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.

To be honest, I don't think it's even RAI - I don't think they intended for Tyranid "allies" to benefit from non-Tyranid Warlord's Warlord Traits. you cite Allies of
Convenience, but it would also apply to Comes the Apocalypse

I think you've really got more a case of How I Would Play It rather than Rules As Intended.

Ok seeing as its being implied that its not even rai i will explain.

Firstly i think i have been mislead by the use of the word case law which i believe is being used wrongly ,which is why i will post a simple definition i have read more detailed ones but they all imply the same thing
...."case law
....noun
....the law as established by the outcome of former cases."
Saying an example is precedent is also misleading we have no evidence that there has been a case heard for the different view points of the meaning of the example.
The closes thing we have to case law is a faq as this is rules that have been released into the public which has highlighted issue and then has had a judgment made by the highest authority (games workshop).
Bringing the term law into a rules debate is misleading we are dealing with rules of a game not laws.

"Tactical traits are abilities that affect how your warlord interacts with battlefield objectives . they represent how he can influence the goals of the battle and adapts to new tactical challenges"

i dont think it has been disputed Allies of Convenience models are still allowed to take objectives ect .But by your reasoning once a warlord has a trait applied to him it becomes his trait
ie my space marine warlord rolls 3 on tactical traits and draws an extra card so why should my tyranids care about a space marine objective

This brings up my point early about the you and yours rule on pg 14
"Some models have abilities which are written as if speaking to the controller of the model. When a model's rule refers to 'you' or 'yours' its refers to the player currently controlling the model
The player is effectively a higher power for the lack of a better word .The warlord has spotted the objective but its the player that knows that the extra objective card is needed so he sends the tyranid models over to it . its not the warlord issuing the order its the player

"strategic traits are skills that affect your entire army, representing tricks or gambits that your warlord sets into motion long before the battle"

master of ambush
Your warlord and 3 non-vehicle units of your choice have the infiltrate special rule
The warlord has set up secret hiding spots or cleared some ares to hide (fluff interpretation) but its the player (higher power) that knows about these spots and it is him who sends the tyranids there

Think of it like this the warlord is just a pawn for the players will and anything he has done is there for the player to take advantage of. When i play tyranids and space marines together they not working together but they are doing the players bidding which is one goal so i send the nids to use the hiding spots because as a "higher power" i know what both armys are doing.
The rule on pg14 has been put there to help us understand that its not the model issuing the order its the player.

your warlord has furious charge ..... He has it and he gives it to his unit
your units has furious charge ...... the player chose which of his units has it . the warlord is irrelevant here

It states the model when it wants it to be his power and yours when its intended to be the players power to give
Am i not understanding the rule on pg 14 does it mean something different ?

I think strategic traits are not there to represent the warlord issuing commands etc that's what command traits are for. They are there to represent tricks and gambits like for instance he sent some guard as bait so the nids would be where he wanted them when the battle started its that sort of
thing its refering too. Its meant to represent stuff that's happened before the battle not during which is why i think its rai for strategic traits to work

seeing as i have been drawn in again i would like to refer people to pg 14
The spirit of the game
This does give me permission to ask the question what is this an example of ?. Is it example of friendly warlord traits not working because a.o.c are treated as enemies . Is there a rule stating warlord traits don't work on enemies so that's what the example is. is it an example of a.o.c being enemys and then also an example that because of that they don't benefit
however they are all plausible interpretations if you ask the question what exactly is it referring too (spirit of the game).
And the notion thats its case law does not fit . it is an example and its based on your view of an example as to how much authority you give it . i personally think its open to interpretation based on the other examples. other do not which i accept .

I personal love the idea of my warlord luring in nids with guardsmen meat sacks . or that he has spent months reinforcing buildings and providing clears paths as he knows he will be working with squishy eldar on his next battle. or a farseer has called upon the warp to give the enemy a strange glow to help the guardmans shoot in the dark because they have a hard enough time in the day.
Im not trying to say a hive tyrant can polity ask a tau fire warrior to set up in the building over there as that would go more like arggg ...pew.... grrrrraaaah......crunch..... nom nom nom or actualy as nids aren't that great any more it would be more like lol ....bring it on nid ......overwatch my fellow fish people......que ton of fire power ......................................................................................arghhhhhh........arg....ar....a..................

