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.

Spartacus wrote:
Whats all this talk about 'targeting' a model for a stratagem?

The rule says 'select' one of your characters. The same way you would select a model to place during deployment, or to be given a relic, or to be the warlord etc.

Its not a psychic power.

Some people are reading 'select' as 'target'. I personally agree with you.

The actual terminology is "pick" a GK character.

Pick, select, target, choose, it's all arbitrary for the same thing.

Select a unit, choose a unit, pick a unit .... what difference does it make?

I don't know. Maybe because some of them have different meanings in the game?

Target - need LoS and range to target something.
Choose- Any eligible model/unit as appropriate.

Yes, wording matters when you play a game with a permissive rule set.

U02dah4 wrote:
Pick, select, target, choose, it's all arbitrary for the same thing.

Select a unit, choose a unit, pick a unit .... what diffeencephalitis does it make?

Hit, Wound, Saves, it's all arbitrary for the same thing. /s

The fact of the matter is if you permit using the stratagem on your guy not on the table, then the same logic can apply to use the stratagem on a dude in a different fight to yours, or one in the far future.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

U02dah4 wrote:
Pick, select, target, choose, it's all arbitrary for the same thing.

Select a unit, choose a unit, pick a unit .... what diffeencephalitis does it make?

Hit, Wound, Saves, it's all arbitrary for the same thing. /s

The fact of the matter is if you permit using the stratagem on your guy not on the table, then the same logic can apply to use the stratagem on a dude in a different fight to yours, or one in the far future.

Hit, wound, saves are all defined I wasn't aware target was sorry for the confusion but since it's pick not target you don't require LoS so we can all agree that we can pick a unit in reserves

[Let's not throw around accusationss. By Kilkrazy.]

I hope you're not referring to me with that troll comment - most threads I've merely been stating what I see the rules as (with some stabs at RAI or HIWPI if appropriate) - fringing up the future was only an exaggeration to point out the same lack of limitations you cite for affecting a character not on the board would allow you to affect a character in the future, or on a different table, if it met the key words. Sorry if you didn't see the extrapolation of your argument as valid.

[Let's leave other users out of the argument, eh? By Kilkrazy.]

I am up for in all serious discussing any sensible argument and when I mean sensible I don't mean an argument I disagree with isn't sensible. I mean lets discuss arguments that the maker believes are plausible. Challenging arguments no one believes clouds the forums and doesn't help anyone.

Now I'm not saying you have to like my argument (you clearly don't), I'm not saying you have to agree with my argument mine is based on whats written in the rules alone (and again its clear you don't like the rules as they are written and bring in RaI arguments to justify your deviation).

However you are telling me that you were not trolling and that you genuinely in all seriousness you believe that was an exaggeration or extrapolation of my argument?

Fine I will give you the benefit of the doubt and I will waste my time answering your argument in detail even though I don't think you believe it just encase you do.

My argument
1) Stratagems tell you what you may pick you may only spend command points on them before or during the game in progress according to the command point rules.
2) You have permission from the stratagem to pick one grey knight unit and it doesn't define any other restrictions on them
3) Tactical reserves are part of your army and part of the game in progress sure there not on the battlefield but they are covered by the reinforcement section which gives them no special rules or status till they arrive such as not being targetable/effectable/pickable (note embarked troops that are not on the table had to be given this status)
4) because there is precedent that there are other stratagems that have to allow you to pick something not on the board in order to function and these don't define where that unit may be
5) because in 4 pages of txt not one rule has been cited telling you that you cannot pick them like with embarked troops
6) Rai arguments don't matter unless Raw literally doesn't function

Lets compare this if its an extrapolation the points should be the same if your right

1) The future is not during the present game so here's our first difference so not extrapolation on this point
2) yes under this one there is no difference between the scenarios
3) Tactical reserves are part of your army a future army isnt part of the current battle no this ones different aswell
4) Unlike with my argument there are no precedents in matched play to allow you to target future games anywhere in the 40k rulebook.
5) yes this has been raised before and half the players raising it cited as absurd at the point they raised it and not one person truly agreed with it
6) This argument has no RaW basis.
7) While this is technically a Rai argument so view it as questionable but
A) All rules pertaining to matched play 40k are for the purposes of playing a singular battle
B) The argument is obviously stupid you know it, I know it and unlike my argument that is a case which I have backed with evidence none of which has been disprovable by RaW (I acknowledge some have a differing opinion on intention) This has no evidence.

