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 folks, just a quick question regarding these two abilities and the way they interact. I've had it happen during a tournament and nobody was able to give an answer...

Can you cast Warptime on a unit of cultists that just came back with Tide of traitors ?

Subsidiary question : is the original cultist unit considered "destroyed" for things like Killpoints ?

Thanks a lot !

 Nym wrote:
Hi folks, just a quick question regarding these two abilities and the way they interact. I've had it happen during a tournament and nobody was able to give an answer...

Can you cast Warptime on a unit of cultists that just came back with Tide of traitors ?

Subsidiary question : is the original cultist unit considered "destroyed" for things like Killpoints ?

Thanks a lot !

You cannot use Warptime on that unit due to Special Snowflake FAQ preventing you using Warptime on Reinforcements, reinforcements defined as any unit that is set up mid-turn.

As far as I know it doesn't count as being destroyed since the stratagem doesn't destroy the unit, it simply removes and re-sets it up.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Nym wrote:
Hi folks, just a quick question regarding these two abilities and the way they interact. I've had it happen during a tournament and nobody was able to give an answer...

Can you cast Warptime on a unit of cultists that just came back with Tide of traitors ?

Subsidiary question : is the original cultist unit considered "destroyed" for things like Killpoints ?

Thanks a lot !

You cannot use Warptime on that unit due to Special Snowflake FAQ preventing you using Warptime on Reinforcements, reinforcements defined as any unit that is set up mid-turn.

Leaving aside the fact that "Reinforcements" are not defined in the rules (since we've gone over that before), which FAQ are you referring to? The CSM FAQ says nothing about Warptime targetting restrictions - in fact, it doesn't refer to warptime at all.

Aelyn wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Nym wrote:
Hi folks, just a quick question regarding these two abilities and the way they interact. I've had it happen during a tournament and nobody was able to give an answer...

Can you cast Warptime on a unit of cultists that just came back with Tide of traitors ?

Subsidiary question : is the original cultist unit considered "destroyed" for things like Killpoints ?

Thanks a lot !

You cannot use Warptime on that unit due to Special Snowflake FAQ preventing you using Warptime on Reinforcements, reinforcements defined as any unit that is set up mid-turn.

Leaving aside the fact that "Reinforcements" are not defined in the rules (since we've gone over that before), which FAQ are you referring to? The CSM FAQ says nothing about Warptime targetting restrictions - in fact, it doesn't refer to warptime at all.

It's not the CSM FAQ. It's the first Big FAQ, I believe.

Aelyn wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Nym wrote:
Hi folks, just a quick question regarding these two abilities and the way they interact. I've had it happen during a tournament and nobody was able to give an answer...

Can you cast Warptime on a unit of cultists that just came back with Tide of traitors ?

Subsidiary question : is the original cultist unit considered "destroyed" for things like Killpoints ?

Thanks a lot !

You cannot use Warptime on that unit due to Special Snowflake FAQ preventing you using Warptime on Reinforcements, reinforcements defined as any unit that is set up mid-turn.

Leaving aside the fact that "Reinforcements" are not defined in the rules (since we've gone over that before), which FAQ are you referring to? The CSM FAQ says nothing about Warptime targetting restrictions - in fact, it doesn't refer to warptime at all.

The rulebook does define reinforcements. Page 177, Reinforcements sidebar. It is an implicit definition to be sure, but a definition nonetheless.

Also, you're not able to find an FAQ about a problem in the correct FAQ to look in? What is this heresy! Don't you know GW can do no wrong and write totally flawless rules?!??!

It's in the BRB FAQ.

WARHAMMER 40,000 RULEBOOK Official Update Version 1.3 wrote:The rules for reinforcements say that when a unit is set up on the battlefield as reinforcements, it cannot move or Advance further that turn, but can otherwise act normally (shoot, charge, etc.).
[...]
Q: Can such a unit move or Advance for any other reason e.g. because of an ability such as The Swarmlord’s Hive Commander ability, or because of a psychic power such as Warptime from the Dark Hereticus discipline, or because of a Stratagem like Metabolic Overdrive from Codex: Tyranids, etc.?
A: No

 JNAProductions wrote:

It's not the CSM FAQ. It's the first Big FAQ, I believe.

EDIT: Please disregard, it's in the rulebook FAQ 1.3.

Though I still challenge whether models set up using Tide of Traitors qualify as Reinforcements.

Aelyn wrote:
I've checked the FAQs for CSM, the Rulebook, and Chapter Approved 2018, as well as the Big FAQ 2. None of them list this interaction, unless I missed it (which I acknowledge is possible), so as far as I can see there is no current FAQ for a current publication which disallows this.

Like I said, it's in the BRB FAQ, Page 5. It even explicitly calls out Warptime.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Aelyn wrote:
I've checked the FAQs for CSM, the Rulebook, and Chapter Approved 2018, as well as the Big FAQ 2. None of them list this interaction, unless I missed it (which I acknowledge is possible), so as far as I can see there is no current FAQ for a current publication which disallows this.

Like I said, it's in the BRB FAQ, Page 5. It even explicitly calls out Warptime.

There was five seconds between our posts - I didn't have a chance to see yours until I'd posted mine.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
The rulebook does define reinforcements. Page 177, Reinforcements sidebar. It is an implicit definition to be sure, but a definition nonetheless.

So you're arguing we should treat implicit text as meaningful? Including the implicit text that units with assault weapons may be chosen to shoot even if it advanced, which is implied by the rules for Assault weapons?

Either way, the rules talking about Reinforcements only say that units that are set up on the battlefield mid-turn cannot move or Advance further on the turn they arrive, but the Tide of Traitors unit was already on the battlefield, so it didn't arrive that turn. So the rule preventing reinforcements moving or advancing shouldn't prevent a Tided unit from being Warptimed.