I really hope that clears things up here

Boy this thread title isn't loaded at all.

I know i originaly wanted to provoke strong reactions to get a rigorious debate. But will amend it now.

ian wrote:
Firstly i think i have been mislead by the use of the word case law which i believe is being used wrongly ,which is why i will post a simple definition i have read more detailed ones but they all imply the same thing
...."case law
....noun
....the law as established by the outcome of former cases."
Saying an example is precedent is also misleading we have no evidence that there has been a case heard for the different view points of the meaning of the example.
The closes thing we have to case law is a faq as this is rules that have been released into the public which has highlighted issue and then has had a judgment made by the highest authority (games workshop).
Bringing the term law into a rules debate is misleading we are dealing with rules of a game not laws.

Then you are missing the point. We are associating it with the concept of case law in that these examples presented by the rulebook provide the specific rulings of the rule writers before an FAQ needs to came out. They are specific official pronouncements regarding the authors' intentions behind the rules. To ignore them would be the same as going to court while ignoring every other case decision that had went on before.

Now, you may choose to interpret those specifics of those decisions differently, that can be understood (sometimes, some people's interpretations tend to ignore their language), but do not just ignore them "because they are only examples".

That is why I tried to get you to focus on trying to define the Strategic Traits as providing a case on the possibility of a contradiction in that the "your units" and "your army" may possibly override the relationship consideration between the Warlord and enemy units.

As a more genral discussion on case law rather than warlord traits .

I did consider these points that's its the writers rulings but this does imply that they have actually realised there could be a conflict and ruled on it

I would consider the rule book to be a new set of "laws" that have been written as best as possible but as yet are untested on the general public . Case law would then be established after this .
Once the new edition is created the old one and old case law stop having any relevance.

This is also different from real world laws which are old and there is a huge amount of case law that's established over a long time .
And implys that games workshop have spent months looking at every rule debating every out come .

The rules are even written with the intention of being open
They aren't written with the intention of being as strict as laws so won't be as robust
This is why i think it can be misleading as it is applying a real world example of how something works to the game.

ian wrote:
As a more genral discussion on case law rather than warlord traits .

I did consider these points that's its the writers rulings but this does imply that they have actually realised there could be a conflict and ruled on it

I would consider the rule book to be a new set of "laws" that have been written as best as possible but as yet are untested on the general public . Case law would then be established after this .
Once the new edition is created the old one and old case law stop having any relevance.

This is also different from real world laws which are old and there is a huge amount of case law that's established over a long time .
And implys that games workshop have spent months looking at every rule debating every out come .

The rules are even written with the intention of being open
They aren't written with the intention of being as strict as laws so won't be as robust
This is why i think it can be misleading as it is applying a real world example of how something works to the game.

And you are looking too deeply in to all the aspects of the reference instead of only the aspects being pointed out as being relatable. It is akin to only using one definition of a word while ignoring the context of the sentence or paragraph which provides the proper definition to use.

The example tells you how to use the rule and the ramifications of the rule, just like case law will tell you how a judge is going to interpret the law to see if they will rule in your favor or not. Don't look any further than that comparison, otherwise you will miss what I am trying to say to you.

but case law does not tell a judge how its going to be used . it is given as evidence for consideration as case law can change based on a number of factors.
Its this part i think is misleading by saying it relates to case law is giving to impression that it is the only way to read the example a definitive answer being fixed if you like. and like pointed out to me early just because its relatable doesn't mean a real life example should be used in rules debates

ok simply put
i am looking at the example in the context of the other examples on the same thing. i am not looking at it from the point of view that the example is written as fact i see it as omitting the word friendly due to poor writing by games workshop.
And because the rules are written on the basis of being free and open
This is not the same as me just wanting the rule to have the word in it for my own benefit
i see the example in question as being the odd one out as all the other ones are referring to the interaction between a friendly and enemy model with clear rules behind them

ian wrote:
i am not looking at it from the point of view that the example is written as fact i see it as omitting the word friendly due to poor writing by games workshop.