So lets see 5 out of 6 RaW points are different and there's two extra RaI arguments against that's a lot of difference not even a small amount


Therefore I must conclude based on the above argument that if you were genuinely telling me that you can see no difference between the first argument and the second that either:

1) I'm wrong and there is a solid case for effecting units in future games which you can clearly evidence (Please do this I will be impressed).
2) Your embarrassingly wrong because that was a huge number of differences and the arguments were not even closely resembling each other.
3) You can see the difference and are trolling in which case please don't waste the time of this forum (I suspect this is the most likely option).
4) You are illiterate and struggle to read English which is kind of tough to argue given your use of words such as extrapolate and exaggeration.

Which is it?

I think you can't read Rule 1 of this board, personally...

Also, a lot of those justifications are common sense-based, which you claim has no place in 40K, so which is it?

How on earth is that last post not an argument formed on evidence and none of the points in my argument are not raw based except the one saying no one else has found a counter which implies that there isn't one

You still haven't shown a rule that states specifically that you can pick a model not on the table for that strategy. There are other strategies in other codices that do specify that you can effect units not yet in play.

Saying that different writers wrote their rules in different manners is not a valid argument. The game is the game no matter who writes the rules. You do not arbitrarily get to play a rule the way you want without some basis other than "it doesn't say I can't". This is still a permissive rule set you have to demonstrate where in the rules (or in this case the strategy) it states that you may take some specific action. You chose to use the Codex you are using and are bound by its restrictions. In this case you don't have explicit permission to pick models not in play. The standard rule is that something not in play is by definition not in play.

No matter how many "points" you score yourself if your conclusion is wrong then it is wrong.

U02dah4 wrote:
How on earth is that last post not an argument formed on evidence and none of the points in my argument are not raw based except the one saying no one else has found a counter which implies that there isn't one

Step 4) - where you say there are precedents. You have not shown a precedent for being able to play a stratagem on a character that's not on the board once you've had the first turn start - when being on the board will matter. Stratagems that affect your army list before a game such as getting a relic are obviously not an on-the-board vs off-the-board thing because the board doesn't exist at that point.

EDIT: As Leo the Rat said, we have a precedent for stratagems at that point stating they affect models off the board, so your point 4 would seem to go with needing to state that you have permission to affect off-board characters in order to do so once you're in the game.


Let's see if we can continue the argument without personal insults being thrown around in violation of the Tenets.

"You disagree with me, so maybe you're illiterate even though I don't have permission from the permissive rules set to do what I'm arguing I can do."

Amazing argument.

My argument
1) Stratagems tell you what you may pick you may only spend command points on them before or during the game in progress according to the command point rules.
2) You have permission from the stratagem to pick one grey knight unit and it doesn't define any other restrictions on them
3) Tactical reserves are part of your army and part of the game in progress sure there not on the battlefield but they are covered by the reinforcement section which gives them no special rules or status till they arrive such as not being targetable/effectable/pickable (note embarked troops that are not on the table had to be given this status)
4) because there is precedent that there are other stratagems that have to allow you to pick something not on the board in order to function and these don't define where that unit may be
5) because in 4 pages of txt not one rule has been cited telling you that you cannot pick them like with embarked troops
6) Rai arguments don't matter unless Raw literally doesn't function

1) Yeah, spend command points before or during the game. Right.

