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.

At the local gaming club we normally split into teams i was playing tua and allied with choas we chose to roll on the straigic traits in the brb for tau s warlord trait and rolled the stealth ruins which brougth up the disscusion of weath it applied to choas as its an army wide buff. We confirmed that they are both the same army . Then we got onto the allies of convences restrictions . And the bit thats causing the problem is the example that you cannot beninfit from warlord traits

i beleave this is refering to warlord traits that say affects friendly models ect the actual rules are i treat a.o.c as enemy models (hence the example cannot benifit from warlord traits affecting friendly models ) and i can not charge shoot, attack in close combat or target with physic powers .

Its not a flat ban on warlord traits beacuse i can take a trait that benifits my ally without breaking any rules . Which is strategic genuis +1 to seize the initiative both parts of my army benifit from this and i have broken no rules. It is also debatable as what a benifit is

As far as i can see it dosnt matter that my ally is treated as an enemy for the +1 to seize the initivate and i havnt charged shot ect . This is the same for all the strategic traits as they are army wide and break no rules , the example of not befiting from warlord traits is simple refering to a.o.c being treated as enemys and the warlord traits that say friendly models.

If you treat the example as a rule which i dont beleave it is it also opens up a whole can of worms with the warlord traits that affect objective cards ,if i draw an extra card because of a trait does that mean my allies cannot get it . Also what about re rolls on the d3 score if both tua and choas helped get it techinicly its benifiting my allies so can i use it . This also brings up the +1 on +1 to seize the initivate can i use it if i use the example as a rule. ?

Does anybody know if there is a restiction that states warlord traits cannot be used on enemy models .apart from the example which could simple be refering to traits that target freindlys

Sorry for the bad spelling will correct them tommrow
Thanks for any help

Check Alliance levels in the BRB. It specifically says AoC (and worse) do not benefit from Warlord traits.

Technically there are no specific rules that cover teaming up for a 2v2 game or whatever. RAW you would have to treat each side as a single army, organised into Detachments (unless you were playing Unbound) with one detachment nominated as the Primary Detachment which has the Warlord. You would follow the Ally Matrix in all cases, and you would effectively have two people controlling one single army.

Now that's not always entirely practical for the friendly weekend game when you have 4 players but only one table (because it massively benefits Imperial players if they were to 'teamup' against Xenos/Chaos players). The way we do it at our FLGS is to effectively make each player on a team treat their team-mates as an Ally of Convenience regardless of what the Ally Matrix says. This means no sharing of buffs, psychic powers, Warlord Traits etc. Each player gets a Warlord (so you would have 2 Warlords on each side), with Slay the Warlord handed for any Warlord kills as normal. Psychic Dice generated from units are restricted to the player that owns the unit, with the random pool shared between the players as they see fit. Deny Dice on the other hand are shared amongst the entire team, including the ones generated from units.

Any Warlord Traits that would benefit the entire team (such as re-rolling Seize the Initiative, or being able to generate extra Tactical Objectives) are left as is to benefit the entire team.

Thats sounds like a gd solution your club has thank you .im not trying to be that guy as i dont mind playing it either way .

Its more about pointing out that the rule causes conflict if you use the example as a rule becuase of the army wide buffs that can benifit both sides of a a.o.c army such as objective card buffs that would have to be house ruled

Happy jew . My point is that the wording on the allies chart is just an example for not sharing traits .

Its Not the actual rule it even states that its just an example

For instances its just as valid for me to say that the example is covering warlord traits that target friendly models because the rules is treat a.o.c as enemys . As it is for you to say its a blanket ban .Because this "example can cause conflict in the rules that i have pointed out above means less weight has to be given to the "example"

Which means that looking at raw you have to go though the steps

1. Does my warlord trait state that i can only target friendly models ... no
2. Am i charging them ...no
3. Am i shooting them ...no
4. Am i attacking them in close combat ...no
5. Am i targeting them with psyhic powers ...no

I have not broken any of the rules so the strategic traits that affect the entire army do just that

The example is just an example and actualy causes more conflicts than following raw

I invite anybody thats isnt going to insist that an example is a rule. Or can prove that an example is a rule and provide solutions to the problems it creates .

To find fault with the above steps in following RAW as i cant find a rule where because your treated as an enemy you dont get the "benifit" from the a trait

Thank you for the long read

ian wrote:
Thats sounds like a gd solution your club has thank you .im not trying to be that guy as i dont mind playing it either way .

Its more about pointing out that the rule causes conflict if you use the example as a rule becuase of the army wide buffs that can benifit both sides of a a.o.c army such as objective card buffs that would have to be house ruled

Happy jew . My point is that the wording on the allies chart is just an example for not sharing traits .

