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.

Glad to see you backed up your argument there ,

I don't feel like I need to, considering how many other people have posted the arguments.

If you really want, I'll find the same quotes on the same pages, but honestly, you can just read through the thread.

Everybody pressed home that you cannot ignore the statment in the example . And now i bring up the statment in the stratigic traits which isnt being treated the same .


Automatically Appended Next Post:
My last posts have been based of everybody elses ideas not mine so your dismissing there ideas aswell

But also there is even more specific in warlord traits within that tree that states they affect enemy models. Meaning that the general statement for all six of those is not specific enough for it to apply to models treated as enemies.

Yes, it is. Just like the statement about allies of convenience, however, you want to ignore people's statements about how the Allies of Convenience interaction with Warlord traits is more specific than Strategic Traits. Strategic Traits are a subset of traits in general, but that does not make them advanced. The allies of convenience interaction between units and warlord traits are more specific than that. To treat it otherwise would be the equivalent of trying to gaming the rules by saying that a nova power is more specific than a psychic power, and therefore would be more advanced than a rule that negates psychic powers.

Im sorry but what does it being a subset of rules have to do with it . If anything a subset implies that is even more specific My whole argument early was about the example not being as firm as a rule . Why is the statment on stratigic traits now being class as a subset ? And not a statment of fact . If you read it as a statment thens it more specific than the a.o.c statment

ian wrote:
Im sorry but what does it being a subset of rules have to do with it . If anything a subset implies that is even more specific My whole argument early was about the example not being as firm as a rule . Why is the statment on stratigic traits now being class as a subset ? And not a statment of fact . If you read it as a statment thens it more specific than the a.o.c statment

Strategic traits are still more general than the interaction between Warlord Traits and allies of convenience.

Note my psychic power example. That's essentially what you're trying to argue here.

I will to have a look at the nova power . I still dont understand how somthing that effects 6 things isnt more specific than somthing that effects all .that dosnt seem right but will look when i get back

Ian... I think you're misunderstanding what everyone means my specific versus advanced.

This is how I think about it. Please realize that I don't have my rule book with me, so my wording might be a little off, but the spirit is correct...

A permissive rule set is based on a series of permissions and restrictions. The rules, at a high level, tell us what we can do. That's why we call this a permissive rule set. We're being told what we have permission to do. Now, sometimes there are situations where we were told that we had permission to do something, but that permission needs to be revoked. We call that a restriction. Restrictions and permissions are inherently conflicting, so we have a further concept called specific versus advanced. Whenever there is a conflict between two rules, the rule that is more specific wins out.

As an example, let's say I'm told that I have permission to eat any kind of fruit I want. Immediately afterwards, I'm told that I can't eat apples. I have a general permission to eat fruit and a more specific restriction against eating apples.

There can be multiple layers of permissions and restrictions, with each layer becoming more and more specific.

To continue our example, let's further say that we are then told that we can eat Red Delicious apples. We have a general permission to eat fruit. We have a more specific restriction against eating apples. We then have an even more specific permission allowing us to eat a specific kind of apple.

In our debate topic, I would say that you have the following situation...

1. At the highest and most general level, we have permission for Warlord Traits to affect models. Some Traits affect friendly models and some (such as some Strategic Traits) affect enemy models.
2. At a more specific level, we have a restriction telling us that models who are in your army and are treated as enemies, such as Allies of Convenience models, are not affected by Warlord Traits. This restriction overrides the more general permission.
3. At an even more specific level, we have a few specific Warlord Traits that tell us they can affect enemy models. This is more specific as it deals with only the Warlord Trait in question. This more specific permission would override the more general restriction discussed in point #2.

ian wrote:
Ok but if its that way arounded wouldnt that also stop Intimidating Presence Warlord Trait from working

Intimidating presence is not a benefit. Allies of Convenience only mentions benefits, not negative effects.

this is my understanding of the nova power

you have psychic power
a more specific psychic power nova
and a rule that states it blocks psychic powers
it blocks the nova power because the nova power is still a psychic power but doesn't have a specific rule making it immune to the block

you have a warlord trait
a more specific warlord trait strategic traits
you have a rule blocking you from using the trait
it dosnt block the power because altho it is still a warlord trait it has a specific rule stating that it effects your whole army

effectively each trait in the strategic traits has the rule it affects your entire army included in it. as it is stated directly before the rule. so just like having it effects an enemy models allows you to use the trait so does it affect you whole army allows you to use it

im not saying this is fact i'm presenting it as an alternative way of looking at it


Automatically Appended Next Post:
thank you kriswel that made a lot of sense i read this after my last post

my point is that the statement of entire army is like the red delicious apple .

and a benifit is subjective as i could think of a number of reason of why i would like a negitive modifier on a unit .ie shooty unit in combat with terminators falling morale check

I'm glad you're presenting is as an alternate view and not as fact, because it isn't. Strategic traits are to Warlord traits as witchfire powers are to psychic powers.

