAW does not define (note that omission or inversion of a rule is *not* necessarily always proof of RAW, a fallacy many here ascribe to) then I apply a level of critical judgement and don't just 'make stuff up'. Come on, no need to be hostile. I just want to make the game work and make sense. Argue critically and honestly, don't just attack other posters please.

Clearly I'm not one of the writers, but it also seems fairly clearly intended that Psykers on the battlefield can't affect something in space, especially if they can't affect something in a tank 3ft away. You think otherwise? That's cool I guess, but I disagree. YMMV.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

THE_GODLYNESS wrote:
Use this Stratagem at the start of your turn. Pick a GREY
KNIGHTS CHARACTER and add 1 to its invulnerable
saving throws until the start of your next turn.


I fail to see where this says pick a grey knight character on the Battlefield.

Since it does not say battlefield i think you can use this on any character in space or in a vehicle.

This (sorry to pick on it, not personal just a great illustration) is exactly the sort of post that the writers will eye roll about if asked by the Community Team.
"Wait, people expect us to expressly mention the battlefield every time? And that units can't affect units in space? Is this the "stationary is not moving less than half guy again???"

...and I'd sympathise with them. This is claiming RAW by omission of restriction, when NOTHING ELSE in the game affects things 'in space'. It's patently crazy to me as someone who plays the game and wants it to be playable.

THE_GODLYNESS wrote:
Use this Stratagem at the start of your turn. Pick a GREY
KNIGHTS CHARACTER and add 1 to its invulnerable
saving throws until the start of your next turn.


I fail to see where this says pick a grey knight character on the Battlefield.

Since it does not say battlefield i think you can use this on any character in space or in a vehicle.

Can't target things in vehicles. This is actually clearly stated in the Transport rules on page 183 that models and units within a transport can't be effected unless specifically stated otherwise.

Also! One would argue, that if they are in space, that they are embarked in a vehicle. Mind you a very big vehicle.

Except RAW you can't target things in vehicles is clear as it is written in the transport section. The reasoning for it is irrelevant I can go to that page look it up.

"Embarked units cannot normally do anything or be affected in any way whilst they are embarked. Unless specifically stated, abilities that affect other units within a certain range have no effect whilst the unit that has the ability is embarked."

It's RAW it doesn't say why there is no mention of designers intent or reasoning their doesn't need to be it could have been because they found AoE bubbles to strong and nothing to do with fluff.

Is a unit in a teleportarium embarked? No so that passage is not relevant as it only applies to embarked units.

You wouldn't need a rule mentioned everytime if there was an equivalent single line for reserved units in the core rules but there isn't so you do.

I acknowledge that there are grey areas in GW games but this is not one of them. When you interpret the RAW you are no longer following the RAW except if a sentence is ambiguous which your not claiming.

You call it grey because you have "constructed" or "made up" an "intention" out of another rule which does not apply. Indeed when you use the its a unit in space argument I would argue your stretching intent to the extreme unless your gonna tell me you believe I can target an assassin as it's already on the battlefield hidden under a rock. If you ignore intent there is no grey area or ambiguity at all. It''s simply "there is no rule against it" that's the RAW.

There is no proof to intent. If something is omitted that may be intentional or unintentional. So you cannot prove to me that it was the authors intent to not allow you to target it because it's not based on critical thought it's based on opinion I could equally counter with the opinion that it was the authors intent but they made there decisions out of rules balance rather than fluff.

THE_GODLYNESS wrote:
Use this Stratagem at the start of your turn. Pick a GREY
KNIGHTS CHARACTER and add 1 to its invulnerable
saving throws until the start of your next turn.


I fail to see where this says pick a grey knight character on the Battlefield.

Since it does not say battlefield i think you can use this on any character in space or in a vehicle.

So you can also say you can use this on the Grey Knight Character of a buddy's army in a separate game one table over since it doesn't say battlefield or in your game?

 doctortom wrote:

THE_GODLYNESS wrote:
Use this Stratagem at the start of your turn. Pick a GREY
KNIGHTS CHARACTER and add 1 to its invulnerable
saving throws until the start of your next turn.


I fail to see where this says pick a grey knight character on the Battlefield.

Since it does not say battlefield i think you can use this on any character in space or in a vehicle.

So you can also say you can use this on the Grey Knight Character of a buddy's army in a separate game one table over since it doesn't say battlefield or in your game?

Explicitly you may only spend command points "before or during a battle" pp242 you do not have permission to use them outside of a battle or to influence another battle. RaW.

U02dah4 wrote:

 doctortom wrote:

THE_GODLYNESS wrote:
Use this Stratagem at the start of your turn. Pick a GREY
KNIGHTS CHARACTER and add 1 to its invulnerable
saving throws until the start of your next turn.