Its Not the actual rule it even states that its just an example

So an example cannot be used as an actual rule? I do not buy that. If it was not a valid example of the rule than it could not be listed as an example. Therefore, the example clarifies the rule and can be used as that standard.

Of course, the Draft FAQ screws up this concept with its judgement on Battle Brothers and Transports in Deployment, but that's a whole different discussion right there.

ian wrote:
For instances its just as valid for me to say that the example is covering warlord traits that target friendly models because the rules is treat a.o.c as enemys . As it is for you to say its a blanket ban .Because this "example can cause conflict in the rules that i have pointed out above means less weight has to be given to the "example"

Which means that looking at raw you have to go though the steps

1. Does my warlord trait state that i can only target friendly models ... no
2. Am i charging them ...no
3. Am i shooting them ...no
4. Am i attacking them in close combat ...no
5. Am i targeting them with psyhic powers ...no

I have not broken any of the rules so the strategic traits that affect the entire army do just that

The example is just an example and actualy causes more conflicts than following raw

I invite anybody thats isnt going to insist that an example is a rule. Or can prove that an example is a rule and provide solutions to the problems it creates .

To find fault with the above steps in following RAW as i cant find a rule where because your treated as an enemy you dont get the "benifit" from the a trait

Thank you for the long read

I think you are also missing the point that Warlord Traits are not allowed to affect your opponent's models by default, which are "enemy units". If they cannot affect your opponent's models, then they cannot affect models that are AOC to your Warlord.

There are some specific Traits which are stated as affecting "enemy units", but I don't think you want to use them against your own units. Most of the rest either do not affect models directly (Tactical Traits), only affect the Warlord and/or the unit he is joined to, or specifically state affecting Friendly models. Aside from Codex Traits, that leaves the Strategic Traits as the only ones not being that specific.

But again, the problem is that the Warlord considers them enemy units he cannot Shoot, Charge, Attack in close combat, or target with Psychic Powers, not units of his army.

Thank you you have brought up some good points.

Im not saying that the example is wrong at all. It works for most warlord traits. Hoever its not a hard rule because ive given an example thats just as valid as a blanket ban.
So at best it comes down to an interptation meaning both of our examples are correct .

What happens if you use the example given as a rule on the +1 to seizing? . Choas is getting a benifit from from a warlord does that mean i cannot use that warlord trait.
The Strategic traits are the easyist ones to solve as you could just say your not allowed to use the +1 to seize or the
-1 to reseves becuase the a.o.c is benifiting from them

This means you have to decide what a counts as a benifit and what does not .

There is also the trait where you draw an extra objective card can the a.o.c help to achive it . And the reroll on the d3 is it allowed if both armys help .Now you could work out and not allow the trait to have an effect but this involes alot of book keeping .

So with the example you first have to interperate its meaning . Then you have to interperate the meaning of beninfit? Is it only direct beinifits or indirect beninfits .
Technicaly any warlord trait that helps to win the game is a benifit to the a.o.c

I agree at first the example looks air tight but i hope i given enough reasons now to prove that it is woolly

You have brought up a good point about warlord traits that negitively effect enemys units i didnt relise that there where any.

Which would mean that by default warlord traits are allowed to target enemy models

This really only effects Strategic traits because they affect the whole army .

By following raw you do not break any rules you just follow the steps . Just because it dosnt match the example dosnt mean that its not valid

A ford focus is a example of a car . That dosnt mean a honda civic is not also an example of a car . They are both examples of cars but they followed diffrent steps to being made .

Its the same with the rule. ive followed the steps to apply my warlord trait just because my example would be a diffrent example of how to apply a warlord trait dosnt mean that it couldnt also be a valid example .

I still maitain raw dosnt stop you using certain traits on a.o.c

Thank you

ian wrote:
Im not saying that the example is wrong at all. It works for most warlord traits. Hoever its not a hard rule because ive given an example thats just as valid as a blanket ban.
So at best it comes down to an interptation meaning both of our examples are correct .

I'm sorry, but where are we to distinguish between a "hard rule" and "soft rule"? Either an example is valid or it is not. The rulebook provides the example so it is valid. So, the example is helping us to properly define the rule.

A rule that specifically targets friendly models/units would be specific enough that such a clarification is not needed, any more than one that specifically targets enemy models/units.

ian wrote:
What happens if you use the example given as a rule on the +1 to seizing? . Choas is getting a benifit from from a warlord does that mean i cannot use that warlord trait.
The Strategic traits are the easyist ones to solve as you could just say your not allowed to use the +1 to seize or the
-1 to reseves becuase the a.o.c is benifiting from them

This means you have to decide what a counts as a benifit and what does not .

