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.

No Warlord trait buffs the other army. This whole thread is a very silly exercise.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
No Warlord trait buffs the other army. This whole thread is a very silly exercise.

Well, I mean, one does

But yeah, I have a friend who plays Eldar - I look forward to playing him, and hope he chooses this warlord trait. I'll give him a scare and a laugh, and we'll play it the way it's 99.9999% likely intended. I much prefer as much RAW as possible, but this is one of those things where if I forced it, I'd feel bad and probably lose opportunities for games.

Ugh I hate having to house rule stuff.

 doctortom wrote:

Audustum wrote:

 doctortom wrote:

Audustum wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Playing by the rules makes you an donkey-cave? Does making you roll to hit instead of saying all your models automatically hit mean being an donkey-cave?

Oh look a fallacious comparison what a surprise. Using an obviously not intended application and claiming "its RAW haha look I'm right and you're cheating" isnt appropriate.

Honestly, this rule is so obvious in its application and this thread is just wordplay nonsense. Tenets of YMDC cover it ably - it's just GW language and if the intent is abundantly clear crying "RAW RAW!" isn't appropriate.

Uhh, you have this backwards. You look at intent when RAW is unclear not the other way around. There's lots of games with mechanics like this so I'm not sure it's entirely crazy to think that's what GW meant either.

You can also look at intent when the RAW is clear but is also clearly silly.

Eh, I'm not as sure on that one. "Clearly silly" is really subjective. Take the character targeting rule. I was figuratively called silly for saying that a unit out of line-of-sight, but that is closer, would prevent you from shooting a character who was in line-of-sight, but farther. CA rolled out and they reworded it to make it explicitly clear in favor of my interpretation. Things I think are silly you might think are perfectly reasonable and vice-versa.

Clearly silly RAW such as not getting to fire assault weapons after advancing because by RAW not getting to select the unit to be able to fire in the first place. Clearly silly in past editions like Terminators not having terminator armor in 4th editions, or (until they FAQ'd it, and something to keep in mind for this specific tropic) Res Orbs affecting enemy units if it's a Necron vs Necron battle. They clarified then that you don't affect the enemy without a specific statement that you do; that's certainly something to keep in mind here.

It's from a different edition though so that clarification goes out the window.

And the assault weapons isn't 'clearly silly', it's a scenario where a power actually breaks. Nothing breaks from this RAW: both players just get to roll and refund.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Jacksmiles wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
No Warlord trait buffs the other army. This whole thread is a very silly exercise.

Well, I mean, one does

But yeah, I have a friend who plays Eldar - I look forward to playing him, and hope he chooses this warlord trait. I'll give him a scare and a laugh, and we'll play it the way it's 99.9999% likely intended. I much prefer as much RAW as possible, but this is one of those things where if I forced it, I'd feel bad and probably lose opportunities for games.

Ugh I hate having to house rule stuff.

Your area is high strung (at least compared to mine) if something like that would cost games. Wow.

The "your" qualifier sets the entire Warlord trait to affect you only.

 judgedoug wrote:
The "your" qualifier sets the entire Warlord trait to affect you only.

You legend. That totally squares it away even for the RAW-blinkered. RAW, if your Warlord has this roll to refund CPs. As opposing Warlord doesn't have it they can't. QED.

 JohnnyHell wrote:

 judgedoug wrote:
The "your" qualifier sets the entire Warlord trait to affect you only.

You legend. That totally squares it away even for the RAW-blinkered. RAW, if your Warlord has this roll to refund CPs. As opposing Warlord doesn't have it they can't. QED.

It's actually a really good point that resolves the issue fairly tidily. All of us in this thread before him might want to invest in reading glasses.

Audustum wrote:


Your area is high strung (at least compared to mine) if something like that would cost games. Wow.

Not really? I don't think it's high strung to not enjoy arguments about something unexpected like this. If I were to be aggressive or overly assertive about actually getting command points back from their warlord trait, I doubt they'd enjoy playing me much after that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Audustum wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:

 judgedoug wrote:
The "your" qualifier sets the entire Warlord trait to affect you only.

You legend. That totally squares it away even for the RAW-blinkered. RAW, if your Warlord has this roll to refund CPs. As opposing Warlord doesn't have it they can't. QED.

It's actually a really good point that resolves the issue fairly tidily. All of us in this thread before him might want to invest in reading glasses.

If it's as quoted in the OP though, the only "your" requirements are that the model be "your" warlord, and "your army" be battleforged. The rest is a result of "your army" being battleforged and this model being "your warlord." Those "your"'s don't actually lock it to you. Is the book worded differently?

Jacksmiles wrote:

Audustum wrote:


Your area is high strung (at least compared to mine) if something like that would cost games. Wow.

Not really? I don't think it's high strung to not enjoy arguments about something unexpected like this. If I were to be aggressive or overly assertive about actually getting command points back from their warlord trait, I doubt they'd enjoy playing me much after that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Audustum wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:

 judgedoug wrote:
The "your" qualifier sets the entire Warlord trait to affect you only.

