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.

There is something like this going on with the Tyranids and GSC.
Most of the nids' stratagems target a TYRANID unit.
And GSC units have the TYRANID keyword.

Yet there is some special bit in the Nid codex that ambigiously states GSC can not 'make use' of these stratagems.

To me it is unclear if this means
- GSC can not be targeted by them at all (which would be weird, as this type of cross codex targeting is established for other 'soup-able' lists, so why not here?)
- or it is supposed to restrict GSC from using these stratagems without having the tyranid detachment required for it

In any case this is an example of some in codex text that seems to override the normal <KEYWORD> rules.

 Gojiratoho wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:
Page 256 of the main rulebook under the heading 'Planetstrike Stratagems' and page 264 under 'Stronghold Assault Stratagems' both have stratagems that can be used by the player "... depending on whether they are the Attacker or the Defender...". Each stratagem has a subheader of either 'Attacker Stratagem' or 'Defender Stratagem" which clearly indicates who gets which stratagems. Using this as a precedent, it's clear that a 'Kabal of the Black Heart Stratagem' is only available to the Kabal of the Black Heart.

A mission's special rules don't apply to the codexes. Furthermore, the subheading might simply be identification. There is no rules basis to the subheaders on the codex stratagems.

Except there is, in the SM codex. That paragraph, along with the Attacker/Defender stratagems in Planetstrike and crucible of war missions, set a precedent that the subheader indicates which chapter/dynasty/sept/kabal get to use which strats.

You do realise the SM codex has no bearing on what happens in other codexes, right? Otherwise I can claim that your Alatioc Trait only works on Infantry, Bikers and Dreadnoughts.

Jacob29 wrote:


Good question! Probably intended to clarify who can use what, But alas they never actually stated and who knows if that is TRULY what they intended.

This is literally what they are for, don't be obtuse.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Gojiratoho wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:
Page 256 of the main rulebook under the heading 'Planetstrike Stratagems' and page 264 under 'Stronghold Assault Stratagems' both have stratagems that can be used by the player "... depending on whether they are the Attacker or the Defender...". Each stratagem has a subheader of either 'Attacker Stratagem' or 'Defender Stratagem" which clearly indicates who gets which stratagems. Using this as a precedent, it's clear that a 'Kabal of the Black Heart Stratagem' is only available to the Kabal of the Black Heart.

A mission's special rules don't apply to the codexes. Furthermore, the subheading might simply be identification. There is no rules basis to the subheaders on the codex stratagems.

Except there is, in the SM codex. That paragraph, along with the Attacker/Defender stratagems in Planetstrike and crucible of war missions, set a precedent that the subheader indicates which chapter/dynasty/sept/kabal get to use which strats.

You do realise the SM codex has no bearing on what happens in other codexes, right? Otherwise I can claim that your Alatioc Trait only works on Infantry, Bikers and Dreadnoughts.

Ignoring your strawman...

So I went back to reread the Stratagem page in the SM codex. That paragraph was added to clarify how players using SM Successor chapters not specifically listed in the codex could still use stratagems. While they would have had access to the ones subtitled "Space Marine Stratagem", that leading paragraph clarifies they they would also have access to the ones subtitled with their parent chapter. This was excised from the future codices because successor/parent chapters are not relevant to any other faction.

The BRB labels certain Stratagems with specific subtitles (as opposed to the generic subtitle "Stratagem") to let the player know "only people playing the Attacker can use stratagems marked Attacker Stratagem" This is carried over into the codices where all of the Stratagems either have the generic <Faction> subtitle (indicating only that <Faction> can use the stratagem), or the more specific <Chapter or your army equivalent> subtitle (indicating that specific <Chapter or your army equivalent> in your <Faction> needs to be part of your army to be able to use that stratagem).

Again, you're making a bunch of inferences but have no solid rules basis for doing so.

 Gojiratoho wrote:

Jacob29 wrote:


Good question! Probably intended to clarify who can use what, But alas they never actually stated and who knows if that is TRULY what they intended.