There is also the trait where you draw an extra objective card can the a.o.c help to achive it . And the reroll on the d3 is it allowed if both armys help .Now you could work out and not allow the trait to have an effect but this involes alot of book keeping .

So with the example you first have to interperate its meaning . Then you have to interperate the meaning of beninfit? Is it only direct beinifits or indirect beninfits .
Technicaly any warlord trait that helps to win the game is a benifit to the a.o.c

Tactical Traits help you, the player, not the models or units.

I think a lot of the confusion you are having is that you are combining a lot of different concepts in to one. Just because YOU, the player, are benefiting does not mean that your army, detachments, units, or models benefit. When "you can discard up to 2 Active Tactical Objectives at the end of your turn instead of only 1", it is benefitting you the player. When "Friendly units within 12" of the Warlord can use his Leadership rather than their own", we are not talking about you, the player, we are talking about the Warlord model and the units around him.

ian wrote:
I agree at first the example looks air tight but i hope i given enough reasons now to prove that it is woolly

You have brought up a good point about warlord traits that negitively effect enemys units i didnt relise that there where any.

Which would mean that by default warlord traits are allowed to target enemy models

That would be an incorrect conclusion. Those Warlord Traits that are allowed to target enemy models specifically state as such, "Enemy units within 12" of the Warlord must use their lowest Leadership value, not the highest", for one example.

There are many such Special Rules which are defined as only affecting enemy units whereas normally only the models which possess the Special Rule can benefit from them.

ian wrote:
This really only effects Strategic traits because they affect the whole army .

By following raw you do not break any rules you just follow the steps . Just because it dosnt match the example dosnt mean that its not valid

A ford focus is a example of a car . That dosnt mean a honda civic is not also an example of a car . They are both examples of cars but they followed diffrent steps to being made .

Its the same with the rule. ive followed the steps to apply my warlord trait just because my example would be a diffrent example of how to apply a warlord trait dosnt mean that it couldnt also be a valid example .

I still maitain raw dosnt stop you using certain traits on a.o.c

That is a poor example, as it is defining a classification of an object, not the ramifications of an association.

The question really more is in keeping with, "Does use of 'your units' bypass the normal standard of applying only to friendly units or the Warlord alone?" The example provided in Allies of Convenience suggests the answer is "no" as a default, but that could also be referring to the same standards in Special Rules as well.

So are you saying thats its not valid to say that the example could be refering to enemy models.

The example could simple be a warlord trait thats affects friendly models not working because a.o.c treats them as enemys
That is a valid example its diffrent to yours but is still valid

Its the fact that its an example and not a rule is my point .

Im not sure why the example is being taken as fact .When the above statment also fits the example fine.

The whole dicussion really hinges on the example.
If we take that example out of the question for a moment . Is there any rule that stops warlord traits from effecting enemy models

The traits i am refering to just state that it effects the entire army . I personaly fail to see what actual rule states that i cant use it on aoc. Which is why i am saying raw its ok

ian wrote:
The whole dicussion really hinges on the example.
If we take that example out of the question for a moment . Is there any rule that stops warlord traits from effecting enemy models

The traits affecting units specifying friendly or enemy units, for one. Warlord traits saying friendly units wouldn't affect enemy units. Those are the ones in the Command Traits section. Tactical traits in the main book aren't dealing with units except for "The Warlord or his unit" in one. Personal traits are dealing with the Warlord himself.

ian wrote:
The traits i am refering to just state that it effects the entire army . I personaly fail to see what actual rule states that i cant use it on aoc. Which is why i am saying raw its ok

What you're ignoring here is that, as was pointed out before, the rules aren't set for dealing with 2 player vs 2 player games. If you're playing this way, you're going to have to establish house rules anyway as to whether each player has his own warlord, or if there's only one warlord per side. If you're having only one warlord per side, you can also easily establish a house rule that everyone on the same side is affected by a warlord trait that affects "friendly" units or doesn't mess with your partner if it says "enemy" units regardless of normal ally level between the two armies.

Examples in the rulebook provide a situation in which you are applying the rule. They provide precedence on how to interact with the rule. To dismiss this case law as nothing more than a side note, is to ignore the point of it being presented in the first place.

In most cases, the Warlord Traits will not benefit any AOC because they only apply to the Player, the Warlord, a unit he has joined, or the friendly units around him. For the rest, most of those are providing enemy units with an affliction you do not want on units you control.

The final question lies in what I stated before, and is that "your units" and "all models in your army" is sufficient contradiction from normal rules to include units your Warlord considers "enemies" with his Trait effects?

Without providing a proper evidence of contradiction, then it will not propagate by default.

Thats was just our situation im quite happy to have this as just one player .

Strategic traits do not specifiy friendly or enemy they use the terms Entire army ,your units , your army , you can re-roll reserve rolls.

