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.

Jagermeister wrote:Exactly, pretre, each Rune Priest gets one as war gear and the the rule is applicable to each Rune Priest that has one.

Absolutely correct! Each RP that has one as wargear applies the rule! Unfortunately, that rule says you get one chooser on the table, no matter how many times you purchase them.

Perhaps a better example of a singular rule that affects multiples:
'If a lictor is on the board at the beginning of the movement phase, the Tyranid player adds +1 to any of his reserve rolls.'
What if I buy multiple lictors, do they all get to apply the rule? Yes. Does that mean I get +2 or more? No. Notice the 'a lictor' just like 'a chooser'.

The chooser is under the wargear of a RP and spore mines are their own entry. Very different!

I was trying to show you how the rule could have been written to do what you are saying it does.

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.

I use a Rune Priest with a Chooser and 0 Infiltrators because I don't like the jaunty moustaches you get on the Wolf Scout models.


It's not about gaming people for pissy advantages, it's more about sorting out stupid things like this before you bump into them and have to argue them out on the fly.

Jagermeister wrote:How is that an insult?

Other than you insinuating that everyone who disagrees with you is simply trying to find an advantage against your army? Oh nothing.

I play SW's with RP by the way.

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.

That would require it to actually say that you place a marker for each.

If your army contains a Chooser, you place a marker.
If your army contains a single Chooser, does it contain a Chooser? Yes. So you place a single marker, because the rule says you can place a marker if you have a Chooser.
If your army contains 2 Choosers, does it contain a Chooser? Yes. So you place a single marker, because the rule says you can place a marker if you have a Chooser.
If your army contains 120 Choosers, does it contain a Chooser? Yes. So you place a single marker, because the rule says you can place a marker if you have a Chooser.

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

I use Infiltrators in 1 of my 9 armies, and none of my regular opponents use Space Wolves. The outcome of this discussion affects my games not a jot.

The fact that someone disagrees with you doesn't automatically mean that they are seeking an advantage for themselves. Quite a lot of the time, it simply means that they disagree with you.

Jagermeister wrote:How is that an insult?

Implying or outright stating that other people are arguing out of self-interest or for their own advantage is implicitly calling them dishonest, selfish, and lacking in integrity. It's poor form, and gentlemen (and ladies) avoid doing it. It also weakens your own argument, as it makes it look like all you can do is impugn the other party in the dispute rather than keep the debate polite and focused on the facts.

Bear in mind that multiple people in this thread opposed to you may play Space Wolves. I personally know that at least a couple of them have in the past or currently do.

Lictor_Interdictor wrote:It's not about gaming people for pissy advantages, it's more about sorting out stupid things like this before you bump into them and have to argue them out on the fly.

This is why I started this thread! Just want a rules clarification not a battle of constant bickering!

Im new to Wolves and the whole Warhammer Universe itself.
And i had the same argument as you are having now with my club members but after a while when my rage of having the argument went down i saw that they were right just like the guys above, it only says 'A CotS' may be placed not each for every rune priest you have because if i had that ,then like a guy above me said, i would be firing BS5 Living Lighting around which would do harm to more things than it does atm.
My point and my comment my be irrelevant but i just wanted to say take a step back and look at it again
Zasa

Quite frankly I am amazed at the level of inanity and am closing my account. I don't need this. I have used language in my job for over 40 years and you all are wrong.

That's sad. I hope he has a beer and relaxes and that his day turns out better.

If he really has been a working adult for 40 years and thinks "I would venture a guess that all of the naysayers use infiltrators and don't like logic that would affect their game" is a valid or useful thing to say in a debate, then clearly his job doesn't involve resolving any disagreements.

I'm really interested in that if we are all wrong, then what would be the correct interpretation?

Consensus doesn't necessarily imply correctness, and like I said earlier this is a particularly badly-written rule.

In that respect I don't think there really is a correct interpretation; it's all about fudging a compromise or banging out agreement.

Which makes it a bit sad that someone's closed their account due to this dispute. But hey... lulz.

It isnt particularly badly written - it is written in the same language that restricts Waagh banners from ever adding more than +1WS, and people seemed to get that quickly enough.

Lictor_Interdictor wrote: Say it IS one Chooser per army, what would be the point of buying more?

What is the point of rending claws on a hive tyrant? perhaps adding 1D3 per each 6 in 2D6 AV penetrating (to S6+12+2D3 total??? )
Or what's the sense of toxin sacs in a carnifex, except reroll Vs. gargantuan creatures (too narrow a use to be paid for)

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.

I would venture myself yaysayers try to use multiple CotS for spreading an anti-infiltration net and neither like wording to affect their counter-measure.
BTW, does CotS affect infiltration USR and all of its add-on abilities? I mean, is outflanking also denied by CotS area of influence?

nosferatu1001 wrote:It isnt particularly badly written - it is written in the same language that restricts Waagh banners from ever adding more than +1WS, and people seemed to get that quickly enough.

Just because people have managed to work their way around the ambiguous wording doesn't mean the wording is no longer ambiguous. No doubt people will do the same with the Chooser(s) too; my point is they shouldn't have to, because the wording shouldn't be ambiguous.