This is literally what they are for, don't be obtuse.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Gojiratoho wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:
Page 256 of the main rulebook under the heading 'Planetstrike Stratagems' and page 264 under 'Stronghold Assault Stratagems' both have stratagems that can be used by the player "... depending on whether they are the Attacker or the Defender...". Each stratagem has a subheader of either 'Attacker Stratagem' or 'Defender Stratagem" which clearly indicates who gets which stratagems. Using this as a precedent, it's clear that a 'Kabal of the Black Heart Stratagem' is only available to the Kabal of the Black Heart.

A mission's special rules don't apply to the codexes. Furthermore, the subheading might simply be identification. There is no rules basis to the subheaders on the codex stratagems.

Except there is, in the SM codex. That paragraph, along with the Attacker/Defender stratagems in Planetstrike and crucible of war missions, set a precedent that the subheader indicates which chapter/dynasty/sept/kabal get to use which strats.

You do realise the SM codex has no bearing on what happens in other codexes, right? Otherwise I can claim that your Alatioc Trait only works on Infantry, Bikers and Dreadnoughts.

Ignoring your strawman...

So I went back to reread the Stratagem page in the SM codex. That paragraph was added to clarify how players using SM Successor chapters not specifically listed in the codex could still use stratagems. While they would have had access to the ones subtitled "Space Marine Stratagem", that leading paragraph clarifies they they would also have access to the ones subtitled with their parent chapter. This was excised from the future codices because successor/parent chapters are not relevant to any other faction.

The BRB labels certain Stratagems with specific subtitles (as opposed to the generic subtitle "Stratagem") to let the player know "only people playing the Attacker can use stratagems marked Attacker Stratagem" This is carried over into the codices where all of the Stratagems either have the generic <Faction> subtitle (indicating only that <Faction> can use the stratagem), or the more specific <Chapter or your army equivalent> subtitle (indicating that specific <Chapter or your army equivalent> in your <Faction> needs to be part of your army to be able to use that stratagem).

I'm not being obtuse. I'm following the RULES.

You implying you know what GW meant when they wrote the rules however....

With regards to part two...

"This carried over into the codices"

Did it? Do you have a page reference for this? where it states on how certain stratagems are limited to subfactions?

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Again, you're making a bunch of inferences but have no solid rules basis for doing so.

Jacob29 wrote:


I'm not being obtuse. I'm following the RULES.

You implying you know what GW meant when they wrote the rules however....

With regards to part two...

"This carried over into the codices"

Did it? Do you have a page reference for this? where it states on how certain stratagems are limited to subfactions?

*Le sigh*
Fine, you two Barrister Draxes have fun with your myopic view of the rules.

BaconCatBug wrote:You might as well say "My tactical squad can take Hammerhead Railguns for 5 points". Both have the same rules justification.

BaconCatBug wrote:Furthermore, the subheading might simply be identification. There is no rules basis to the subheaders on the codex stratagems.

BaconCatBug wrote:You do realise the SM codex has no bearing on what happens in other codexes, right? Otherwise I can claim that your Alatioc Trait only works on Infantry, Bikers and Dreadnoughts.

BaconCatBug wrote:Again, you're making a bunch of inferences but have no solid rules basis for doing so.

There's no point commenting on a thread you start, because your entire argument consists of "prove it to me in irrefutable, unambiguous text that is entirely supported by all current documentation"

However... Games Workshop does not write rules like that. They do not care about all this as much as you do! To them, if it says "White Scars Stratagem" then it's a white scars stratagem. End of story.

No "ad hominem" but I think you need to get over this thing of "if you can't prove there is no ambiguity in this obvious rule then ALL RULES ARE INVALID" nonsense. It's just childish and adds a lot of noise to this otherwise useful forum. You can be the best contributor in one thread in YMDC and the absolute worst in the next. I don't see what you get from it at all.

The rules are permissive, they tell you what you can do. Show me the rule that says the subheadings mean anything.

You're also missing the point. The "White Scars Stratagem" can be used by any SM faction, but the stratagem itself only affects WHITE SCARS units. The Agents of Vect stratagem has no such restriction.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
The rules are permissive, they tell you what you can do. Show me the rule that says the subheadings mean anything.

