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.

CD.54C.01 – Q: How many times per turn can the
Changeling use ‘Glamour of Tzeentch’?
A: Once per enemy shooting phase [clarification].

Just curious if anyone has any insight on the discussion that went into this ruling. I'll admit to being biased since I was planning on using one at Adepticon, so I'll try to stay out of the persuading seat. I'm bringing it up because I was not under the impression that this was even a debated topic - so I was surprised by the ruling.

So YMDC, what do you think? Why should the Glamour of Tzeentch be limited to once per turn (or not)?

I do not have the Daemon's codex myself. Could you post the pertinent rules texts for those of us who are unenlightened?

I'll get that up later tonight if someone doesn't beat me to it.

codex wrote:
This power can be used in the enemy shooting phase. Pick an enemy unit that is visible to the Changeling and is about to fire. If the unit is found to be within 24" of the Changeling, it is affected by his mind-altering mirage.

It describes what the power does after that (it's wordy and I don't feel like typing it out), but that is all of the rules pertaining to how and when it is used. It doesn't explicitly specifically say how many times it can be used, hence the clarification comment.

I think the biggest argument in favor of the power being a 'once per turn' ability is the fact that it only costs FIVE points. Combi-weapons cost more than that.

yea... you can't go by points cost as a reason.

Honestly I don't think I have seen this one before. I would argue because the rule says pick "a unit about to fire" you aren't allowed only pick one.

"a unit" is singular

of course I can see how you would read this as being able to be used anytime.... its a tough one

In my opinion the strongest argument is that unless specifically stated a power can only be used once per turn. And since the wording specifies "a unit" it can not be used on multiple units when used for the only time.

I really cant support the first part of my argument with quotes from the rules. I do however believe that it can be said since this is how abilities that affect enemy units usually work.

But I guess this will still be up for debate since "power" is not a game term.

If it was labelled as a psychic power rather than just a power he would only be able to use once per turn by that reason, but it's just an arbitrary special rule, I see no reason that it should be allowed to be used more than once realistically though.

I don't like the 'a unit' argument, because the full phrase is 'a unit about to fire'. Since firing is sequential, there is never such thing as multiple units about to fire - they go one at a time.

It would've been pretty easy to write this one a lot more clearly. It honestly looks like it was originally written as a psychic power (once per turn, ta dah) and then changed to a 'power' without any further adjustment to the wording.

As far as costing goes, man I have no idea. In a codex where wings will cost a demon prince 60 points and elsewhere 15 points buys you 1T, 3W, 2A, furious charge & a jetbike - I just throw up my hands.

Moz wrote:I don't like the 'a unit' argument, because the full phrase is 'a unit about to fire'. Since firing is sequential, there is never such thing as multiple units about to fire - they go one at a time.

It would've been pretty easy to write this one a lot more clearly. It honestly looks like it was originally written as a psychic power (once per turn, ta dah) and then changed to a 'power' without any further adjustment to the wording.

As far as costing goes, man I have no idea. In a codex where wings will cost a demon prince 60 points and elsewhere 15 points buys you 1T, 3W, 2A, furious charge & a jetbike - I just throw up my hands.

BTW, it doesn't even say "a" unit, it says "any" unit. But what it does say is:

"Pick any enemy unit that is visible to the Changeling and is about to fire."


If the Changeling was meant to be used on each and every enemy unit that fires within 24" of the Changeling they probably just would have written "Every time an enemy unit that is visible to the Changeling is about to fire. . .", or something similar.


In the end, I think the RAW leans towards allowing the power to be used many times during the same shooting phase, but I also think it is ambiguously worded to the point where there is reasonable doubt as to whether that wording was intentional or not.

And the fact is, 5 points for the Changeling is simply mind-blowing if this ability can really be used on each and every visible firing unit within 24".

I mean, there are some things in the game that are crazy good and then there is the Changeling for 5 pts if he's able to use his power multiple times. He's essentially on a whole scale all to himself.

I say all this knowing there is a very good chance our team may be using the Changeling this year at Adepticon. But even so, I just can't with a straight face believe that the intent was truly to allow the Changeling to use his power multiple times a turn.

And to make it once per turn it probably would have been written like: "Once per turn, the changeling may..."

I don't put much value in point cost assessments because the game is practically about finding and using things that are too cheap for what they do (Lash of submission: 25 pts, Deffrolla: 20 pts, FNP for 23 T5 wounds: 30 points). One of those unfortunate side effects of having designers that don't give a flip, but I digress!

If it was ruled down to prevent it from being too good, that's fine I guess - but that's a method that's certainly difficult to apply with an even hand. See ambiguous situation rulings that all favor Orks for instance.

At any rate, I know more about what went into the decision. I don't have to like it.

Moz wrote:If it was ruled down to prevent it from being too good, that's fine I guess - but that's a method that's certainly difficult to apply with an even hand. See ambiguous situation rulings that all favor Orks for instance.

Agree completely, and I think that has very little basis on whether or not it is correct. In this I feel that the INAT council has failed and lends fuel to the fire of the naysayers saying you are changing the rules of the game however you want. I think it is much more prudent to stick to the actual rules in forming a YMDC thread, rather than lend YMDC the connotation that it is a front or test bed for INAT decisions to "balance" the game.

As Moz has pointed out, the point cost is irrelevant, and the the wording "Pick any unit" leans strongly towards the interpretation that you can pick any and all units.

Advocating that it only works on one because you feel it's too powerful doesn't feel right to me, is not RAW, is not necessarily in the spirit of the game/rules, and leads to a slippery slope for rules "clarifications" to be applied.

Well, you do have to be careful with trying to decide how the rule should be applied using RAW as far as the Changeling's power is concerned.