So thats why im saying they affect a.o.c as they do not specifiy any requiments other than them being in your army which a.o.c are


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Im not dismising it im simple stating that example is refering to warlord traits that require a friendly model nothing more . And to just ignore it for the purose of clarifing if theres a rule stoping enemys from the effects of warlord traits


Automatically Appended Next Post:
My case is
the example is refering to the intractions between warlord traits that affect friendly models not affecting a.o.c as they are treated as enemys

This interpration means that as long as the warlord trait dosnt contradict the rules that a.o.c are treat as enemys and statisfys the other requirments not targeting the model ect . Then the Strategic traits can be used .

As far as i can see i can find no evidence of any rules forbidding warlord traits from effecting enemy units based on the comment above there an instances where warlord traits do effect enemies. So i use raw and follow the steps above .

Why is the burdon of proof on me to find a rule that allows me to do it . If thats was the case i would need to find a rule that allows me to look at my models (extereme example ) because the rule book dosnt give me permision to do that .
The burdon of proof is in finding a rule that dosnt allow warlord traits to effect enemy models

ian wrote:

The burdon of proof is in finding a rule that dosnt allow warlord traits to effect enemy models

Armies of Convenience on page 127:states:
"Cannot benefit from the Warlord Trait of an Allies of Convenience Warlord". There's your burden of proof right there. By having this rule, it shifts the burden of proof back to the Warlord traits to say they can ignore it. This is why you have to have specific permission for a Warlord trait to affect an ally of convenience unit, or a warlord trait that does not affect units.

Its already been estabilshed that, that statement is not a rule its an Example. which can also simply be refering to warlord traits that effect friendly models not affecting a.o.c as they are treated as enemys.

This is the problem because people seem to be ignoring the fact that that statement is just an example and even states that in the brb
The last question is like Charistoph said
The final question lies in what I stated before, and is that "your units" and "all models in your army" is sufficient contradiction from normal rules to include units your Warlord considers "enemies" with his Trait effects? 

Without providing a proper evidence of contradiction, then it will not propagate by default.

Im saying that the burden of proof is not on finding a rule that says you are allowed.
There are already traits that are allowed to effect enemy models

its on finding a rule that states that warlord traits are not allowed to effect enemys models as that would be somthing that would stop raw from working .


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The way i see it is first you have to agree on what the example means which can go either way .

This seems to be a big sticking point as most people feel the rule means no sharing at all.
Then based on your decision

Its warlord traits arnt allowed to be shared with a.o.c

Or check the warlord trait restictions against the a.o.c rules if they dont conflict then its fine

If there is a rule forbiding warlord traits affecting enemys then i would agree they dont work . How ever i cannot find that rule and its not up to me to find a rule allowing it i just have to make sure i dont break any rules

ian wrote:
Its already been estabilshed that, that statement is not a rule its an Example. which can also simply be refering to warlord traits that effect friendly models not affecting a.o.c as they are treated as enemys.

This is the problem because people seem to be ignoring the fact that that statement is just an example and even states that in the brb

Yes, it's an example. It's an explicit example, though, something they state flat out as a fact. Their list of examples are things that come out from the rule at the beginning of the Allies of Convenience section. The examples listed only means that there may be things other than those listed that apply. It does not mean you get to ignore what they state as an effect for allies of convenience. Even as example, when they say the units don't get to benefit from an AoC Warlord's warlord traits, that is still a statement of prohibition that you must accept. You do not get to ignore something they state just because you don't like it.

The way i see it is first you have to agree on what the example means which can go either way .

The example means what it states. You accept it or you don't, but the statement itself is clear; there's no "go either way" on what it says.

ian wrote:
Its already been estabilshed that, that statement is not a rule its an Example. which can also simply be refering to warlord traits that effect friendly models not affecting a.o.c as they are treated as enemys.

I'm sorry, but that does not fly. This has not been established, it is only something that you are not allowing in to the consideration. Examples provided by the rulebook are precedence, i.e. case law on how to interpret the use of the rule. Do not ignore this out of hand.

ian wrote:
Im saying that the burden of proof is not on finding a rule that says you are allowed.
There are already traits that are allowed to effect enemy models

And each of those on enemy units provide the contradiction I am noting. Does those terms I noted provide sufficient contradiction to counter the AOC consideration.

Also consider this, outside of the Allies rules, the rules consider the interaction between two models as either "friendly units of the same Faction" and "enemy units of the other player's army". Sadly, it is not explicitly stated as such, it is just how it is written. As such, all interactions start from one of these two perspectives, including Warlord Traits.

Ive already given an example of how you could interprate that example .