Aelyn wrote:
So you're arguing we should treat implicit text as meaningful? Including the implicit text that units with assault weapons may be chosen to shoot even if it advanced, which is implied by the rules for Assault weapons?

The assault rule isn't an implicit definition, it's an explicit one. It says a model that advanced may fire, that rule works just fine.

The problem is the rules for selecting a unit never let you get to that point in the sequence.

Anyway, that's not the point of this thread so I don't know why you brought it up.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Aelyn wrote:
Either way, the rules talking about Reinforcements only say that units that are set up on the battlefield mid-turn cannot move or Advance further on the turn they arrive, but the Tide of Traitors unit was already on the battlefield, so it didn't arrive that turn. So the rule preventing reinforcements moving or advancing shouldn't prevent a Tided unit from being Warptimed.

In order to use Tide of Traitors you remove it from the battlefield. If it doesn't arrive back onto the battlefield, how exactly are you using this new unit being set up by Tide of Traitors? The rule literally says "remove it from the battlefield."

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Aelyn wrote:
So you're arguing we should treat implicit text as meaningful? Including the implicit text that units with assault weapons may be chosen to shoot even if it advanced, which is implied by the rules for Assault weapons?

The assault rule isn't an implicit definition, it's an explicit one. It says a model that advanced may fire, that rule works just fine.

The problem is the rules for selecting a unit never let you get to that point in the sequence.

Anyway, that's not the point of this thread so I don't know why you brought it up.

I'm pointing out the irony of you - the most prolific RAW advocate on the forum, to the point of absurdity - being willing to accept implicit definitions (which, by definition, cannot be RAW) when it suits your argument.

Aelyn wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Aelyn wrote:
So you're arguing we should treat implicit text as meaningful? Including the implicit text that units with assault weapons may be chosen to shoot even if it advanced, which is implied by the rules for Assault weapons?

The assault rule isn't an implicit definition, it's an explicit one. It says a model that advanced may fire, that rule works just fine.

The problem is the rules for selecting a unit never let you get to that point in the sequence.

Anyway, that's not the point of this thread so I don't know why you brought it up.

I'm pointing out the irony of you - the most prolific RAW advocate on the forum, to the point of absurdity - being willing to accept implicit definitions (which, by definition, cannot be RAW) when it suits your argument.

I'm sorry but that is a blatant lie and close to libel. There is nothing "wrong" with implicit definitions, they are just not ideal. It's also implicitly defined that dice need to be labelled 1 though 6. The issue with the Assault Weapons has nothing to do with implicit definitions, it has to do with order of operations and the lack of permission to ignore a restriction. A model with an Assault Weapon can fire it even if it advanced. A unit may not be selected to fire in the Shooting Phase (unless another rule says otherwise). The Assault Weapon rule does not say otherwise. Therefore, barring another special rule, a unit that advances may not be selected to fire, even if the models in the unit are equipped with Assault Weapons. Nothing to do with "Implicit Definitions".

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Aelyn wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Aelyn wrote:
So you're arguing we should treat implicit text as meaningful? Including the implicit text that units with assault weapons may be chosen to shoot even if it advanced, which is implied by the rules for Assault weapons?

The assault rule isn't an implicit definition, it's an explicit one. It says a model that advanced may fire, that rule works just fine.

The problem is the rules for selecting a unit never let you get to that point in the sequence.

Anyway, that's not the point of this thread so I don't know why you brought it up.

I'm pointing out the irony of you - the most prolific RAW advocate on the forum, to the point of absurdity - being willing to accept implicit definitions (which, by definition, cannot be RAW) when it suits your argument.

I'm sorry but that is a blatant lie and close to libel. There is nothing "wrong" with implicit definitions, they are just not ideal. It's also implicitly defined that dice need to be labelled 1 though 6. The issue with the Assault Weapons has nothing to do with implicit definitions, it has to do with order of operations and the lack of permission to ignore a restriction. A model with an Assault Weapon can fire it even if it advanced. A unit may not be selected to fire in the Shooting Phase (unless another rule says otherwise). The Assault Weapon rule does not say otherwise. Therefore, barring another special rule, a unit that advances may not be selected to fire, even if the models in the unit are equipped with Assault Weapons. Nothing to do with "Implicit Definitions".

Wow, I've touched a nerve apparently - I don't see anything in that post which is a "blatent lie". Are you claiming that you aren't the greatest proponent of RAW on the forum, even when the results of RAW are absurd?

As for the assault thing, I just chose the first example that came to mind of you ignoring implied text of rules - did you see where I said that the rules for assault weapons imply that you may select a unit which contains assault weapons to shoot, even though it's not explicitly called out as an exception to the unit selection rules?

Anyways, as you say, this is really getting away from the point of the thread. Now you've cited your source for the FAQ, I would agree that RAI the Cultists cannot be moved with Warptime, even though I'm far from convinced it's necessarily RAW.

delete

Shall we move away from debating the pros and cons of BCB, in reference to something that isn't even the topic, or I'm sure a mod will just close this topic shortly anyway.

If a unit is set up they are reinforcements. Thats defined by the reinforcements rules. Tide of traitors says to set up the unit. Therefore they are reinforcements. The FAQs say you cant use warp time on reinforcements.

 p5freak wrote:
If a unit is set up they are reinforcements. Thats defined by the reinforcements rules. Tide of traitors says to set up the unit. Therefore they are reinforcements. The FAQs say you cant use warp time on reinforcements.

Agreed. I feel this one should be pretty cut and dry.

Thanks guys for your thorough answer, it makes convincing people at my LGS easier.