Check your own dictionary, and you will discover that the very first entry will indicate that "any" can be used to indicate both a singular thing or multiple things. In fact, the first entry on dictionary.com gives us a definition of "one, a, an, or some; one or more without specification or identification."

Therefore, it is equally valid to designate "any unit" as "any {one} unit" or "any {and all} unit{s}."

Either interpretation is valid according to how English works. A FAQ writer has to come to a decision as to which one they prefer; either way, there would be people complaining about it.

Saldiven wrote:Either interpretation is valid according to how English works.

I agree 100 percent.

"The power can be used in the enemy shooting phase."

As I read the text it indicates that the power is an activated ability (MTG term here but it is very describing), that is to say the player declares that he is going to use it but not that it automatically happens. The power "can" be used.

"Pick any enemy unit that is visible to the Changeling and is about to fire."

As I read this part we are given further timing and the possible targets. So the player can pick any unit (target) when that unit is about to fire (timing). Since only one unit can shoot at the same time in the opponents shooting phase each "run" of the power can affect one unit at a time.

At this point we can ask if the power can affect two or more units. There are two possibilities as I see it:

1) The text indicates that from the time the power is used the Daemon player can, each time the opponent is about to fire with a unit, chose the appropriate unit and enforce the power. To put it another way, when activated the power lasts until the end of the shooting phase.

2) The power can be used multiple times each turn.

All I can say for 1) is that it is at best one way at interpreting a rule that can easily go the other way. When looking at other abilities one can see that it is usually clear if it affects more than one unit. I therefor think its safe to say that the same demand can be held here and the interpretation should fall toward the single unit approach. The power is after all an ability that can be used and should end after one "run".

Since a power is not an defined game term 2) is also a problem. However the same logic applies here as in 1) since generally special abilities, wargear, weapons, etc. can only be used once unless otherwise specified.

All in all I think that saying that the power can be used multiple times is pushing RAW into its darker regions where to much emphasis is put on each word instead of interpreting the text in context.

Either interpretation is valid according to how English works.

And so we look at the context, how do other similar rules work.

arnaroe:

Personally, I agree that it should only be used once per turn, both for the reasons you pointed out as well as a simple matter of "feel." I really only wished to point out that the mere use of the word "any" didn't necessarily indicate that it referred to multiple units.

Here are examples for both scenarios in my argument:

1) Take the Farseer psychic power Doom:

"The Farseer can target any non-vehicle unit within 24"..."

Nowhere in the rule does it say it only affects one unit but I think we all agree that Doom does not affect every unit within 24".

2) Take the Decivers power Decive (the text is to long so you will have to look at you Codex). All it says is that it is used in the shooting phase, not instead of shooting. There is nothing preventing a Necron player to use it multiple times (i.e. activating the power over and over) but I think we can all agree that the Deciver can not force all units within 24" to roll for Ld.

In the end I think we have to assume certain things and "powers can only be used once per turn" is one of them.

'Pick any enemy unit that is visible to the Changeling and is about to fire.'

This phrase is absolutely referencing a singular unit because of the 'and is about to fire' section - only one unit at a time can be 'about to fire' because of how the shooting phase is handled. So while the use of 'any' by itself is ambiguous, as a full phrase it is clearly (I think?) singular.

The question hinges more on whether the power can be used only once or more than once. So we can stick to debating that safely. I'll check out the Deceiver rules when I can to check the parallel.

Marine and DH psychic hoods work multiple times, but I don't remember what the wording is. Also don't forget Runes of Warding, but the specific wording may make these moot.

Yeah, I agree with arnaroe. There is a strong precedent that "pick any unit" means "pick any one unit," and there is a precedent that activated abilities are used once per turn unless otherwise stated.

whitedragon wrote:

Moz wrote:
As Moz has pointed out, the point cost is irrelevant...

Actually the point cost is relevant. GW developers gear points towards the power of a unit.

G

whitedragon: Both the Psychic Hood and the Runes of Warding specify that they can affect more than one target ("once each time" and "all Psychic tests").

For what it is worth, the power was only used once per turn at the Baltimore GT so the INAT is in line with GW tournament rulings...in this case.

whitedragon wrote:

Moz wrote:If it was ruled down to prevent it from being too good, that's fine I guess - but that's a method that's certainly difficult to apply with an even hand. See ambiguous situation rulings that all favor Orks for instance.

Agree completely, and I think that has very little basis on whether or not it is correct. In this I feel that the INAT council has failed and lends fuel to the fire of the naysayers saying you are changing the rules of the game however you want. I think it is much more prudent to stick to the actual rules in forming a YMDC thread, rather than lend YMDC the connotation that it is a front or test bed for INAT decisions to "balance" the game.

As Moz has pointed out, the point cost is irrelevant, and the the wording "Pick any unit" leans strongly towards the interpretation that you can pick any and all units.

Advocating that it only works on one because you feel it's too powerful doesn't feel right to me, is not RAW, is not necessarily in the spirit of the game/rules, and leads to a slippery slope for rules "clarifications" to be applied.

There is a massive difference between making a ruling because you think something is too powerful vs. making a ruling because of ambiguously worded rules combined with a disproportionately small points cost.

Its the difference between saying: "Hey, the Changeling is way too powerful if he can use his ability multiple times every turn" versus "Hey, the Changeling's rules are ambiguously worded and at 5 points it seems highly unlikely that the rules were meant to allow him to use his power multiple times a turn".


And as for the Ork Deffrolla rulings, we've said several times that we were going to take all feedback into consideration and having done so the rulings regarding the Ork deffrolla are going to be changing in the final version of our FAQ.

It would feel wierd to use it on everything all the time and like some people stated about other powers with the same wording. (Deciver esp.)

The wording can be read both ways and then you will have to choose one, this making the most sence to me definently.