This is the crux of your problem right here. Being told by the rule that Allies of Convenience treat each other as 'enemy units' (with limits on attacking them, etc) and then thinking that the example is wrong for omitting the word "friendly" for enemy units seems a bit illogical and not in line with what we are told in the rule and examples.

Cannot move with 1" of an a.o.c model ...........illistrating rule on pg 18 a model cannot move within 1" of an enemy model
Cannot be joined by independent characters that are a.o.c illistrating rule on pg 166 in order to join a unit a id simply has to move within the 2" coherency distances of a friendly model .
Are not counted as friendly units for trageting of physic powers abilies and so on .... illistrating a.o.c are enemys
Cannot use special abilities to repair hulls points ect .....illistrating a techmarine rule unsure of pg but rule may choose to repair a single friendly vehicle
Are affected by attacks special rules or abilities used by allies of convenience that affect enemy units within a certain range or area of effect illistrating that a.o.c are enemys

All of the above examples do not use the example its self to infer a rule each one of them is referencing a written rule in the brb bar one but does referenc the only example i know of where a model can repair a hull point ect

There is no written rule in the book that states that warlord traits cannot affect enemy models
So why is it that there is only example that is being presented as a rule in its self

Well enemy units can be affected by warlord traits. There are a select few that specifically say they do though. The one that comes to mind is the space marine one that messes with leadership test. So there is precedence for it. But in this case you are being explicitly told that they can affect enemy units.

I would like to point out there is no written rule in the book that states I win every game I play no matter what. There is one about having fun though. I only have fun when I win. Guess thats me never losing a game now.

As a good rule of thumb, you have to be given permission to do things in the 40k rule set. Just because it doesn't say you can't do a thing, doesn't mean you are able to do it!

Ok cool dosnt change the fact that it is the only example thats being used as a rule




Automatically Appended Next Post:
Which is why i don't just blindly follow the rule . i ask the question what is actually trying to be explained here.

Which is why i come to the conclusion that the example should be :

Cannot benefit from friendly warlord traits of an allies of convenience warlord

Then it fits with all of the other examples

Which is why im saying its a rai argument



Automatically Appended Next Post:
i bring up the spirit of the game because the rules where never even written to stand up to this level scrutiny which is why the more i post the more i realise how pointless it is.
Ive explained my logic of why i have questioned the rule i have given my reasoning of why i think its what was intended ive explained how i think it would work in game

If i'm not just following the rules and i am adding my own ideas drama and creativity (meat sacks to lure nids etc)

Then i guess im playing the game just like it was intended

ian wrote:
Ok cool dosnt change the fact that it is the only example thats being used as a rule

I just went through the electronic version of the rulebook searching for, "for example" and came up with 100 hits. Probably give or take one or two, being in a hurry.

I'd contend that all of these should be followed as they are stated.

i bring up the spirit of the game because the rules where never even written to stand up to this level scrutiny which is why the more i post the more i realise how pointless it is.
Ive explained my logic of why i have questioned the rule i have given my reasoning of why i think its what was intended ive explained how i think it would work in game

If i'm not just following the rules and i am adding my own ideas drama and creativity (meat sacks to lure nids etc)

Then i guess im playing the game just like it was intended

Provided your opponent agrees, sure.

It's a bit meaningless to come into a rules discussion, phrased in terms of a rules discussion, and then bring up that the rules actually say you can do whatever you want to just have fun and be creative, though, isn't it?

ian wrote:
but case law does not tell a judge how its going to be used . it is given as evidence for consideration as case law can change based on a number of factors.
Its this part i think is misleading by saying it relates to case law is giving to impression that it is the only way to read the example a definitive answer being fixed if you like. and like pointed out to me early just because its relatable doesn't mean a real life example should be used in rules debates

Incorrect. If a judge ignores case law, a higher court can (and usually will) throw out his decision. The more often this happens, the greater likelihood of that judge retaining his seat is in jeopardy.