Show me the rule that says they don't mean anything

 BaconCatBug wrote:
You're also missing the point. The "White Scars Stratagem" can be used by any SM faction, but the stratagem itself only affects WHITE SCARS units. The Agents of Vect stratagem has no such restriction.

I dare you to go to a tournament (or anywhere other than your private gaming group) and try to play it this way. Go on, get out of your house and do it and report back how that works for you, we'll wait.

Well, there is a rule that says the subheadings mean something. But apparently it's not in the Drukhari book. Some would read that as a precedent, others would not.

I suspect given the speed they are producing things that they wrote the rules that give the subheadings meaning in the Space Marines codex, then dropped that paragraph for Grey Knights as they have no subfactions, and have used the same copy&paste heading ever since.

Anyway back on topic, if Agents of Vect was meant to be used by any Drukhari, it would be a Drukhari Stratagem rather than a Kabal of the Black Heart Stratagem

 Gojiratoho wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
The rules are permissive, they tell you what you can do. Show me the rule that says the subheadings mean anything.

Show me the rule that says they don't mean anything

I guess you don't know what a permissive rule set is..

It's a rule set of things you CAN DO, not what you cannot.

 Gojiratoho wrote:


*Le sigh*
Fine, you two Barrister Draxes have fun with your myopic view of the rules.

Will do, you keep playing by your house rules and claiming it to be the rules.

This is a subforum for discussing RAW mainly.

 Gojiratoho wrote:
Show me the rule that says they don't mean anything

That's not how the rules work. Show me where it says I can't dance a little jig and stab a pumpkin to automatically win.

"It doesn't say I can't" is an automatic lose IMHO.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Silentz wrote:
Anyway back on topic, if Agents of Vect was meant to be used by any Drukhari, it would be a Drukhari Stratagem rather than a Kabal of the Black Heart Stratagem

What it's "meant" to do is a pointless discussion. What it ACTUALLY does is what we are talking about here.

Jacob29 wrote:

 Gojiratoho wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
The rules are permissive, they tell you what you can do. Show me the rule that says the subheadings mean anything.

Show me the rule that says they don't mean anything

I guess you don't know what a permissive rule set is..
It's a rule set of things you CAN DO, not what you cannot.

Funny, I don't see anywhere in the BRB that claims they are a permissive rules set, and they list a multitude of things you cannot do (can't fire weapons after advancing, can't make a charge move after falling back, can't fire weapons if you're within 1" of an enemy, can't play stratagems if you don't have enough CP, can't access psychic powers if you don't have a psyker on the table, can't set up more than half of your army in reserve, can't come in from reserve after turn 3, etc. ad nauseum). Could you give me the page number where it says that the rules only tell you what you CAN do?

 Gojiratoho wrote:


*Le sigh*
Fine, you two Barrister Draxes have fun with your myopic view of the rules.

Jacob29 wrote:
Will do, you keep playing by your house rules and claiming it to be the rules.

This is a subforum for discussing RAW mainly.

It's adorable that you think the overwhelming majority of players aren't on my side of this

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Gojiratoho wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:
Page 256 of the main rulebook under the heading 'Planetstrike Stratagems' and page 264 under 'Stronghold Assault Stratagems' both have stratagems that can be used by the player "... depending on whether they are the Attacker or the Defender...". Each stratagem has a subheader of either 'Attacker Stratagem' or 'Defender Stratagem" which clearly indicates who gets which stratagems. Using this as a precedent, it's clear that a 'Kabal of the Black Heart Stratagem' is only available to the Kabal of the Black Heart.

A mission's special rules don't apply to the codexes. Furthermore, the subheading might simply be identification. There is no rules basis to the subheaders on the codex stratagems.

Except there is, in the SM codex. That paragraph, along with the Attacker/Defender stratagems in Planetstrike and crucible of war missions, set a precedent that the subheader indicates which chapter/dynasty/sept/kabal get to use which strats.

You do realise the SM codex has no bearing on what happens in other codexes, right? Otherwise I can claim that your Alatioc Trait only works on Infantry, Bikers and Dreadnoughts.

