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.

Hello all! So the combat drugs rule says that all units in your army with them will benefit from the effect, but that the effects are not cumulative. My question - that I couldn't find an answer to in the codex or the FAQ - is how does this apply to splintermind (unit starts the game with a bonus pain token).

The example I am specifically thinking of is having an archon with drugs starting by himself as well as a unit of Wyches starting by themselves. The non cumulative part of the rule makes sense for some of the drug results - like +1WS or +1A - where if the archon joined the Wyches then they would still only get a total of +1WS/+1A.

However, how would this work if splintermind was rolled and both the archon and the Wyches received their bonus pain token only to then join up on the first turn? Would a pain token be lost because drug results cannot be cumulative or would the unit have two pain tokens? I am leaning towards the second, but the first seems to be closer to how the rule is written.

edit: iOs thinks dark eldar use paint tokens.

Based on the rules I would say the unit would have 2 Tokens. Prior to Deployment you roll for the drug - this gives the unti of Wyches a Token and gives the Archon a Token, When you deploy you deploy the Wyches, and then deploy the Archon in coherency with the Wyches. Since the unit is joined by an IC who has a Pain token, the Sharing the Pain rule kicks in. If GW was to make a ruling that an IC could join a unit prior to deployment, then the unit as a whole would only get 1 Token.

 Happyjew wrote:
If GW was to make a ruling that an IC could join a unit prior to deployment, then the unit as a whole would only get 1 Token.

That's already explicitly allowed, as demonstrated in the quote below.

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:
For instance, Asdraebel Vect's Dias of Destruction stipulates that it must begin the game with vect and 9 other models embarked. Since it stipulates "Begin the game with..", joining them AFTER deployment would be in violation of this rule.

The BRB, pg 39 says, An Independent Character can begin the game already with a unit, either by being deployed in unit coherency with it or, if the unit is in reserve, by informing your opponent of which unit it has joined.

Both of these support units starting the game already attached to a unit, simply by explaining your unit and reserves organization to your opponent prior to deployment. You are also required to fully explain your reserves organization to your opponent prior to deployment. This means reserves are established prior to deployment, so at the very least, any ICs held in reserve with a unit would be considered a part of that unit at the time combat drugs is rolled, even if the deployed units thing were debatable.

EDIT: One other thing I'd like to mention here. If combat drugs were resolved on a model by model basis, that would cause lots of raised eyebrows when my unit of 10 wyches starts the game with 5 pain tokens.

The implication here is that by joining an IC that doesn't have combat drugs to a unit that does prior to the rolls for them, the IC could potentially benefit from the combat drugs based on the wording in the rules. RAI? Almost definitely not, but it is RAW.

The same would be true of an IC with combat drugs joining a unit that had them. I suspect that it is written this way because in previous editions, ICs didn't get the benefit of "being a normal member of the unit for all rules purposes" when they joined the unit. Further, if they did it model-by-model instead of wording it the way they did, things like the multiple pain tokens could have happened. Either way, the wording of 6th ed rules, combined with the wording of the DE codex makes this possible when it likely was never meant to be so.


EDIT: And before anyone gets the bright idea that deployment and/or rolls for drugs happens before the game starts, that simply doesn't work. If that were the case, I wouldn't have to follow any rules whatsoever for combat drugs, because it's happening "before the game" and therefore not subject to the rules of the game. Yes, this is a preposterous statement, just as is saying that any game mechanics occur outside of the game.

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
If GW was to make a ruling that an IC could join a unit prior to deployment, then the unit as a whole would only get 1 Token.

That's already explicitly allowed, as demonstrated in the quote below.

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:
The BRB, pg 39 says, An Independent Character can begin the game already with a unit, either by being deployed in unit coherency with it or, if the unit is in reserve, by informing your opponent of which unit it has joined.

No, that rule explicitly says that you join at deployment, and not before. You cannot be deployed in coherency prior to deployment and you cannot declare reserves before deployment.

Also, that proves that deployment is before the beginning of the game. Read the entire sentence instead of just the bolded part.

rigeld2 wrote:

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
If GW was to make a ruling that an IC could join a unit prior to deployment, then the unit as a whole would only get 1 Token.

That's already explicitly allowed, as demonstrated in the quote below.

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:
The BRB, pg 39 says, An Independent Character can begin the game already with a unit, either by being deployed in unit coherency with it or, if the unit is in reserve, by informing your opponent of which unit it has joined.

