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.

Hi all.
In the CSM tactic tread we’re discussing about the stratagem “Tide of traitors” and that RAW, we can use it on the enemy’s cultists.
The stratagem is this.

Use at end of your movement phase, pick a unit of chaos cultists and remove it from the battlefield. You can then set it up wholly within 6” of the edge of the battlefield and more than 9” of any enemy models, at its full starting strength.

RAW. You can use it on enemy cultists. But if I then have a unit close to the corner and use this and wants to place the enemy cultists in the corner but only 1 model can fit more than 9” away from my unit, what happens then?

A. I can’t place them there because last sentence of the stratagem “full starting strength”.

B. I place 1 model there and the rest dies like disembark rule, if can’t be placed they count as they have died.

C. Something else..

RAI. We don’t know but might be only used on friendly cultists.

Sorry for my grammar.

The rules don't cover what happens if you can't fully place a unit, so you have to default to TMIR or the game grinds to a halt.

You can't place them in the corner, so you have to place them somewhere else.

You can't place them unless you can place all of them. Whether or not this means that you can't use the stratagem in the first place or if the entire unit vanishes into the warp is unclear, but largely irrelevant since this thread is just a thought experiment for something that if you tried in any real game would get you a swift book to the head.

You can’t use it on an enemy unit. So the rest is pretty moot.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
You can’t use it on an enemy unit. So the rest is pretty moot.

Is there a rule saying you can only use Stratagems on your own units?

 Happyjew wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
You can’t use it on an enemy unit. So the rest is pretty moot.

Is there a rule saying you can only use Stratagems on your own units?

Right on cue, sigh. It’s an “I found a RAW loophole” thread, not a legitimate question. “Can I remove my opponent’s unit and place it so they’re destroyed?”... in my view obviously unintended, and has no bearing on actual gameplay. It’s an internet-only problem and not really proper YMDC material.

It’s as useful as discussing pure maths when someone is trying to do a stocktake.

 Happyjew wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
You can’t use it on an enemy unit. So the rest is pretty moot.

Is there a rule saying you can only use Stratagems on your own units?

There isn't. In fact several stratagems are used on enemy units. One example is "War on All Fronts" from Codex: Tyranids, which specifically states "Use this Stratagem in the Fight phase. Select an enemy unit...". The fact it explicitly restricts it, and that other stratagems restrict what units or models you can use stratagems on, is proof enough that the default permission is to use stratagems on any unit.

You need to remember that JohnnyHell is very much a "RaI" player.

Disclaimer: My YMDC answers are from a "What the rules, as written in the rulebook, actually say" perspective, not a "What I wish the rules said" perspective.

But RAW, you can use it on enemy cultists. It says nothing about friendly or your own unit. They have changed the stratagem to only work once per game and I would think that they would have noticed how they wrote the stratagem at that time to change it if not to be used on enemy cultists.

But RAW, you can’t use it and place them so they will die, fine.

RAI, simple! We don’t know. If they intended use on friendly units they will have too change the wording.

Edit:
I totally agree with BCB!!!! GW have written the rules and we play buy them. If they intended for something but did not write it that way, they have to change it.

And don’t change things on FB....

Tazberry wrote:
I totally agree with BCB!!!! GW have written the rules and we play buy them. If they intended for something but did not write it that way, they have to change it.

And don’t change things on FB....

If GW had not bothered releasing errata to fix nitpicks, then I might have a easier time understanding the RaI position, but when GW goes out of their way to change "Basilisk" to "BASILISK" in a stratagem, we know that wording matters.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Tazberry wrote:
I totally agree with BCB!!!! GW have written the rules and we play buy them. If they intended for something but did not write it that way, they have to change it.

And don’t change things on FB....

If GW had not bothered releasing errata to fix nitpicks, then I might have a easier time understanding the RaI position, but when GW goes out of their way to change "Basilisk" to "BASILISK" in a stratagem, we know that wording matters.