Yet you had no problem using the FAQ answer for an army of Deathguard and CSM detachments getting to use the stratagems of each to get a Deathguard and a CSM relic as precedent for similar matters outside the Deathguard and CSM codexes. If you had no problem with precedent then you should have no problem with precedent now.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Gojiratoho wrote:
Show me the rule that says they don't mean anything

That's not how the rules work. Show me where it says I can't dance a little jig and stab a pumpkin to automatically win.

"It doesn't say I can't" is an automatic lose IMHO.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Boy you love strawmen

 Gojiratoho wrote:

Jacob29 wrote:

 Gojiratoho wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
The rules are permissive, they tell you what you can do. Show me the rule that says the subheadings mean anything.

Show me the rule that says they don't mean anything

I guess you don't know what a permissive rule set is..
It's a rule set of things you CAN DO, not what you cannot.

Funny, I don't see anywhere in the BRB that claims they are a permissive rules set, and they list a multitude of things you cannot do (can't fire weapons after advancing, can't make a charge move after falling back, can't fire weapons if you're within 1" of an enemy, can't play stratagems if you don't have enough CP, can't access psychic powers if you don't have a psyker on the table, can't set up more than half of your army in reserve, can't come in from reserve after turn 3, etc. ad nauseum). Could you give me the page number where it says that the rules only tell you what you CAN do?

 Gojiratoho wrote:


*Le sigh*
Fine, you two Barrister Draxes have fun with your myopic view of the rules.

Jacob29 wrote:
Will do, you keep playing by your house rules and claiming it to be the rules.

This is a subforum for discussing RAW mainly.

It's adorable that you think the overwhelming majority of players aren't on my side of this

Fair to be honest with that. The rules do not strictly state it is permissive, so yeah technically the game is a bit of a wash.

But, granted you will call this a strawman, as BCB said if it isn't permissive then you could say on a 1+ and a funny dance you auto-win.

But you don't because the ruleset didn't permit it.

Also the explaination was bad on my half, Permissive isn't strictly limited to what you can do, it also includes what you can't do.

Basically permissive explains how to play the game within the rules. It doesn't have to tell you that if you do a dance you auto-win because it isn't in the rules so ergo it isn't allowed.




Also for all the strawman calling you sure did adorably have a funny appeal to popularity logical fallacy.

Some random Facebook guy is at it again...

https://www.facebook.com/1575682476085719/photos/a.1576243776029589.1073741828.1575682476085719/2024332637887365/?type=3

Just a little fuel for the dumpster fire.

In the comments someone asked about this, and GW’s reply was “We reckon this one will be covered in the FAQ, guys ”

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Some random Facebook guy is at it again...

https://www.facebook.com/1575682476085719/photos/a.1576243776029589.1073741828.1575682476085719/2024332637887365/?type=3

Just a little fuel for the dumpster fire.

In the comments someone asked about this, and GW’s reply was “We reckon this one will be covered in the FAQ, guys ”

What does it say? (for those who have Facebook blocked by work filters )

 doctortom wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Some random Facebook guy is at it again...

https://www.facebook.com/1575682476085719/photos/a.1576243776029589.1073741828.1575682476085719/2024332637887365/?type=3

Just a little fuel for the dumpster fire.

In the comments someone asked about this, and GW’s reply was “We reckon this one will be covered in the FAQ, guys ”

What does it say? (for those who have Facebook blocked by work filters )

Agents of Vect
"While you won't be able to use this combo unless you've got a detachment from the Kabal of the Black Heart, it's well worth it - for just an Archon and some Kabalties, you'll be able to shut down enemy Stratagems with ease."

 deviantduck wrote:

 doctortom wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Some random Facebook guy is at it again...

https://www.facebook.com/1575682476085719/photos/a.1576243776029589.1073741828.1575682476085719/2024332637887365/?type=3

Just a little fuel for the dumpster fire.

In the comments someone asked about this, and GW’s reply was “We reckon this one will be covered in the FAQ, guys ”

What does it say? (for those who have Facebook blocked by work filters )

Agents of Vect
"While you won't be able to use this combo unless you've got a detachment from the Kabal of the Black Heart, it's well worth it - for just an Archon and some Kabalties, you'll be able to shut down enemy Stratagems with ease."

Thanks!

This does throw some liberal spanners..