The rule is a.o.c treat each other as enemy units that cannot be charged shot attacked in close combat or targeted with psychic powers . It then gives examples of how the rule effects units

Ie because most warlord traits effect friendly models then this example could simple be showing that warlord traits that effect friendly models dont work on a.o.c. the other examples are also based around the fact that models are treated as enemey ie not allowed within one inch . Are effected by attacks that effect enemys .

To say that the warlord trait example isnt just refering to the intractions based on a.o.c being an enemy is just an opinon its not a fact . As the example dosnt explain the situtation in which its being used . It is however in the context of how enemy units interact when in the same army

Im not trying to say how people should interparate the example im trying to make it clear that it dosnt mean just one thing ie flat ban it could mean friendly warlord traits dont work as your enemys .

So it comes down to what each person thinks rather than a clear rule on how to read the example

And after that part there is no rule against warlord traits working on enemys

As it stands i hope we can agree that the example can be interprated at least 2 ways

And if following that it isnt a flat ban then you have to follow raw

I think ive made my case as best as i can following raw And complety relise that its fine to interprate the example as you see fit



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Charistoph wrote:

ian wrote:
Its already been estabilshed that, that statement is not a rule its an Example. which can also simply be refering to warlord traits that effect friendly models not affecting a.o.c as they are treated as enemys.

I'm sorry, but that does not fly. This has not been established, it is only something that you are not allowing in to the consideration. Examples provided by the rulebook are precedence, i.e. case law on how to interpret the use of the rule. Do not ignore this out of .

Could you please explain why my explaination of the example couldnt be correct. Because if its a valid explanation then that means the example has 2 ways it can be interprated meaning it comes down how you want to read it and then is not a fact and is open to debate


Automatically Appended Next Post:
My main point is proving that i had a valid reason to question the example given .

Going futher into this is like going down the rabbit hole ie treating a model as an enemy dosnt mean the model is an enemy as it is still part of my army . But if i go from the perspective you sugested that
enemy units of the other players army perspective. that means i can go unbound with the a.o.c and still have a bound army as from that perspective the a.o.c is the other players . A very crude example but im tired and really looking at raw from a simple standing .

ian wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

ian wrote:
Its already been estabilshed that, that statement is not a rule its an Example. which can also simply be refering to warlord traits that effect friendly models not affecting a.o.c as they are treated as enemys.

I'm sorry, but that does not fly. This has not been established, it is only something that you are not allowing in to the consideration. Examples provided by the rulebook are precedence, i.e. case law on how to interpret the use of the rule. Do not ignore this out of .

Could you please explain why my explaination of the example couldnt be correct. Because if its a valid explanation then that means the example has 2 ways it can be interprated meaning it comes down how you want to read it and then is not a fact and is open to debate

Permission for a unit to provide a benefit to an enemy model is not included in the default situations of things.

This game operates under the status of you do what you are allowed to do. The concept of "well it doesn't say I can't" does not fly as you do not have permission to do certain things in the first place. This is called a permissive ruleset.

As I said, the game generally operates under several assumptions as you are working. Do you have permission to for Special Rules from a model or unit to affect ones it considers enemies, i.e. your opponents?

The answer is, "Yes, when the Rule itself specifically states as such". For example, an IC cannot join your opponent's unit (an enemy unit), so it cannot join a unit in your army that is an Ally of Convenience or worse, because it is an enemy.

From General Principles:

Friendly and Enemy Models
All models on the same side are friendly models. Models controlled by the opposing side are enemy models. If an opponent takes control of one of your models or units during play, it becomes an enemy model or unit for as long as it is under your opponent’s command. If you take control of one of your opponent’s models or units, it is friendly for as long as it is under your command.

So far as the Warlord is concerned, that is your opponent's model that he cannot Shoot, Charge, etc.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ian wrote:
My main point is proving that i had a valid reason to question the example given .

Going futher into this is like going down the rabbit hole ie treating a model as an enemy dosnt mean the model is an enemy as it is still part of my army . But if i go from the perspective you sugested that
enemy units of the other players army perspective. that means i can go unbound with the a.o.c and still have a bound army as from that perspective the a.o.c is the other players . A very crude example but im tired and really looking at raw from a simple standing .

Allies rules are how different units/models interact with each other. That interaction does not occur when you are building your army.

That's part of how I was pointing a possibility of an out when it is talking about "your units" and such as the possibility of a contradiction. But as a standard, the Warlord considers AoC as units from your opponent's army that it just cannot hurt directly.

So my explaination of the example could be a valid way of descibing the situtation ie a.o.c cannot benifit from warlird trait because he is treated as an enemy

I would really like to clarify that point first.