So, too, ignoring the examples provided in the Allies section, or any of the rest of the rulebook, will have people deciding that you will only play by the rules you want to play with. This will cause you to lose gaming opportunities and/or be thrown out of a tournament.

Either way, it is your choice to proceed as you wish, but do not be so quick to ignore examples just because they are not the hard rules. If you find another person willing to play to those same standards for you, great. In other forums, those are called "House Rules", and here it is called "HYWPI" (How You Would Play It). Just recognize it as such when you present such things here and it will help keep the discussion focused on the actual rules you want to address instead of getting side-tracked like this.

Just to make this clear i only gave my opinion on the rule at my local gaming club the i agreed to just play it without the rule pretty much straight away ( i then got dragged into posting it online mid game ). It wasn't even me that would have benefited from the rule really it was my friend playing a cc chaos army . our opponent was 3k of eldar with fortuned wraith knight and a fortuned Revenant titan,

So please take that into context

Incorrect. If a judge ignores case law, a higher court can (and usually will) throw out his decision. The more often this happens, the greater likelihood of that judge retaining his seat is in jeopardy.

So, too, ignoring the examples provided in the Allies section, or any of the rest of the rulebook, will have people deciding that you will only play by the rules you want to play with. This will cause you to lose gaming opportunities and/or be thrown out of a tournament.

Which is why i am here debating it not in game or at a tournament . And if nobody ever question rules we would still be living with laws that make it illegal for black and white people to marry.

Just because something goes against the common belief dosnt mean you shouldn't question it . Case law can be ruled against and has been. which is my point about it being misleading because it implies that the majority of people wont even consider your argument so it must be wrong.. We used to think the world was flat right .
Again the notion of case law is a real world example which i was told i couldn't use.

i have just skimmed though the rule book and so far every example i have found goes into detail about the rules its referring too.

i cannot find another example that is just a statement inferring a rule can you ? because that would help alot.

The spirit of the game does not just allow you to do what you want . (TMIR is the one that allows you to do what you want)
It puts the rules into context that they are not ment to be taken at face value . meaning you should explore what the rule is actual trying to accomplish check that it fits with other rules in the book ect.
Which is why i'm here debating but so far its been pretty much read what it says and don't question it ,which is why i said its pointless

So far my point about the context of the example has been ignored ? Its the fundamental reason why ive question it.

So far everybody is just saying an example is a rule and you have to read it at face value

i disagree the rule book is full of examples only referring to and explaining a written rule. The rules writers themselfs have stated that they have not been written with the intent of being rigorous ( to just read exactly what it says)

So if anybody can give evidence that you have to take an example at face value, and evidence of another example given as a statement inferring a rule that would really help this debate

Because if it is the only example that infers a rule then that's a pretty strong reason to question if that's actually what it was intended to do

Why are we required to draw an inference?

You keep saying you have to infer that the reason for Allies of Convenience not benefiting from each other's Warlord Traits is because they are treated as enemy models.

I don't need to know what the specific mechanics of the rule and example are, however, when it is crystal clear what the rule and example are saying, which is that Allies of Convenience simply do not benefit from each other's Warlord Traits. No inference required to be drawn.

Again ignoring the context that that example is in . I'm not saying you have to ask questions .if you want to blindly follow rules that's fine and completely up to you but also against the way the rules are intended to be read , thats why im debating if that's what the ruled was intended to do , because so far the example is out of context with the other examples on the same subject being a statement . and i can not find another example that is not referring to a written rule
Games workshop errata so they do get things wrong

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Can somebody please address why that was the only example in the paragraph that was not referencing a written rule that can be found and quoted



Automatically Appended Next Post:
I also have one more question that mite help which rule overides which

command traits
2. intimidating presence
enemy units within 12" of the warlord must use their lowest leadership value not the highest