You legend. That totally squares it away even for the RAW-blinkered. RAW, if your Warlord has this roll to refund CPs. As opposing Warlord doesn't have it they can't. QED.

It's actually a really good point that resolves the issue fairly tidily. All of us in this thread before him might want to invest in reading glasses.

If it's as quoted in the OP though, the only "your" requirements are that the model be "your" warlord, and "your army" be battleforged. The rest is a result of "your army" being battleforged and this model being "your warlord." Those "your"'s don't actually lock it to you. Is the book worded differently?

In my area, we play strict RAW so no one gets shunned for that. If anyone wants to mod a rule they just ask their opponent or roll off but nobody would care about a rule this minor.

Anyway, the your is still important because when it becomes P2's Stratagem the Warlord can't activate because he's not P2's Warlord ("your Warlord"). P2 reads the "your" the same as P1 this the Warlord has to be P2's Warlord, which he isn't.

I see how you guys are reading it when you explain it fully like that. It's not 100% the only way to read it though. It could also mean that the Eldar player would roll to refund the opponent CP, which is what I thought was being discussed anyway.

Enemy uses strat
Warlord activates - your army is battleforged and this model is your warlord
Controller of warlord rolls dice
CP refunded or not

It instructs the owner to make the roll, it doesn't restrict the rolls to the owners strats.

This is really just a goofy exercise though.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Audustum wrote:


In my area, we play strict RAW so no one gets shunned for that. If anyone wants to mod a rule they just ask their opponent or roll off but nobody would care about a rule this minor.

I think you missed the points where I was talking about my attitude in trying to get them to play this way. I'd bring it up as a laugh when mentioned and then just handwave it.

It's if I were to get aggressive on it that would lose me games, I think, because that's an attitude issue. And it would be deserved.

I'm probably the most high-strung of our group of 4, actually. I can admit it. And I wouldn't likely get shunned for it, but I'd feel like a jerk. Of course, knowing my Eldar player, it's perfectly possible I'd point it out as a laugh and he'd just go for it.

Jacksmiles wrote:

Audustum wrote:


Your area is high strung (at least compared to mine) if something like that would cost games. Wow.

Not really? I don't think it's high strung to not enjoy arguments about something unexpected like this. If I were to be aggressive or overly assertive about actually getting command points back from their warlord trait, I doubt they'd enjoy playing me much after that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Audustum wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:

 judgedoug wrote:
The "your" qualifier sets the entire Warlord trait to affect you only.

You legend. That totally squares it away even for the RAW-blinkered. RAW, if your Warlord has this roll to refund CPs. As opposing Warlord doesn't have it they can't. QED.

It's actually a really good point that resolves the issue fairly tidily. All of us in this thread before him might want to invest in reading glasses.

If it's as quoted in the OP though, the only "your" requirements are that the model be "your" warlord, and "your army" be battleforged. The rest is a result of "your army" being battleforged and this model being "your warlord." Those "your"'s don't actually lock it to you. Is the book worded differently?

If... and... and... good luck fulfilling those if you're the opponent. RAW only the model's owner gets to roll. RAW.

RAW there is no specificity as to who is spending/refunded their CP(s). The only requirement is that the player using this trait have a battle-forged army and that the warlord with this trait is on the board. RAW there is nothing to say that it only applies to the trait owner only that if CP(s) are spent on a strataegem (note there is no specificity of who is spending the CP) make the roll and the spending player gets to get a refund of 1 CP per "6" rolled.
RAI I agree it's meant to only effect the owning player but RAW that limitation doesn't exist.

Edit: on second thoughts eh, deleted more reasoning... this thread is long past the point of ridiculous anyway!

 JohnnyHell wrote:

Jacksmiles wrote:

Audustum wrote:


Your area is high strung (at least compared to mine) if something like that would cost games. Wow.

Not really? I don't think it's high strung to not enjoy arguments about something unexpected like this. If I were to be aggressive or overly assertive about actually getting command points back from their warlord trait, I doubt they'd enjoy playing me much after that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Audustum wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:

 judgedoug wrote:
The "your" qualifier sets the entire Warlord trait to affect you only.

You legend. That totally squares it away even for the RAW-blinkered. RAW, if your Warlord has this roll to refund CPs. As opposing Warlord doesn't have it they can't. QED.

It's actually a really good point that resolves the issue fairly tidily. All of us in this thread before him might want to invest in reading glasses.

If it's as quoted in the OP though, the only "your" requirements are that the model be "your" warlord, and "your army" be battleforged. The rest is a result of "your army" being battleforged and this model being "your warlord." Those "your"'s don't actually lock it to you. Is the book worded differently?

If... and... and... good luck fulfilling those if you're the opponent. RAW only the model's owner gets to roll. RAW.

Correct. The model's owner rolls to see if the opponent is refunded CP. That's what I'm saying. As long as your warlord is alive and on the battlefield, when a stratagem is used, you roll dice to see if the CP are refunded. Regardless of who uses the stratagem.

However, for some reason I was thinking it was something like "when a Stratagem is used," even though that's not what the OP says either. "when using stratagems" would be weird syntax if it referred to both players, I think. That seals RAW close enough for me.