No, that rule explicitly says that you join at deployment, and not before.

One half of it does, but it also states that it's at the beginning of the game. For both of these things to be true, they have to be simultaneous occurrences. In instances where you have multiple things happen at once, the controlling player chooses the order in which they occur.

rigeld2 wrote:

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:
The BRB, pg 39 says, An Independent Character can begin the game already with a unit, either by being deployed in unit coherency with it or, if the unit is in reserve, by informing your opponent of which unit it has joined.

you cannot declare reserves before deployment.

The Reserves rules specifically outline that you HAVE TO declare and outline your reserves organization to your opponent before deploying.


The "Beginning of the game" must occur prior to all other things for any rules to have an effect. If the game has not begun, then there are no rules to follow at all. So, that being the case, the wording is indeed ambiguous, and arguments can be made for either side.


EDIT: formatting

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:

An Independent Character can begin the game already with a unit, either by being deployed in unit coherency with it or, if the unit is in reserve, by informing your opponent of which unit it has joined.

One half of it does, but it also states that it's at the beginning of the game. For both of these things to be true, they have to be simultaneous occurrences. In instances where you have multiple things happen at once, the controlling player chooses the order in which they occur.

What part of the quoted sentence says that it's at the beginning of the game? You can start the beginning already with a unit by doing something beforehand. That does not mean that this is done at the beginning of the game.

The Reserves rules specifically outline that you HAVE TO declare and outline your reserves organization to your opponent before deploying.

Actual rules page 124 wrote:When deploying their armies, players can choose not to deploy up to half of their units (rounding up) keeping them as Reserves to arrive later.

No, they don't. They actually say "when deploying" and not "have to declare before deploying".

The "Beginning of the game" must occur prior to all other things for any rules to have an effect. If the game has not begun, then there are no rules to follow at all. So, that being the case, the wording is indeed ambiguous, and arguments can be made for either side.

Not true. "The game" is the set of 5+ turns that happens after preparing for the battle. This is in the rules by the way, I'm not making it up.
Page 118 begins the "Fighting a Battle" rules and "Game Length" is explained on 122. Or is deployment one of the turns of the game?

rigeld2 wrote:

The "Beginning of the game" must occur prior to all other things for any rules to have an effect. If the game has not begun, then there are no rules to follow at all. So, that being the case, the wording is indeed ambiguous, and arguments can be made for either side.

Not true. "The game" is the set of 5+ turns that happens after preparing for the battle. This is in the rules by the way, I'm not making it up.
Page 118 begins the "Fighting a Battle" rules and "Game Length" is explained on 122. Or is deployment one of the turns of the game?

Deployment is part of the game. If it weren't, then by definition of a "game", there wouldn't be rules stipulating how it is done. There are also rules stipulating how to set up the battle before deployment. All of that is part of "the game". If it isn't, then there is no need to follow any rules that occur or effect behavior, army structure, organization, etc prior to deployment, as those aren't part of "the game" by your definition, and therefore aren't subject to rules.

So your definition of "game" differs from GWs.
That's unfortunate for your interpretation if the rules - I've provided quotes showing why your interpretation isn't correct.

Do you have rules supporting your statements?

rigeld2 wrote:
So your definition of "game" differs from GWs.
That's unfortunate for your interpretation if the rules - I've provided quotes showing why your interpretation isn't correct.

That's simply not true. You provided the point in the book that describes game turns. Turns begin after several other parts of the game, as outlined in the BRB. GW does not define the term "game", but the book I am using is written in English. As such, all words not specifically defined otherwise must be used as indicated in the language they're written in. Failure to understand this very simple concept would cause a mass deconstruction of the entire rules set, as I could simply say that GW doesn't define every word in their repertoire, and therefore doesn't mean whatever it means in the language it was written in.

Please stop making empty arguments. All the rules for the game are a part of the game, as defined by the language we're currently debating in, unless otherwise specifically defined otherwise within the text of the BRB, which it is not. If you are going to posit that it does, quote the specific line that does so, or come up with a better position from which to continue this debate.

There are many references to support the term 'game' to mean turn 1 onwards.

Page xvii. First line: 'With the board set, the players begin their GAME.' (edit: Note that this immediately follows the section on deployment.)