Cannot benefit from the warlord of an allies of convenience warlord..

ian wrote:
Again ignoring the context that that example is in . I'm not saying you have to ask questions .if you want to blindly follow rules that's fine and completely up to you but also against the way the rules are intended to be read , thats why im debating if that's what the ruled was intended to do , because so far the example is out of context with the other examples on the same subject being a statement . and i can not find another example that is not referring to a written rule
Games workshop errata so they do get things wrong

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Can somebody please address why that was the only example in the paragraph that was not referencing a written rule that can be found and quoted



Automatically Appended Next Post:
I also have one more question that mite help which rule overides which

command traits
2. intimidating presence
enemy units within 12" of the warlord must use their lowest leadership value not the highest

Cannot benefit from the warlord of an allies of convenience warlord..

General versus specific is a core concept in these types of rule sets. A general permission can be overridden by a more specific restriction, or vice versa. So...

1. Generally speaking, Warlord Traits affect models in your army.
2. More specifically, Warlord Traits cannot affect models in your army that share an Allies of Convenience allied relationship with the Warlord.
3. Even more specifically, the Intimidating Presence Warlord Trait can affect enemy units.

Ok thank you

So if a traits states a spcific it comes after the example on a.o.c

So specificly enemy. friendly. Your enitre army ?


Does anybody have any views on why that example is the only one creating a rule that isnt writen down as i cannot find another example of that happening i the rule book

ian wrote:

Incorrect. If a judge ignores case law, a higher court can (and usually will) throw out his decision. The more often this happens, the greater likelihood of that judge retaining his seat is in jeopardy.

So, too, ignoring the examples provided in the Allies section, or any of the rest of the rulebook, will have people deciding that you will only play by the rules you want to play with. This will cause you to lose gaming opportunities and/or be thrown out of a tournament.

Which is why i am here debating it not in game or at a tournament . And if nobody ever question rules we would still be living with laws that make it illegal for black and white people to marry.

Just because something goes against the common belief dosnt mean you shouldn't question it . Case law can be ruled against and has been. which is my point about it being misleading because it implies that the majority of people wont even consider your argument so it must be wrong.. We used to think the world was flat right .
Again the notion of case law is a real world example which i was told i couldn't use.

i have just skimmed though the rule book and so far every example i have found goes into detail about the rules its referring too.

i cannot find another example that is just a statement inferring a rule can you ? because that would help alot.

But you are ignoring them here after they have been presented to you here. These rulebook examples are cases in point provided by the authors, not just our presentations presented by other players.

And the point we keep trying to bring to you is that if you want to change things locally, that's fine, but to ignore these Ally Examples here is saying that you do not care what the rulebook actually states. I know there are people here who put how the game feels over what the book actually says, and treats them as literal law. Ignoring those examples because they are examples is literally doing the same thing.

The issue then becomes you are trying to have your answers of HYWPI while asking for RAW. The Written Rules are the only consistent thing between all of our disparate groups, so that is all we can really put in to assurance behind things. The rulebook literally states that units do not benefit from AOC Warlords. That should be fait accompli instead of trying to ignore it here.

ian wrote:
The spirit of the game does not just allow you to do what you want . (TMIR is the one that allows you to do what you want)
It puts the rules into context that they are not ment to be taken at face value . meaning you should explore what the rule is actual trying to accomplish check that it fits with other rules in the book ect.
Which is why i'm here debating but so far its been pretty much read what it says and don't question it ,which is why i said its pointless

TMIR was put in to represent the spirit of the game. So, yes, the spirit of the game is for two players to get together to have a good time. If that means chucking half the rulebook out for both players, great. But for the purposes of this forum, please refer to the top linked post and review points #4 and #7.

i really don't think the spirit of the game rule is saying chuck out half the rule book at all ? .im saying that it is stating that the rules should not be view as rigorously tested and as such we shouldn't assume "these rulebook examples are cases in point provided by the authors" i don't think raw should be viewed higher than rai or hywpi but that's just my opinion.

