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.

Edit: For those in the future who find this thread via search, the 28-Sep-2018 Dark Eldar FAQ changed this for Agents of Vect:

Page 120 – Agents of Vect
Change the Command Point cost of this Stratagem to 4CP.
Change the final sentence of this Stratagem to read:
‘This Stratagem cannot be used if there are no Kabal of the Black Heart units from your army on the battlefield, and cannot be used to affect Stratagems used ‘before the battle’ or ‘during deployment’.

It was pointed out to me that the Agents of Vect stratagem isn't actually locked to Kabal of the Black Heart detachments, and I realised something, nothing in the codex rules actually says you need a detachment to unlock "faction" stratagems except for the Space Marine codex.

The SM codex says "Some of the Stratagems listed here are unique to specific Chapters." but as far as I can tell no other codexes have that sort of rule.

Did the Big FAQ add something to this effect or have we been playing stratagems wrong all this time? Granted, most of the stratagems only affect <KEYWORD> units, but that doesn't mean you can't use them with a mixed detachment (say, I take a mix of Biel-Tan and Iyanden, I can still use the Court of the Young King stratagem on my Beil-Tan Aspect Warriors). Agents of Vect is just special in that it doesn't affect <KEYWORD> units.

There have previously been no requirements to have a detachment of a sub faction to unlock sub faction stratagems.

E.g. one unit of alpha legion in a soup can still infiltrate if a world eater detachment unlocks the stratagem.

From the previews, the intent of the black heart kabal strat was that you needed a detachment to unlock it. This doesn't appear to have been implemented as a rule.

This I a bit silly as it allows all dark eldar to us a sub kabal strat.. sigh.

HIWPI You need a black heart kabal detachment to unlock it.

Captyn_Bob wrote:


This I a bit silly as it allows all dark eldar to us a sub kabal strat.. sigh.

Chock it up to "Vect's agents are everywhere?"

As mentioned in my thread.

I don't think we have technically been playing these wrong.

But yes, you could use other subfaction stratagems if you do not have that subfaction.

However I believe Agents of Vect is the only one that works on things that aren't subfaction keyword related.

I firmly believe Iyanden could indeed use the Biel-tan stratagem. But it would be a solid waste of 2CP.

Jacob29 wrote:

However I believe Agents of Vect is the only one that works on things that aren't subfaction keyword related.

I don't know every army's stratagems, but given that I never saw this debate before, I'm guessing that it is the only one. Which, especially given that they didn't address it in the FAQ, does make you have to wonder if they simply intended it that way.

So is this a one-off glitch that doesn’t truly imply “we’ve been playing it wrong all along” or an actual issue?

 JohnnyHell wrote:
So is this a one-off glitch that doesn’t truly imply “we’ve been playing it wrong all along” or an actual issue?

It means a stratagem (one of the most powerful in the game, imo) clearly intended for one sub faction is available to all drukhari (and by extension eldar) armies.

Captyn_Bob wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
So is this a one-off glitch that doesn’t truly imply “we’ve been playing it wrong all along” or an actual issue?

It means a stratagem (one of the most powerful in the game, imo) clearly intended for one sub faction is available to all drukhari (and by extension eldar) armies.

How is it "one of the most powerful in the game?"

I mean, I won't deny it's good, but it's one I imagine you aren't even going to find a need to use every game, because its hefty CP cost on top of a 16.67% chance of not even working makes it really only worth using against the most powerful of your opponent's stratagems.

It's also inherently less powerful if you aren't using it with a BH detachment, because with a BH Archon, you at least mitigate the risks of the stratagem by being able to potentially generate as many as 6 CP.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I would also argue, again, that the fact that GW released an FAQ for the codex but didn't touch Agents of Vect is pretty good evidence that it wasn't "clearly intended" for one sub-faction.

Captyn_Bob wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
So is this a one-off glitch that doesn’t truly imply “we’ve been playing it wrong all along” or an actual issue?