Page 121. Under 'Deployment' there are mentions of 'Once the game begins' and 'After the game begins.' (Have a good read of this section. If the game has already begin, then some of these rules become contradictory.)

Page 122. 'Game Length' A game, however many turns it is, would begin from 1 wouldn't it?

All references that include terrain set up and deployment instead use the term 'Battle' (e.g. page xiv, page 118)

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
So your definition of "game" differs from GWs.
That's unfortunate for your interpretation if the rules - I've provided quotes showing why your interpretation isn't correct.

That's simply not true. You provided the point in the book that describes game turns. Turns begin after several other parts of the game, as outlined in the BRB. GW does not define the term "game", but the book I am using is written in English. As such, all words not specifically defined otherwise must be used as indicated in the language they're written in. Failure to understand this very simple concept would cause a mass deconstruction of the entire rules set, as I could simply say that GW doesn't define every word in their repertoire, and therefore doesn't mean whatever it means in the language it was written in.

Please stop making empty arguments. All the rules for the game are a part of the game, as defined by the language we're currently debating in, unless otherwise specifically defined otherwise within the text of the BRB, which it is not. If you are going to posit that it does, quote the specific line that does so, or come up with a better position from which to continue this debate.

So the game length rules don't define the length of the game?
What do they define then? And things that happen before the first game turn - if they're before the game, but part of the game... I'm confused. Could you explain?

I've cited why I make these statements. You've made unfounded assumptions about what the rules say.

rigeld2 wrote:

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
So your definition of "game" differs from GWs.
That's unfortunate for your interpretation if the rules - I've provided quotes showing why your interpretation isn't correct.

That's simply not true. You provided the point in the book that describes game turns. Turns begin after several other parts of the game, as outlined in the BRB. GW does not define the term "game", but the book I am using is written in English. As such, all words not specifically defined otherwise must be used as indicated in the language they're written in. Failure to understand this very simple concept would cause a mass deconstruction of the entire rules set, as I could simply say that GW doesn't define every word in their repertoire, and therefore doesn't mean whatever it means in the language it was written in.

Please stop making empty arguments. All the rules for the game are a part of the game, as defined by the language we're currently debating in, unless otherwise specifically defined otherwise within the text of the BRB, which it is not. If you are going to posit that it does, quote the specific line that does so, or come up with a better position from which to continue this debate.

So the game length rules don't define the length of the game?
What do they define then? And things that happen before the first game turn - if they're before the game, but part of the game... I'm confused. Could you explain?

I've cited why I make these statements. You've made unfounded assumptions about what the rules say.

Get unconfused then. The game begins when you start following rules for the game.

And the game length rules only define when the game ends, NOT when it begins.

@ Dra'al Nacht : Implied rules are not rules. RAW, they don't define the beginning of the game, therefore we have to use English to define what the game is. This would mean that the "game" begins as soon as we begin following contrived rules for how to play it and/or organize it.

MMm. Dra' clearly cited what GW defines as beginning of the game, and we should utilise this when deciphering rules based around it.

Trying to define 'Start of the game' when relating to 40k via English dictionary is impossible. 'Beginning' is a very subjective word.

game
/gām/
Noun
A form of play or sport, esp. a competitive one played according to rules and decided by skill, strength, or luck.

While a game is defined by having rules, the definition of 'game' in itself is not enough to go on.

be·gin·ning
/biˈginiNG/
Noun
The point in time or space at which something starts.

When does it start? when I decide to play? When I buy models? When I paint models?

An example then of how the beginning doesnt always mean when you start following rules;

starting line
n. Sports
The point or line at which a race begins.

In the example above, participants are subject to rules before the starting line, but it is at this point a race is defined to 'begin'

There is really no deffinition avaliable to you where 'Start of the game' refers to one set point

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:
Get unconfused then. The game begins when you start following rules for the game.

Again, GW has defined the "game" as the 5+ turns that you have to capture objectives/destroy units.
Your definition of "game" is irrelevant.

And the game length rules only define when the game ends, NOT when it begins.

By defining an end they also define a beginning - by calling it the "Game Length". Or do you not follow any of the rules for determining winner because the game is over?

@ Dra'al Nacht : Implied rules are not rules. RAW, they don't define the beginning of the game, therefore we have to use English to define what the game is. This would mean that the "game" begins as soon as we begin following contrived rules for how to play it and/or organize it.

No, the battle does. The Game starts on turn 1.