The rule is:
"An army that includes a Chooser of the Slain may place a Chooser marker anywhere upon the battlefield before the enemy is deployed."

The section saying "that includes a Chooser of the Slain" is a phrase specifying which armies qualify to place a marker. It is a phrase modifying the noun "army"

An army (that meets a specified condition) may place a Chooser anywhere upon the battlefield before the enemy is deployed.
As worded, it is the Army which gets to place the chooser.

An army (singular) ... may place a token (also singular)

You want multiple tokens? You need multiple armies. Each army (which contains a chooser) may place a marker. No permission is given for any one army to place multiple markers.
An army may place a marker (if that army contains a chooser of the slain)

If the rule said "A rune priest with Chooser of the Slain may place", then each such rune priest would do so. 4 rune priests (with choosers) would mean 4 markers.
But the rule does not say that at all.

As worded, it's clearly one marker per army.

ENKHANNA wrote:

Lictor_Interdictor wrote: Say it IS one Chooser per army, what would be the point of buying more?

What is the point of rending claws on a hive tyrant? perhaps adding 1D3 per each 6 in 2D6 AV penetrating (to a 2D6+2D3 total??? )
Or what's the sense of toxin sacs in a carnifex, except reroll Vs. gargantuan creatures (too narrow a use yo be paid for)

You've missed the point; if the Chooser is one per army then buying more is pointless, because you only get a single Chooser marker no matter how many you buy and the ambiguous wording of the rule suggests I can use that marker to give all my RPs BS5.

I would venture myself yaysayers try to use multiple CotS for spreading an anti-infiltration net and neither like wording to affect their counter-measure.
BTW, does CotS affect infiltration USR and all of its add-on abilities? I mean, is outflanking also denied by CotS area of influence?

No, it just affects Infiltration deployment. That, at least, is not ambiguous.

Lictor_Interdictor wrote:

ENKHANNA wrote:

Lictor_Interdictor wrote: Say it IS one Chooser per army, what would be the point of buying more?

What is the point of rending claws on a hive tyrant? perhaps adding 1D3 per each 6 in 2D6 AV penetrating (to S6+12+2D3 total??? )
Or what's the sense of toxin sacs in a carnifex, except reroll Vs. T9-10 gargantuan creatures (too narrow a use to be paid for)

You've missed the point; if the Chooser is one per army then buying more is pointless, because you only get a single Chooser marker no matter how many you buy and the ambiguous wording of the rule suggests I can use that marker to give all my RPs BS5.

You might be likely right, I was just trying to express agreement to that argument, adding some sauce to it. (both my examples, I find them pointless, though legally available, too)

Lictor_Interdictor wrote:
You've missed the point; if the Chooser is one per army then buying more is pointless, because you only get a single Chooser marker no matter how many you buy and the ambiguous wording of the rule suggests I can use that marker to give all my RPs BS5.

You can.

Can I?

It's ambiguous; that was my point.

Well I always understood it at as each priest had to have a seperate Chooser to gain the BS bonus.

With what is being said of one chooser giving every priest the bonus balistic skill...I'll enjoy finding another use for 10-30 points in my lists.

So can multiple rune priests use the 1 chooser if they all took one?

Im leaning towards the "only one marker" now, mostly beacause it say "an army..." and not "a runepriest".

However, it brings up a question to me:
The entry tell us THE runepriest benefit from BS bonus from the chooser. Does this mean all priests that buy the COTS upgrade benefit from the marker, or do you have to chose one of the Rune priests that may field his personal markerr? (or is the whole entry written as if you would only ever buy just one Runepriest?)

Edit: Sorry, this question was already mentioned by the last poster. Sloppy tread reading by myself. Still, a good point eh?

Jagermeister wrote:Quite frankly I am amazed at the level of inanity and am closing my account. I don't need this. I have used language in my job for over 40 years and you all are wrong.

saying that you use "language" in your job isn't very specific as, by my last count, dakka doesn't have a high concentration of mimes as posters. granted, i don't venture into the off-topic forum much but i suspect the number of "trapped in a box" threads there is probably low too. anyways... when questioning the motives of those who disagree with you about the rules doesn't work, you're just going to take your ball home? i think this is the first forum ragequit i've ever seen.

for the record, i also agree that the rules state you place a single chooser regardless of how many times you buy the upgrade.

Unholy_Martyr wrote:With what is being said of one chooser giving every priest the bonus balistic skill...I'll enjoy finding another use for 10-30 points in my lists.

Don't be That Guy :p


The wording of the Chooser's codex entry is ambiguous; read back in the thread, I went into it there. CBA repeating it again >_<

Just to clarify:

If you are only allowed to place one Chooser, can all of my Priests use it? If not, why?

Sounds like I just saved 30 pts to me, /shrug

There is no right or wrong answer because the rule is ambiguous; you can read it either way.

The INTENT may well have been for one marker with each Priest having to pay the 10pts to use it, but the rule is so badly written there's nothing concrete to back it up.

I would take the least advantageous interpretation if I played multiple RP.

So pay 10 pts each, drop 1 marker and each one who paid can use it.