I fail to see where this says pick a grey knight character on the Battlefield.

Since it does not say battlefield i think you can use this on any character in space or in a vehicle.

So you can also say you can use this on the Grey Knight Character of a buddy's army in a separate game one table over since it doesn't say battlefield or in your game?

Explicitly you may only spend command points "before or during a battle" pp242 you do not have permission to use them outside of a battle or to influence another battle. RaW.

You use the stratagem during a battle, it just happens to help somebody else during their own separate battle. Likewise, it does not limit it to being applied to only YOUR Grey Knights.

I have no problem with you buffyin your opponent but you know your bring silly

U02dah4 wrote:
I have no problem with you buffyin your opponent but you know your bring silly

That's not what I said. You're buffing your friend at a different table. His Grey Knights need a lot of serious (or not so serious) help because they're bogged down fighting BCB's 50 man units of conscripts that have 30 wounds each, so you're donating the stratagem buffs from your guy to his characters.

I can't see his opponent ibjecting he has a fee win already

U02dah4 wrote:
Except RAW you can't target things in vehicles is clear as it is written in the transport section. The reasoning for it is irrelevant I can go to that page look it up.

"Embarked units cannot normally do anything or be affected in any way whilst they are embarked. Unless specifically stated, abilities that affect other units within a certain range have no effect whilst the unit that has the ability is embarked."

It's RAW it doesn't say why there is no mention of designers intent or reasoning their doesn't need to be it could have been because they found AoE bubbles to strong and nothing to do with fluff.

Is a unit in a teleportarium embarked? No so that passage is not relevant as it only applies to embarked units.

You wouldn't need a rule mentioned everytime if there was an equivalent single line for reserved units in the core rules but there isn't so you do.

I acknowledge that there are grey areas in GW games but this is not one of them. When you interpret the RAW you are no longer following the RAW except if a sentence is ambiguous which your not claiming.

You call it grey because you have "constructed" or "made up" an "intention" out of another rule which does not apply. Indeed when you use the its a unit in space argument I would argue your stretching intent to the extreme unless your gonna tell me you believe I can target an assassin as it's already on the battlefield hidden under a rock. If you ignore intent there is no grey area or ambiguity at all. It''s simply "there is no rule against it" that's the RAW.

There is no proof to intent. If something is omitted that may be intentional or unintentional. So you cannot prove to me that it was the authors intent to not allow you to target it because it's not based on critical thought it's based on opinion I could equally counter with the opinion that it was the authors intent but they made there decisions out of rules balance rather than fluff.

God I hate this line of 'reasoning'. You can no more prove to me that the rule is intended to allow you to target a model that isn't on the battlefield when all precedent is that you can only target stuff on the table. And omission is not the same as intention. So let's stop claiming I've made things up and stop arguing RAW vs HIWPI.

It patently IS a grey area as there's a thread about it. I've told you HIWPI to fix a (to me) fairly obvious unintended application. You then keep repeating RAW! RAW! ignoring that this leaves that odd interaction. At no point have I said that RAW you can't. What I have said is that based on other rules it seems clearly intended to not work.

YMDC is not the sole preserve of RAW At All Costs Oh Whoops My Game Broke. It is possible to discuss HIWPI as some people want the game to work. Arguing RAW vs HIWPI is however fruitless and indeed the Tenets of YMDC say don't... so please don't!

Some days I just wanna discuss the Rules and make them work. It's not about 'being right on the internet'. It's more about figuring out the rules blind spots and how to make it all fit. Please frame my posts this way when reading them rather than posting "you can't prove intent you're making stuff up!" Because that's really boring for everyone.

As I seem to enjoy being a thorn in people's paws, and taking things to an absurd level...here we go!

If your argument is that by RAW, it doesn't say I can't.
Also remember, by RAW, it doesn't say I can't pick your character model up, throw him to the floor and declare him dead.
All that does is make me an collosal jerk, and likely kicked out.

So, if your argument is 'there isn't a rule against it' then it doesn't matter anymore, cause the ruleset also doesn't say I can't declare myself the victor of the battle at deployment. Doesn't say I can't cheat either.

Be wary of the law of unintended-consequences.
Just cause it doesn't say you CAN'T do something, doesn't immediately mean you CAN.

The rules tells you do what the strategem says which is to target a character that is all you are doing. Any limitations on that need to be in the strategem otherwise the rules are you do what it says which is targeting a character.

What your doing is creating artificial scenarios where you smash up other people's stuff because there is no rule telling you that you cant but there is no rule telling you can do that in the first place you are therefore not stretching the rule to absurdity you are just trolling and that is just a waste of space in the thread.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JohnnyHell wrote:

U02dah4 wrote:
Except RAW you can't target things in vehicles is clear as it is written in the transport section. The reasoning for it is irrelevant I can go to that page look it up.