As we seem to be going down the rabbit hole

The owning player is always the player who 'owns' the model the one who has included the model in his army

Being an enemy model dosnt mean its owned by the opposing side

You and yours

Some models have abilities which are written as if speaking to the controller of the model. When a models rule refer to you or yours it refers to the player currenty controlling the model.

Straegic traits

Entire army

Conquer of cities

Your units have the move though cover

Its not the warlords models . Its the player controlling the models

I have permission to apply the warlord trait to my entire army . Which is all the models i own and controll .

Your units which isnt the warlords units. its the player controlling the units have move though cover

The warlord has the trait which states your models which means the controlling player models . I dont treat a.o.c aa enemy models they are my army




Automatically Appended Next Post:
So that really should bypass the a.o.c rules as the rule is applying to the player not the warlord ao its dosnt matter if he thinks there an enemy to me they are models owned and controlled by me

Hope ive got that right its early and i still havnt woken up yet


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Just to clarify im going to change the your to the definition on pg 14 under you and yours .


Pg 125

Strategic traits
Strategic traits are skills that effect "the player currently controlling the " entire army representing tricks or gambits "the controlling players " warlord sets in motion long before the battle begins .

1. conqueror of cities
"the controlling players" units have the move through cover special rule if moving through ruins , and the stealth (ruins) special rule.

I beleave the key point here is that altho the warlord has the trait by using "your" it means the controling player is intracting with the models
The a.o.c rules are there to provide rules of how the models intract not how the player intracts with the models.

For completness i will provide a situation where the a.o.c does come into effect .

Master of the vanguard

The controlling players warlord ,and all friendly units within 12", add 1" to the distance that they can move when they run or charge .

Here it specifys the warlord so i now need to know how the warlord intracts with other models so this is when i check the a.o.c rules and it states there that i treat a.o.c as enemy models so cannot use that trait on a.o.c

Thank you for the debate and if there is a problem with the above logic please let me know

The one potential problem is that even though you're saying "the controlling player's units" (Your units), it's still a Warlord power granting abilities to units. It's not the player granting the abilities to units (or to models in the case of Night Attacker), but the Warlord power giving it to the units. That's different from the power granting an ability to the player. Given that it's a Warlord power giving it to units and models, it seems that you would still have to consult the allies table to determine how good an ally is, and that allies of convenience wouldn't get those.

Something like Strategic Genius, though, is affecting the player and would apply, just like you wouldn't worry about ally levels with the Tactical traits.

Thats is a good point however i would maintain that the power is owned by the warlord but grants the controlling power the rules to apply .its not his army its the players army .

there are other rules that specifiy the warlord directly ,which could have also been used on all the traits to stop a.o.c benifiting .

Its the same point used earlier in the post about enemys models having to be specifed that they are affected by warlord traits

Its the same here if it was the warlord that was affected so he was the one giving the rule to the army then he should have be specifed

It would also have to be worded diffrent as giving the warlord stealth would just affect him it would have to be somthing like your warlord and his army get stealth .

As the rule is diffrent and dosnt specifiy the warlord we have to ask why has it been worded diffrent


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The next question is can i player have an ablity ? And at that point i am bowing out

Thank you

Well, technically, as the warlord it IS his army.

I think the different wording plays in because when they're talking about friendly units they're talking about those within a certain range (usually 12") of the Warlord, not talking about all the units in the army. The thing though is that it does mention "units" or "models" (depending on which result you got), and once you're at that level you do have to consider the ally relationship between those units (or models) and the Warlord since it is a Warlord ability granting those units (or models) the ability, and it is stated that units don't benefit from an Ally of Convenience Warlord's Trait. When dealing with traits specifying units or models like that, you'd need something specifying that the rule ignores alliance levels; you can't just assume that because the Warlord isn't specifically mentioned you get to use the rule by omission of his title.

There are worlord traits that specifiy all friendly models tau exemplare of the selfless cause is an example where they specify the warlord and all units im sure there are more examples

The rule is refering to the player contolling the model which is then an intraction between the player and the model not model and model .

The warlord has the trait which specifis that the players units get a rule . so i have an intraction between the warlord and myself and apply the rule to my units , i am in effect a middle man.

Its not a Warlord has a trait that specifis him he than intracts with the models

The player is referenced and is involed in the intractions

ian wrote:
There are worlord traits that specifiy all friendly models tau exemplare of the selfless cause is an example where they specify the warlord and all units im sure there are more examples

The rule is refering to the player contolling the model which is then an intraction between the player and the model not model and model .

It is referring to his units, not to him. That is a big distinction.

ian wrote:
The warlord has the trait which specifis that the players units get a rule . so i have an intraction between the warlord and myself and apply the rule to my units , i am in effect a middle man.