2) It doesn't need to define other restrictions if we have no permission to take away in the first place.

3) You are also not told you can affect them in any way - no permission.

4) An example that doesn't specify time such as "during deployment" or something, please. I genuinely don't have any in my mind, and I'm at work so can't pore through books.

5) Not one rule has been cited giving permission to affect reinforcements not yet arrived on the battlefield - which you need, somewhere.

6) RAI matters all the time. Literally. Not just if RAW doesn't function. It's just that sometimes RAW and RAI align when things are written in a way that shows intent clearly. Not sure what this has to do with anything though, we have no RAW to allow reinforcements not yet arrived on the battlefield to be affected by anything.

I mean, hey, maybe I'm illiterate, but I'm not finding anything that says you generally are allowed to do anything to any units in reserve.

2) where does it say you don't
3) you are told by the strategy you may
4) the one in question that says you may pick a grey kniget unit
5) you may pick a grey knight unit
6) both matter but Raw overrules RaI

I don't think you understand- you have to find something in the rules that says that you can do something.

2) Show me where the rules say you can effect something off the board.

3,4 and, 5) Where does it say that you can put effects on anything in reserves?

6) There are plenty of instances where RAI overrules RAW there is no hard and/or fast rule about which has priority. It's literally a rule by rule decision.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
I don't think you understand- you have to find something in the rules that says that you can do something.

2) Show me where the rules say you can effect something off the board.

3,4 and, 5) Where does it say that you can put effects on anything in reserves?

6) There are plenty of instances where RAI overrules RAW there is no hard and/or fast rule about which has priority. It's literally a rule by rule decision.

You have the burden of proof backwards. The stratagem says pick a character. That's permission to pick a character. He picks a character in reinforcements. You have to show in RAW why, when the stratagem says pick a character, it doesn't mean that character.

The rules do not allow, generally, a model not in play to be affected by anything. There are specific instances where the wording of an effect/stratagem do say that they can be used on models not in play. (See above for those specific instances).

By the way it is you who doesn't understand who has the burden of showing something is being done correctly. This is a permissive rule set that means that unless a rule specifically says that you can do something then you can't. Silence is not permission. Show me a general rule that says that a player can effect a model not in play or show me where the strategy specifically says that you can effect a model not in play.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
The rules do not allow, generally, a model not in play to be affected by anything. There are specific instances where the wording of an effect/stratagem do say that they can be used on models not in play. (See above for those specific instances).

By the way it is you who doesn't understand who has the burden of showing something is being done correctly. This is a permissive rule set that means that unless a rule specifically says that you can do something then you can't. Silence is not permission. Show me a general rule that says that a player can effect a model not in play or show me where the strategy specifically says that you can effect a model not in play.

Hmm, O.K., let's try this again because my post seems to have been ignored.

You say the rules generally do not allow a model not in play to be affected, but there's no RAW for this. It's just your own idea or, at best, RAI argument. "In play" is not a term ever discussed or contemplated by RAW, we're not playing MtG here.

You also go on about a permissive ruleset, but I'm not sure it means what you think it means. The Stratagem grants permission to pick a character. OP chose a character. He thus has and used permission. His burden is met.

You're saying that when a Stratagem says "pick a character" it's really saying "pick a character that is on the battlefield" or "pick a character that is not in reinforcements". That's what you have to prove: that the Stratagem means something other than what it says it means.

Nowhere in the rules does it presume that you are able to do anything to any model not on the table (in play). Otherwise you get absurd situations. The rules are only meant to affect models in your army in play at that time. By your logic the OP could pick a model not on his army list and play the strategy on that model (that means he could effect another game if he wished since it does not say "your character" only "a character". I presume you would agree that would be outside of the rules. There's no real difference between a model not in play in your game and a model not in play in another game neither model is in play and thus outside the scope of the general rules of the game.