You acknowledge that witchfire would be blocked by a rule blocking psychic powers, but you have the same situation here with warlord traits. Strategic traits would not be more advanced than a rule prohibiting warlord traits from being used any more than a nova power would be more advanced than a rule blocking it.

ok i see that

could you help explain
why is it when a trait states enemy it works
and when a trait states affects entire army it dosnt

as i cannot see the distinction maybe its just me but in my mind every time i read a strategic trait i have the rule it affects entire in my mind as part of the trait

ian wrote:
ok i see that

could you help explain
why is it when a trait states enemy it works
and when a trait states affects entire army it dosnt

as i cannot see the distinction maybe its just me but in my mind every time i read a strategic trait i have the rule it affects entire in my mind as part of the trait

'Affects all models' is more general because it's talking about all of the different models types.
'Doesn't affect enemy models' is more specific because it's talking about only one type of model... models that are considered enemies.

I think the issue is as you said... you have the rule that the Trait affects all models in your MIND. It sounds like you've made up your mind and are now looking for reasons to show that you're right. This is a concept called confirmation bias. We all fall victim to confirmation bias from time to time. If the rules text of a specific Warlord Trait doesn't specifically say that it can affect models in your army that are considered enemy models (such as models allied in at an Allies of Convenience level)... then it doesn't. It doesn't because this is a permissive rule set. We know that generally speaking, Warlord Traits affect models in your army, but don't affect models in your army that are considered enemies. If you want the Trait to be able to affect models in your army that are considered enemies, you need rules text that unambiguously says the Trait will affect models in your army that are considered enemies.

Thank you that makes a lot of sense and the penny has finally dropped.

Who would have thought that i would learn something about myself on a deeper level on a rules forum

Thanks again

ian wrote:
and a benifit is subjective as i could think of a number of reason of why i would like a negitive modifier on a unit .ie shooty unit in combat with terminators falling morale check

Such a situation may be subjectively beneficial to you, or to other parts of your army, perhaps arguably subjectively to your view of the model (though that I would say is clearly trying to twist semantics to suit) but not objectively for the model. I believe objectively we can all agree a negative modifier to a statistic which determines a unit's success or ability is not a benefit.

could you help explain
why is it when a trait states enemy it works
and when a trait states affects entire army it dosnt

Simply for the reason above. Allies of Convenience relates to benefits, so unless it's somehow a Warlord Trait that explicitly or directly benefits enemy models, it's irrelevant.

I think benifit is an unfortunat choice of word to use for a rule in 40k as it is a very subjective by its very nature. I am not trying to twist it .

Ie . If my warlord was within 12" of an a.o.c unit in close combat with terminators. The warlord trait provides a restriction
On the terminators to use there lowest leadship .

How would you descibe the effect that this has on the a.o.c unit?

I would say somthing like that warlord trait saved my bacon . Im so glad that they failed there moral check becuase i ran them down . My unit would have been wiped out if they had passed there moral check

Another way would be to say the a.o.c unit benifited from the effect of that warlord trait .
Objectivly it reduce the oppenets level of success but it also directly beninfited the a.o.c unit
Which is why i used it as an angle in the debate.

I think the example could have been tighten up had it been presented as a restriction on all warlord traits regardless of weather its a benifit or a detriment. The impact of the word beneifit isnt important when you have a rule specificly stating it overrides it .

It's not a benefit because having your a.o.c. unit's also having to use its lowest leadership, and if the terminators win your a.o.c. unit is making the morale check with their lowest leadership. They're more likely to run off and die. That's certainly not a benefit for the a.o.c. unit.

In that situation its not a benifit. I agree but in my situation it was a benifit as if the a.c.o wins combat they dont even have to take a ld test , its very subjective im sure if i was inclined i could fined lots more examples where you could benifit from a warlord trait but i dont think it would change anything

That's a penalty to the enemy terminator unit, not a benefit to the a.o.c. unit. There is a distinction between the two. You shouldn't try to mix the two together.

Yes its a penalty to the terminator unit . Which affects the a.o.c

How would you describe the effect that has on the a.o.c ?

Yes there is a distiction and Its cause and effect the cause is the terminators have a penalty the effect is the a.o.c benifits . Its not the best word to use for a rule as its a desciptive word which brings about problems when using raw which relys on tight wording .

Saying that the a.o.c benifited from the warlord trait is complety accurate way of descibing what happened.

ian wrote:
Yes its a penalty to the terminator unit . Which affects the a.o.c

How would you describe the effect that has on the a.o.c ?

Yes there is a distiction and Its cause and effect the cause is the terminators have a penalty the effect is the a.o.c benifits . Its not the best word to use for a rule as its a desciptive word which brings about problems when using raw which relys on tight wording .

Saying that the a.o.c benifited from the warlord trait is complety accurate way of descibing what happened.