Actual rules clarification would be preferred, but this confirms the intent for Agents of Vect, which is the problem child stratagem.

It does support the wording on Warhammer Community:

While only Kabal of the Black Heart Drukhari will be able to use this Stratagem, we’d recommend taking a Patrol Detachment just to use it. Proper use of Stratagems is key to the current edition of Warhammer 40,000, and with this, you’ll be able to disrupt enemy combos or just deny them a crucial re-roll.

It was always obvious. Good to see it will be FAQ’d to silence the “well, actually” crowd.

Shame the rules don't actually say that. I for one will not be breaking the rules of the game when I play my games, as will the majority of people, I suspect.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Shame the rules don't actually say that. I for one will not be breaking the rules of the game when I play my games, as will the majority of people, I suspect.

The rules don't say it yet, so I can understand that you'll stick to the rules as written. Just don't build your army around that since the next FAQ will change that. And maybe stop calling people that do use these information "cheaters".

nekooni wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Shame the rules don't actually say that. I for one will not be breaking the rules of the game when I play my games, as will the majority of people, I suspect.

The rules don't say it yet, so I can understand that you'll stick to the rules as written. Just don't build your army around that since the next FAQ will change that. And maybe stop calling people that do use these information "cheaters".

I would never call someone a cheater, because that gets you suspended. Also if players mutually agree to make up rules or ignore some rules, those are House Rules, not cheating.

I understand that the rules and FAQs can change arbitrarily at any point, we've had plenty of that in 8th (which I actually approve of, I just wish GW would do a better job with it).

It’s hardly “arbitrary” to align the RAW with the obvious intent. Almost like the RAW isn’t always the RAI or something... mark this Exhibit B.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

nekooni wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Shame the rules don't actually say that. I for one will not be breaking the rules of the game when I play my games, as will the majority of people, I suspect.

The rules don't say it yet, so I can understand that you'll stick to the rules as written. Just don't build your army around that since the next FAQ will change that. And maybe stop calling people that do use these information "cheaters".

I would never call someone a cheater, because that gets you suspended. Also if players mutually agree to make up rules or ignore some rules, those are House Rules, not cheating.

I understand that the rules and FAQs can change arbitrarily at any point, we've had plenty of that in 8th (which I actually approve of, I just wish GW would do a better job with it).

Sure - you're just telling people they're "breaking the rules" - that'll go over much better. BTW your reasoning for why you don't call people cheater is kinda ... odd. Almost like you think people are cheating if they don't follow the rules as written, but you can't call them that due to the board rules.

How does this affect Ynnari using Craftworld specific stratagems?

Do you now need a Saim-Hann detachment to use the "Warriors of the Raging Winds" stratagem? An Ulthwe detachment for the "Discipline of the Black Guardians" stratagem?

Makes a big difference to those that currently run Ynnari + Alaitoc detachments and then cherry pick their stratagems based on unit / Craftworld mix in the Ynnari detachment.

shakul wrote:
How does this affect Ynnari using Craftworld specific stratagems?

Do you now need a Saim-Hann detachment to use the "Warriors of the Raging Winds" stratagem? An Ulthwe detachment for the "Discipline of the Black Guardians" stratagem?

Makes a big difference to those that currently run Ynnari + Alaitoc detachments and then cherry pick their stratagems based on unit / Craftworld mix in the Ynnari detachment.

The "problem", as the RaI crowd would call it, is that "Warriors of the Raging Winds" says to pick a "SAIM-HANN BIKER unit", and "Discipline of the Black Guardians" says to pick an "ULTHWÉ GUARDIAN unit". So even though you have access to those stratagems as an Alatioc Army (because let's not kid ourselves here), you're unlikely to have any of the aformentioned units unless you're running an appropriate detachment or a mixed no-trait detachment (which no-one ever does).

Agents of Vect is unique in that it doesn't mention any keywords, and because it's so powerful people have cottoned on you don't actually need a Kabal of the Black Heart detachment to use it.

But yes, as it stands Ynnari are in a unique position to benefit too since they can't get a Craftworld Trait but do get the Stratagems. It's a nice bonus for Ynnari since they have been nerfed seventy trillion times to the point of near uselessness.