Furthermore, there are strategies that have specific wording to allow you to use them on models not in play. This would not be necessary under your reading so why would GW do so? Since GW has set the precedent of using special wording to be able to effect off the board models in some cases it must be presumed that lack of that wording indicates that you can not effect off the board models.

"Choose" is not a specific allowance to effect models off the board. It is merely a short hand way of saying that the player may effect any of his GK character models in play at this time.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
Nowhere in the rules does it presume that you are able to do anything to any model not on the table (in play). Otherwise you get absurd situations. The rules are only meant to affect models in your army in play at that time. By your logic the OP could pick a model not on his army list and play the strategy on that model (that means he could effect another game if he wished since it does not say "your character" only "a character". I presume you would agree that would be outside of the rules. There's no real difference between a model not in play in your game and a model not in play in another game neither model is in play and thus outside the scope of the general rules of the game.

Furthermore, there are strategies that have specific wording to allow you to use them on models not in play. This would not be necessary under your reading so why would GW do so? Since GW has set the precedent of using special wording to be able to effect off the board models in some cases it must be presumed that lack of that wording indicates that you can not effect off the board models.

"Choose" is not a specific allowance to effect models off the board. It is merely a short hand way of saying that the player may effect any of his GK character models in play at this time.

Your entire argument is RAI, which is fine. That's your belief, but it's not RAW. RAW he can do it.

I would also direct your attention to the Avatar of Khaine discussion in this very thread which disposes of the specific wording issue.

"There is nothing written down, therefore it is RaW."

Do you not see a slight contradiction in that logic Audustum?

Interesting, you're claiming that RAW is king but then you say to disregard it. You're just full of contradictions.

BTW you still haven't shown RAW where the rules say that you can effect a model that is not in play. If you can do that then you'd be correct but you can't. You're reading of RAW is absurd due to the implications that arise from it. I've already shown that GW has made explicit references to effecting models not in play in other places of the game. This is not one of those instances that allows you do do so.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
"There is nothing written down, therefore it is RaW."

Do you not see a slight contradiction in that logic Audustum?

I would but that's not my argument in the slightest. You're confusing me with the other guy in this thread. My argument is that it IS written down. Right there on the Stratagem it says pick a character. OP picked a character. RAW is satisfied.

Audustum wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
"There is nothing written down, therefore it is RaW."

Do you not see a slight contradiction in that logic Audustum?

I would but that's not my argument in the slightest. You're confusing me with the other guy in this thread. My argument is that it IS written down. Right there on the Stratagem it says pick a character. OP picked a character. RAW is satisfied.

So if I pick a character in a different game, or one in the future, does that not also satisfy RaW?

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
Interesting, you're claiming that RAW is king but then you say to disregard it. You're just full of contradictions.

BTW you still haven't shown RAW where the rules say that you can effect a model that is not in play. If you can do that then you'd be correct but you can't. You're reading of RAW is absurd due to the implications that arise from it. I've already shown that GW has made explicit references to effecting models not in play in other places of the game. This is not one of those instances that allows you do do so.

I'm, uhh, not disregarding RAW at all. Maybe read the posts twice before responding?

I did show you. The Stratagem says pick a character. He did. RAW is satisfied. If you want to say RAW prohibits that character, even though the Stratagem only says pick a character, you gotta show some RAW to modify the Stratagem 'standard' RAW.

Arguing the Murder Sword isn't arguing RAW. It's a RAI argument that if GW meant for the Stratagem to Target things in reinforcements they would have said so like they did with the Murder Sword. See the Avatar of Khaine discussion. GW did the same thing then made the equivalent ruling of letting the Stratagem target characters in reinforcements.

So it's not a RAW argument and it's not even a good RAI one cause GW did the exact opposite last time we had an analogous situation.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Audustum wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
"There is nothing written down, therefore it is RaW."

Do you not see a slight contradiction in that logic Audustum?