"Embarked units cannot normally do anything or be affected in any way whilst they are embarked. Unless specifically stated, abilities that affect other units within a certain range have no effect whilst the unit that has the ability is embarked."

It's RAW it doesn't say why there is no mention of designers intent or reasoning their doesn't need to be it could have been because they found AoE bubbles to strong and nothing to do with fluff.

Is a unit in a teleportarium embarked? No so that passage is not relevant as it only applies to embarked units.

You wouldn't need a rule mentioned everytime if there was an equivalent single line for reserved units in the core rules but there isn't so you do.

I acknowledge that there are grey areas in GW games but this is not one of them. When you interpret the RAW you are no longer following the RAW except if a sentence is ambiguous which your not claiming.

You call it grey because you have "constructed" or "made up" an "intention" out of another rule which does not apply. Indeed when you use the its a unit in space argument I would argue your stretching intent to the extreme unless your gonna tell me you believe I can target an assassin as it's already on the battlefield hidden under a rock. If you ignore intent there is no grey area or ambiguity at all. It''s simply "there is no rule against it" that's the RAW.

There is no proof to intent. If something is omitted that may be intentional or unintentional. So you cannot prove to me that it was the authors intent to not allow you to target it because it's not based on critical thought it's based on opinion I could equally counter with the opinion that it was the authors intent but they made there decisions out of rules balance rather than fluff.

God I hate this line of 'reasoning'. You can no more prove to me that the rule is intended to allow you to target a model that isn't on the battlefield when all precedent is that you can only target stuff on the table. And omission is not the same as intention. So let's stop claiming I've made things up and stop arguing RAW vs HIWPI.

It patently IS a grey area as there's a thread about it. I've told you HIWPI to fix a (to me) fairly obvious unintended application. You then keep repeating RAW! RAW! ignoring that this leaves that odd interaction. At no point have I said that RAW you can't. What I have said is that based on other rules it seems clearly intended to not work.

YMDC is not the sole preserve of RAW At All Costs Oh Whoops My Game Broke. It is possible to discuss HIWPI as some people want the game to work. Arguing RAW vs HIWPI is however fruitless and indeed the Tenets of YMDC say don't... so please don't!

Some days I just wanna discuss the Rules and make them work. It's not about 'being right on the internet'. It's more about figuring out the rules blind spots and how to make it all fit. Please frame my posts this way when reading them rather than posting "you can't prove intent you're making stuff up!" Because that's really boring for everyone.

Super heavy robot giuilliman in 7th was a grey area. There blatantly is not a grey area because you have yet to cite a single applicable rule to support your argument. Omission is categorical proof that it is not in the RaW.

It is not however proof of intention but as stated your intention argument is likely flawed as it's based in the mis-application of a rule which only effects embarked units (and intention wise was probably to do with curtailing area buffs not in preventing things effecting the battlefield). It is therefore subjective so we follow standard procedure.

Raw - is it clear yes
RaI Is it clear no

RaI doesn't matter because you don't follow rai when raw is clear because rai is subjective

RAW clear yes? hmm. This applies to quite a lot of stratagems.

Are we still saying that units in transports cannot be effected by stratagems?

That is for a different reason

"Embarked units cannot normally do anything or be affected in any way whilst they are embarked. Unless specifically stated, abilities that affect other units within a certain range have no effect whilst the unit that has the ability is embarked." 

Embarked units can therefore not be targeted by a strategem unless it is specifically stated that you may to do so. However there is a legitametly grey area over whether you can reroll a dice coming from the ability of a model that is embarked say a lascannon shot as strictly speaking you are targeting the dice and not the model. (Every player I've spoken to is happy with the reroll being permitted but I acknowledge that it could be interpreted another way.)

RAW does not mean that the rule is perfectly clear. RAW means that the Rule As Written says something that may or may not be clear or even may lead to a ridiculous conclusion.
40K is a permissive rule set. That means that you can only do what a rule tells you that something can be accomplished. If there is no rule that says you can do something then you can't do it.
Can you show any of us a rule that says that you can use a strategy on a model that is not on the table? If yes, then feel free to do so. If no, then you can't do it.

Strictly speaking they got rid of the permissive definition in 8th.

No Raw is not always clear I go back to super robot giuiliman with 0hp in 7th or even the can you target a reroll on a shot from a dude in a bastion or Sob act of fayth rules

However in this instance it is clear there is a rule telling you to spend command points to do what it it says on the strategem. The strategem says to target a grey knight unit. Ergo you may target any grey knight unit you have been given permission. The only exception to that would be embarked grey knights due to the exemption within the transport section rules. Since I have been given permission to target Grey Knight units can you show me where it says that can't be off the board