It means a stratagem (one of the most powerful in the game, imo) clearly intended for one sub faction is available to all drukhari (and by extension eldar) armies.

The one where you have to ignore the Kabal of The Black Heart Stratagem text if deciding that’s true?

This is the same GW that still haven't fixed the fact you can't fire assault weapons after advancing. What they may or may not "intend" is a fruitless discussion to have.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
This is the same GW that still haven't fixed the fact you can't fire assault weapons after advancing. What they may or may not "intend" is a fruitless discussion to have.

That's because literally only you think that's an issue. Not really comparable.

The subheading of the Stratagem dictates who gets to use it. Agents of Vect has the subheading of Kabal of the Black Heart, indicating you need at least one unit of that Kabal still on the board to use the stratagem.

Best citation I can give (other than the rules blub in the SM Codex which was likely excised from future codex releases for space because this concept is implicit in the layout of the stratagems) would be the strats listed in the Crucible of War missions in the BRB.

The stratagems for each mission are prefaced with "In this mission, the players can use Command Points (CPs) to use the following bonus Stratagems." The stratagems are then laid out with the Attacker strats on the left in green and the Defender strats on the right in red. The only indicator as to who can use which stratagem is in the subheader of each, labeled as either Attacker Stratagem or Defender Stratagem.

 Gojiratoho wrote:
The subheading of the Stratagem dictates who gets to use it.

Rules citation for that please. Implications are not enough.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Gojiratoho wrote:
The subheading of the Stratagem dictates who gets to use it.

Rules citation for that please. Implications are not enough.

If you need another citation, the sheer fact there are subheadings at all.

 Gojiratoho wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Gojiratoho wrote:
The subheading of the Stratagem dictates who gets to use it.

Rules citation for that please. Implications are not enough.

If you need another citation, the sheer fact there are subheadings at all.

It's just fluff, part of the sentence before each stratagem giving them some flavour. Or are you arguing that "Alone, a Space Marine Librarian is a mighty battle-sorcerer. Gathered together, they possess the power to shatter worlds." means I can physically smash the table in half when I use the Empyric Channelling stratagem?

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Gojiratoho wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Gojiratoho wrote:
The subheading of the Stratagem dictates who gets to use it.

Rules citation for that please. Implications are not enough.

If you need another citation, the sheer fact there are subheadings at all.

It's just fluff, part of the sentence before each stratagem giving them some flavour. Or are you arguing that "Alone, a Space Marine Librarian is a mighty battle-sorcerer. Gathered together, they possess the power to shatter worlds." means I can physically smash the table in half when I use the Empyric Channelling stratagem?

So all the other Faction indications on Stratagems are “just fluff”? Bookmarking this thread for later...

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Gojiratoho wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Gojiratoho wrote:
The subheading of the Stratagem dictates who gets to use it.

Rules citation for that please. Implications are not enough.

If you need another citation, the sheer fact there are subheadings at all.

It's just fluff, part of the sentence before each stratagem giving them some flavour. Or are you arguing that "Alone, a Space Marine Librarian is a mighty battle-sorcerer. Gathered together, they possess the power to shatter worlds." means I can physically smash the table in half when I use the Empyric Channelling stratagem?

No, the heading of the Empyric Channeling Stratagem is "Empyric Channeling", the subheading is "Space Marines Stratagem", though I suppose title/subtitle might be the more appropriate way to describe it. Those subheadings/subtitles are what dictate who gets to use a stratagem.

Empyric Channeling
Space Marine Stratagem
Any Space Marine army has access to use it so long as they also fulfill the requirements of the stratagem

Abhor the Witch
Black Templars Stratagem
Any Black Templars SM army (or a SM army with a Black Templar detachment in it) has access to use it so long as they also fulfill the requirements of the stratagem

Agents of Vect
Kabal of the Black Heart Stratagem
Any Kabal of the Black Heart army (or a DE army with a Kabal of the Black Heart detachment in it) has access to use it so long as they also fulfill the requirements of the stratagem

But there is no rule ascribing any meaning to those subheadings outside of the SM codex.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
But there is no rule ascribing any meaning to those subheadings outside of the SM codex.