I would but that's not my argument in the slightest. You're confusing me with the other guy in this thread. My argument is that it IS written down. Right there on the Stratagem it says pick a character. OP picked a character. RAW is satisfied.

So if I pick a character in a different game, or one in the future, does that not also satisfy RaW?

I can't flip through the book to see if a general rule negates it but it satisfies the Stratagem fine. Your future opponent might not agree to let you get the buff in your future game though, but that's future you's problem.

EDIT: Actually, doesn't the Stratagem say until end of turn? And turns are defined in the main rules? So even if you did throw the Stratagem on a different game or a future game the target would only have it for your turn. So even though you could target that character the Stratagem would likely have no useful effect because that character doesn't exist in your turn (or your turn will be over before the character ever gets fielded).

Choose is not permission to use something in a way the is disallowed by the general rules. There is no rule that says that you can choose to do anything to a model that is not in play. The only rule that I can think of that allows you to choose a model that is out of play once the game begins is the reinforcement/reserves rules that allow you to choose which units you want to bring onto the board and when.

Based on your blind reading of RAW I can do the following- i pick one of my units to move then I can move all of your units and then move all of my units that I want to move.
"Start your movement phase by picking one of your units ....You can then pick another unit to move, until you have moved as many of your units that you wish."
I'm following RAW because I moved one of my units first then I picked other units and moved them and concluded by moving all of my units that I wished to move.

There is more to the rules than RAW. The game requires that all participants use at least a modicum of common sense in interpreting the rules. Your focusing on 1 word rather than the common understanding of how the game is played is just being contrary for no reason..

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
Choose is not permission to use something in a way the is disallowed by the general rules. There is no rule that says that you can choose to do anything to a model that is not in play. The only rule that I can think of that allows you to choose a model that is out of play once the game begins is the reinforcement/reserves rules that allow you to choose which units you want to bring onto the board and when.

Based on your blind reading of RAW I can do the following- i pick one of my units to move then I can move all of your units and then move all of my units that I want to move.
"Start your movement phase by picking one of your units ....You can then pick another unit to move, until you have moved as many of your units that you wish."
I'm following RAW because I moved one of my units first then I picked other units and moved them and concluded by moving all of my units that I wished to move.

There is more to the rules than RAW. The game requires that all participants use at least a modicum of common sense in interpreting the rules. Your focusing on 1 word rather than the common understanding of how the game is played is just being contrary for no reason..

This is all RAI or HIWPI. You're missing a RAW discussion entirely and the very first sentence of your post is what you're failing to support and constitutes the underpinning of your entire RAW argument.

Once we're agreed on RAW we can talk about RAI but we need an underlying belief of RAW first.

Literal reading of a rule is not the same as RAW when you understand that then you can be a reasonable person to game with. If you want to take each rule literally then the game breaks. If you bothered to read my second paragraph you'd see that you and your opponent can each move all the models on the board for each of your movement phases as long as the first unit selected is your own. There are no other requirements in the movement rules. So, you're telling me that your OK with that?

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
Literal reading of a rule is not the same as RAW when you understand that then you can be a reasonable person to game with. If you want to take each rule literally then the game breaks. If you bothered to read my second paragraph you'd see that you and your opponent can each move all the models on the board for each of your movement phases as long as the first unit selected is your own. There are no other requirements in the movement rules. So, you're telling me that your OK with that?

You're still doing it. RAW is taking each rule as it is written for only it's written value. Hence why we call it RAW.

I did read your second paragraph and it's still you trying to make a RAI argument. You're trying to conflate basic rules of the English language with inventing whole cloth additions to a clear Stratagem, which is apples to oranges. Look, we get it, you think RAW is unworkable, that's a completely valid point of view to take and I'm happy to discuss RAI, but you've got to take it one step at a time first and first we have to ascertain RAW.

RAW here is clear. Pick a character. He picked a character.

It's clear that we're not going to agree as to what Choose means in this sentence.
/thread for me.