No, you have an interaction between the Warlord and your units, not between the Warlord and you. You don't get to count as a middleman to filter out the prohibition that way. The trait does not specify you get something; it specifies units in the army.

It still boils down to you are trying to get the Warlord to affect units that the Allies rules clearly state he isn't allowed to affect. Even if I agreed it filtered through you as a middleman, that doesn't absolve the units of that restriction since it's the Warlord's power that is granting them the abilities.

Whilst i am a middle man i then also have to ask do i take the rule and apply it or do i just say my unit gets the rule from the warlord meaning it doesnt work .

At least we can agree Strategic Genius works

One of the reasons i started this thread was because of a fb post made on my behalf . I bascily got told look at the rules on a.o.c and when i questioned that i got give him a look at the rules with the book shut .

So thank you for all the replies its good to have a debate rather than your wrong



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Example
If a warlord trait told me that my troops had to run . I tell them that they have to run . So the order would come from me and they would all follow the rule as they dont treat me as an enemy.

There is no rule stoping warlord traits from effecting a.o.c as like you said Strategic Genius works

The trait is a command to the player to give the players units a rule . If we take the give infultraite to 3 units rule its not the warlord picking them. its commanding the player to pick units and apply the rule .

If im given an apple from a friend he gave me the apple . But by your logic it wouldnt have been my friend giving me the apple it would have been from whoever grow it

ian wrote:
Whilst i am a middle man i then also have to ask do i take the rule and apply it or do i just say my unit gets the rule from the warlord meaning it doesnt work .

At least we can agree Strategic Genius works

Yes, anything that specifies affecting you or affecting the enemy, as opposed to affecting your units or models, would work fine.


As for being a middleman, you still have to ask a few questions:

1) Is this a Warlord Trait? (yes, obviously)

1) Is the ability being granted one that's being granted to your units or models? (Yes in the case we're arguing here, not in the case of things like Strategic Genius)

2) (If Yes to 1) ) Are the units (or models) being granted the benefits of the Warlord trait the same faction as the Warlord?

3) (If No to 2). What is the relationship between the Warlord's faction and the unit's faction? If Allies of Convenience, Desperate Alliles or Come The Apocalypse, then the unit "cannot benefit from an Allies of Convenience* Warlord". If Battle Brothers, then Warlord Trait benefits apply.

*Deperate Allies references A.O.C with extra restrcitions, CTA references Desperate Allies with even more restrictions

4) (If not Battle Brothers or same faction) Is there anything in the Warlord trait specifically stating that it applies to allies of all types regardless of level of ally? If no, then the quote in 3) stands.


Being a middleman doesn't short circuit this.

ian wrote:
One of the reasons i started this thread was because of a fb post made on my behalf . I bascily got told look at the rules on a.o.c and when i questioned that i got give him a look at the rules with the book shut .

So thank you for all the replies its good to have a debate rather than your wrong

No problem. Obviously our mileage varies on how we read this. What I see as a problem for your argument is that even if you treat both arguments as a valid interpretation, if you don't apply the Warlord benefit you know you're not exceeding the permission you have to apply the Warlord trait, whereas if you do then you may be exceeding the permission. It's the type of thing to talk about with your opponents before a game if it's something that could potentially come up. (Or just go for Tactical or Personal Traits so there's no chance of argument )

ian wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Example
If a warlord trait told me that my troops had to run . I tell them that they have to run . So the order would come from me and they would all follow the rule as they dont treat me as an enemy.

Actually, if it says "your units" must run or "may run", you still run into the prohibition about allies of convenience, so it wouldn't affect them.

ian wrote:
There is no rule stoping warlord traits from effecting a.o.c as like you said Strategic Genius works

There is a rule stopping warlord traits from affecting allies of convenience - we've been talking about it but you keep wanting to dismiss it as a mere example (which you aren't allowed to do). Strategic Genius specifically states it affects the player - it doesn't mention units. That's why Strategic Genius works. For Conqueror of Cities, it's not you, it's your units. Once you're dealing with units, you have to deal with the relation of the unit to the warlord, like it or not.

ian wrote:
If im given an apple from a friend he gave me the apple . But by your logic it wouldnt have been my friend giving me the apple it would have been from whoever grow it

If there's a law saying you're not allowed to have an apple then you'd still be breaking the law. That's the problem with trying to use real world examples (and why the rules of the forum say you shouldn't try to bring real world examples into the discussion, even though I think everyone is guilty of ignoring this tenet at some point)

 doctortom wrote:

ian wrote:

It still boils down to you are trying to get the Warlord to affect units that the Allies rules clearly state he isn't allowed to affect. Even if I agreed it filtered through you as a middleman, that doesn't absolve the units of that restriction since it's the Warlord's power that is granting them the abilities.