Then why are they there at all? If they weren't intended to dictate who would be able to access the Stratagem (as they do in the SM codex), they would have removed them from all the future codices.

Warhammer 40,000 RULEBOOK, Official Update Version 1.2, Page 4:



This should answer some if not most of your questions.

I have found some interesting strategem to use for Imperial Armies, it's from the Astra Militarum Codex.

Ohrtanc wrote:
Warhammer 40,000 RULEBOOK, Official Update Version 1.2, Page 4:



This should answer some if not most of your questions.

I have found some interesting strategem to use for Imperial Armies, it's from the Astra Militarum Codex.

The problem is this in now way defines what "have a detachment of the appropriate faction" means, and it certainly doesn't give any definition to the stratagem sub-headers. The only thing that gives us a definition for "having a detachment of the appropriate faction" is the stratagem sheet itself, which in the case of Drukhari says that an army with "any Drukhari detachments" gains access to "the stratagems shown here," with no further requirements relating to sub-factions.

Ohrtanc wrote:

I have found some interesting strategem to use for Imperial Armies, it's from the Astra Militarum Codex.

Slightly off-topic, but it's of limited value in Imperial armies as it applies only to AM Infantry units, per the AM FAQ:

Page 135
– Take Cover!
Change the first sentence of this stratagem to read: ‘Use this Stratagem in your opponent’s Shooting phase when your opponent selects one of your Astra Militarum Infantry units as a target.’

I'm firmly in the camp that believes that just as you can surely only use the Raven Guard strat if you're fielding a detachment of Raven Guard, you can only use the Agents of Vect stratagem if you're fielding a Kabal of the Black Heart detachment.

I believe that the subheading that states a specific faction or subfaction name is not fluff, but part of the rules.

I also understand that none of this is properly detailed in the codexes.

If it helps, the London GT TO has already ruled on this - in that tournament you cannot use this unless you have a Black Heart detachment.

For me it's the kind of thing where if you said this to the rules writers they would look at you in shock and say "Come on! it says it RIGHT FREAKIN THERE!!! How much clearer could it be?!??!"

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

If it helps at all, both the Codex Drukhari preview on Warhammer Community and the Codex info on the Games Workshop site both say the Stratagem is unique to the Black Heart Kabal. It's not an FAQ or rule but it does come from official GW sources and it clearly shows what they intended for the rule. Take it as you wish I guess.

I would link to Warhammer Community but I can't since I'm a new user, it's about the eleventh article in the 40K section though so it's not hard to find.

The community website also has no rule bearing. They have often been totally wrong and are in fact wrong right now since they suggest FNP stack for Iron Hands, which is no longer true.

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.

 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.

 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.

 JohnnyHell wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Gojiratoho wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Gojiratoho wrote:
The subheading of the Stratagem dictates who gets to use it.

Rules citation for that please. Implications are not enough.

If you need another citation, the sheer fact there are subheadings at all.

It's just fluff, part of the sentence before each stratagem giving them some flavour. Or are you arguing that "Alone, a Space Marine Librarian is a mighty battle-sorcerer. Gathered together, they possess the power to shatter worlds." means I can physically smash the table in half when I use the Empyric Channelling stratagem?

So all the other Faction indications on Stratagems are “just fluff”? Bookmarking this thread for later...

Pretty much until GW states otherwise.

There are no rules in the codex or ruleobook as to how to process the bolded text for subfaction stratagems.

 Gojiratoho wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
But there is no rule ascribing any meaning to those subheadings outside of the SM codex.

Then why are they there at all? If they weren't intended to dictate who would be able to access the Stratagem (as they do in the SM codex), they would have removed them from all the future codices.

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.

 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.

And yet outside of the SM codex there is no mention.

Attacker/Defender is also limited to Attacker/Defender and does not bind the rest of the codecies