Where does it state in the rulebook that "benefiting" includes a deficit to someone else?

Many of the "gray" areas of English come from people altering meaning to suit their own purposes. You want "benefit" to include "indirectly benefit" as well as "directly benefit", when the base definition without qualifiers is "directly benefit".

ian wrote:
Yes its a penalty to the terminator unit . Which affects the a.o.c

How would you describe the effect that has on the a.o.c ?

Yes there is a distiction and Its cause and effect the cause is the terminators have a penalty the effect is the a.o.c benifits . Its not the best word to use for a rule as its a desciptive word which brings about problems when using raw which relys on tight wording .

Saying that the a.o.c benifited from the warlord trait is complety accurate way of descibing what happened.

The effect it has on the unit is harmful as it is forced to have use the lowest leadership in the unit when appropriate, not a highest. You can't spin that into a benefit. It equally affecting an opponent's unit does not matter when you are looking at the alliance effect on your units. As Charistoph points out, you would have to point out where in the rulebook "benefitting" includes a deficit to someone else. The effect on the unit itself is the opposite of a benefit. Saying the a.o.c. benefited from the warlord trait is completely inaccurate, and is in fact trying to game the system so that you don't have to worry about applying the deleterious effect of the Warlord trait to units in your army which you are told to treat as "enemies". If you are not applying that warlord trait that negatively affects him, then you are not treating them as enemies and therefore are not following the rules.

My point is that its a poor choice of word to use.

Im sorry but the a.o.c did benifit from that rule. Thats how you would describe the effect that the warlord trait had on there cc phase there chance of success was enhance by the rule. Im not saying they where the target of the trait.
Its the same as if my opponent failed there gets hot roll and there plasma guy died . I can say i benifited from that rule . Thats normal plain english used to descibe how my armys chance of success was increased . Its more specific with the cc as its my unit that is affected . Its the direct opposite of a detriment so if the terminators had a detriment thats means the a.o.c unit benifited

How do you discribe what happened to the a.o.c unit ?



Im not trying to game the system im just pointing out that its a really poor word to use and just proves the point that raw really isnt the best way to solve rules

I say they were penalized for having to use their worst leadership. Anything affecting another unit is not a direct benefit to the unit allied to the warlord; it's a hindrance to the other unit. There's a distinction there. In rules terms when they're saying benefit they mean a direct benefit, not something indirectly that might or might not help. If the termies won the round of combat, it wouldn't be a benefit to them because they're rolling with a worse leadership number. That penalty applies all the time to them wiht that warlord trait, it's not just trying to cherry pick an unlikely situation.

The trait helped them win combat in your scenario, but if you look at the direct relationship between them and the trait, it causes them to take leadership tests on their lowest leadership. The direct relationship is all the rules refer to.

You're focusing on the outcome instead of the process. Both units actually received a penalty, it's just that in your scenario the unit owned by you ended up winning, so you're calling the trait a bonus. If the terminators had won combat, your unit would be the one suffering under the warlord trait.

ian wrote:
My point is that its a poor choice of word to use.

Im sorry but the a.o.c did benifit from that rule. Thats how you would describe the effect that the warlord trait had on there cc phase there chance of success was enhance by the rule. Im not saying they where the target of the trait.
Its the same as if my opponent failed there gets hot roll and there plasma guy died . I can say i benifited from that rule . Thats normal plain english used to descibe how my armys chance of success was increased . Its more specific with the cc as its my unit that is affected . Its the direct opposite of a detriment so if the terminators had a detriment thats means the a.o.c unit benifited

How do you discribe what happened to the a.o.c unit ?



Im not trying to game the system im just pointing out that its a really poor word to use and just proves the point that raw really isnt the best way to solve rules

You're sort of right. The best way to resolve rules for a SPECIFIC game is to talk to your SPECIFIC opponent and make sure you both agree on how the rules work. The best way to resolve rules for AN AVERAGE game is to bring up any issues in a community forum and come to a consensus. This usually involves debating the rules as written and trying to come up with a reasonable, generally accepted interpretation of any ambiguities.

It is fair to work from an assumption that the authors wrote the rules to reflect how they wanted us to play the game. In that sense, RaW should be the absolute answer in every case. The issue with that statement is that GW isn't great at writing clear, unambiguous rules. Compare this to companies like Fantasy Flight Games, where the rules tend to be very well written and receive regular updates and answers to questions via FAQ.

Using the word benefit probably isn't the best word to use. Given that there is some ambiguity, you talk it over with the community (as we're doing here) and the community decides they probably meant DIRECT benefit and not "bystander" benefit. At this point you can still hash out the issue with a specific opponent for a specific game, but you should reasonably expect that an average opponent will assume benefit means direct benefit.

I agree , and these forums are great for that even in my case where i got stuck on what i thought was the result and tryed my hardest to prove my case in the end i had to agree with every one but along the way i learned alot about rules intractions ect