How about when they answer FAQs using rule as interpreted. Kind says you should use your common sense. Tide of traitors is about wave after wave of traitor cultists attacking the enemy. The intent is clear. It’s not about moving your opponents models about. That’s just ridiculous.

Andykp wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Tazberry wrote:
I totally agree with BCB!!!! GW have written the rules and we play buy them. If they intended for something but did not write it that way, they have to change it.

And don’t change things on FB....

If GW had not bothered releasing errata to fix nitpicks, then I might have a easier time understanding the RaI position, but when GW goes out of their way to change "Basilisk" to "BASILISK" in a stratagem, we know that wording matters.

How about when they answer FAQs using rule as interpreted. Kind says you should use your common sense. Tide of traitors is about wave after wave of traitor cultists attacking the enemy. The intent is clear. It’s not about moving your opponents models about. That’s just ridiculous.

Re-rolls before modifiers is also ridiculous, Flamers automatically hitting supersonic planes flying a mile in the air is ridiculous, an Assault Marine being permitted to fly over a 20 inch tall wall to get to the other side, but not land on top of it is ridiculous, but here we are.

Tazberry wrote:
But RAW, you can use it on enemy cultists. It says nothing about friendly or your own unit. They have changed the stratagem to only work once per game and I would think that they would have noticed how they wrote the stratagem at that time to change it if not to be used on enemy cultists.

But RAW, you can’t use it and place them so they will die, fine.

RAI, simple! We don’t know. If they intended use on friendly units they will have too change the wording.

Edit:
I totally agree with BCB!!!! GW have written the rules and we play buy them. If they intended for something but did not write it that way, they have to change it.

And don’t change things on FB....

Why? The rules are a guide to play by. It says in them they won’t cover every eventuality. It’s a game two humans play against each other for fun. Common sense and a sense of the point of rules is important. The strat is clearly written to not do what you are saying. Hey maybe haven’t changed it because they imagined that no one would be silly enough to try and move other people’s units about with it. I’m sure they see some of the questions coming in like this are are stunned that people can be so finickety about the game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Andykp wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Tazberry wrote:
I totally agree with BCB!!!! GW have written the rules and we play buy them. If they intended for something but did not write it that way, they have to change it.

And don’t change things on FB....

If GW had not bothered releasing errata to fix nitpicks, then I might have a easier time understanding the RaI position, but when GW goes out of their way to change "Basilisk" to "BASILISK" in a stratagem, we know that wording matters.

How about when they answer FAQs using rule as interpreted. Kind says you should use your common sense. Tide of traitors is about wave after wave of traitor cultists attacking the enemy. The intent is clear. It’s not about moving your opponents models about. That’s just ridiculous.

Re-rolls before modifiers is also ridiculous, Flamers automatically hitting supersonic planes flying a mile in the air is ridiculous, an Assault Marine being permitted to fly over a 20 inch tall wall to get to the other side, but not land on top of it is ridiculous, but here we are.

I know. I don’t let those things happen in the game so I can enjoy them. I agree before hand on silly things like that so it’s ok. Rather than waste my time playing a silly game I don’t enjoy.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
while most players play by "What the rules, as written in the rulebook, actually say".

I can assure you that most players do not play anywhere near what you would define as "the rules as written". Do you? Do you really disallow your opponent from firing Assault weapons when they advance? Really and truly? I couldn't even imagine it.

From my experience, most players who claim to play 40k strictly by the rules as written don't actually play at all, or have a fairly shaky understanding of the rules. I don't think there's been an edition of the game released to date where playing strictly by RAW was actually possible without creating some absolutely absurd situations on the table, or breaking down entirely.


For the issue at hand, it seems fairly clear that the strategem is supposed to be used on your own cultists, rather than being applied on the off-chance that you're playing against a Chaos army with cultists in it... Chalk it up as a loophole, and move on.

Locking this now to avoid any further escalation of silliness, since the RAW arguments appear to have been covered anyway.