that is an example not a rule because it could be explaining a number of different situations. The rule is treat a.o.c as enemys
Im not dissmissing the example just pointing out that it dosnt have the same weight as a rule meaning that a actual rule would have to be given priority over the example. And i am basing this argument on that example is refering to warlord traits that affect friendly models not effecting a.o.c because they are treated as enemys . This can be argued either way and i dont think either way has any proof one way or the other which is why im focusing on th a.o.c enemy rule

If we take master of ambush trait and turn it in to a conversion i can explain how a a.o.c model can have no intraction with the warlord meaning a.o.c rules dont apply

Warlord... player i have infliltrate you can pick 3 non vechile units of your choice to have the infiltrate specail rule
Player... thank you
Player to troops ... you have the infiltrate special rule

Troops never had to interact with the warlord so never had to see him as an enemy ( or consult the a.o.c rules) just because somthing orginates from the warlord dosnt mean he gave it to them
My real world example was to try and prove that because some one creates somthing dosnt mean they are the ones who give the item it can be passed on and on and each time that thing would be said to come from the last person that passed it on not the creator .

This applies to the warlord passing the rule onto the player the warlord could never pick a model becuase its impossible . Its has to be the player that picks the model to have a special rule
Meaning its the player thats intracting with the model not the warlord .

I do agree that its much harder to have that reasoning with your units have move through cover because the player dosnt have to intervene and applying my above logic would be a choice rather than a requirment

Also  dosnt Strategic Genius affect a.o.c aswell as i can re roll there reserve rolls

Strategic Genius says "you can re-roll any Reserve rolls (failed or successful)", not "your units can re-roll..." That's why that part works. It doesn't say "your units", it merely specifies the player. If you specify the units, then you're down at the unit level and have to consider the relationship between the unit and the warlord, as we are instructed to by allies of convenience.

You don't want to use what it says about allies of convenience because you say it's an example, not a rule. It is an example, but it's something that they clearly state applies. It's one of the specified applications (or consequences, if you prefer) of the rule, so you should treat it with the same weight as you would a rule itself. I don't see that there's interpretation possible there like you do.


I don't accept your argument about the Warlord not being involved when you are told that the power affects units, since we are told specifically that a.o.c. Warlord Traits don't affect units. That means if you're dealing at a unit level you HAVE to look at the relationship between the unit and the warlord. Conqueror of Cities doesn't say that the army gets Move Through Cover (which would bypass it saying units), it invoked "your units". If it said you give your units Move Through Cover that would be the situation you've described, but it doesn't say that.

Obviously our mileage varies on this topic, and I don't think we're going to convince each other. But, given that the interpretation differs like this, you would need to talk about this topic with your opponent first before trying to use a Warlord power on an ally of convenience, since he probably has a perfectly acceptable expectation that the statement in allies of convenience applies. You can't just assume that he'll be good with your interpretation without talking to him. He might be perfectly fine with it after you explain your reasoning, but it's best not to spring it on him in the middle of a battle.

One last important question that i think strongly backs up my belief that the example is refering to the interaction between a warlord and an a.o.c based on the rule that they treat each other as enemys .this is an example of them not treating each other as friendly models so friendly warlord traits dont work . This is also in keeping with the rest of the examples

ie are not counted as being friendly units for the targeting of psychic powers, abilities and so on .

ive just looked into at the defination of example which is

a thing characteristic of its kind or illustrating a general rule.


When you read the example which general rule is it illustrating ?

I wish i had looked up the defination earlier as i think it makes it pretty clear that the rule is a.o.c treat each other as enemys and the example is an illstration of this . Now i can not find a rule anywhere that states enemy units dont beinfit from warlord traits so it couldnt be illstrating that . And i cannot think of another way in which a warlord trait wouldnt work other the the way i have been explaining all along .

Forgive me if ive made a mistake with that ive just had a gut feeling all along that i have been reading it right

I guess it means that a characteristic of the warlord treating aoc units as enemies is that they don't benefit from warlord traits.

I thought you were arguing that you could use warlord traits universally on aoc units, this last post doesn't support that interpretation at all.

There is no rule that states warlord traits dont affect enemys . And an example is an illstration of a rule . Its not used to imply a rule .So far my eplaination that it is based on friendly warlord traits not working on an enemy model is the only one i can find that fits and is in keeping with the rest of the examples

My argument was based on all strategic traits working on a.o.c as they are based on your army . As there is no restrictions on warlord traits working on enemy models . So raw you just apply the trait to the whole army as thats what it tells you to do . It dosnt specify freindly or enemy units which it does on other traits . so the idea that its needs permision to work would mean that you couldnt use it at all .or you take the permission from the statement that it effects your entire army .so you just give the rule to all the models controlled by you