I have also already stated further up that because the statement is so basic. that it has to be raw . i also apologized for the confusion .another post was made and i then stated my case for rai and changed the title . perhaps you missed that post. and apologize again.

i do also have to concede that i have found another example written as a rule

Cannot use modifiers and re rolls that apply to reserve rolls that are granted by an allies of convenience model
and i cannot find another explanation that this could be referring to. so this would support the argument that the warlord one is intended as the "rule" as well

i still question weather it was there intent to stop the strategic traits from working and this was an oversight on there behalf like super heavy walkers and difficult terrain. where everybody i know just ignores it . i have since found the errata

One last idea

1. Generally speaking, Warlord Traits affect the warlord of your army
2. More specifically, Warlord Traits cannot affect models in your army that share an Allies of Convenience allied relationship with the Warlord.
3. Even more specifically, strategic traits affect your entire army

I hope i haven't come across as creating an argument i was genuinely using this as a sound board for my ideas

ian wrote:
i

I hope i haven't come across as creating an argument i was genuinely using this as a sound board for my ideas

The problem is that you are mostly ignoring the arguments of others when you are reiterating your own point over and over. The single sentence you claim gives you your interpretation can be read a variety of ways in simple English.

would like to think i have explored multipul ways of looking at it .and i have been trying to provide supporting evidence though out .I even gave evidence of another example thats a rule adding strength to the opersit argument . and had this not exsisted then my point about the example being the only one in that format would have been strong .i just think its important to have as much supporting evidence as possible .it was never my intention to appear as if i have ignored people, i can confirm that i have read everybodys post in detail and fully taken there ideas on board when trying to prove my idea.

So i would thank everybody for there input .

I would like to ask if anybody has a view on the order of permission i have given based on kriswalls explaination

1. rules general effect models in your army
2. More specifically Warlord Traits affect the warlord of your army 
3. More specifically, Warlord Traits cannot affect models in your army that share an Allies of Convenience allied relationship with the Warlord. 
4. Even more specifically, strategic traits affect your entire army

based on the explaintion that the most general goes first

3 is before 4 as it is a general rule about all warlord traits . 4 is a specific rule about stratigic traits

I am presenting this as an idea based of kriswals idea

ian wrote:
I would like to ask if anybody has a view on the order of permission i have given based on kriswalls explaination

1. rules general effect models in your army
2. More specifically Warlord Traits affect the warlord of your army 
3. More specifically, Warlord Traits cannot affect models in your army that share an Allies of Convenience allied relationship with the Warlord. 
4. Even more specifically, strategic traits affect your entire army

based on the explaintion that the most general goes first

3 is before 4 as it is a general rule about all warlord traits . 4 is a specific rule about stratigic traits

I am presenting this as an idea based of kriswals idea

I think basically everyone else here is of the view that 4 and 3 should be around the other way, because Strategic Warlord Traits are still Warlord Traits, Allies of Convenience is an exception to all Warlord Traits and Strategic Traits are not an exception to Allies of Convenience.

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

No because intimidating presence adds 5 specifically stating it affects enemy models.

Ok so stratigic traits is a specificly stating it effects 6 traits .just like intimidating presence is specificly stating it for one trait

Either way they are more specific than "all" traits
Im trying to take everything at face value

 intimidating presence is still a warlord trait im trying to understand why it is put after the a.o.c rule and stratigic traits is not

Because it specifically states in the trait itself not as a general rule. The same for the one about reseves, specifically tells you that this one affects enemies. And the pinning one. The trait itself has to mention it affecting enemy units. Not just a general overarching statement of traits.

When you look at warlord traits, it's first assuming your army is drawn from one codex/faction. So the traits are written with that in mind. When you start to add in allies you then have to go with the restrictions presented in the section about allies, such as abilities and such not being able to work.

Im away from my books just now but the text at the top of the strategic traits, is it in italics? Pretty much stuff in italics is just flavour text and not to be used as rules. I don't think it is or someone might have brought this up

Automatically Appended Next Post:

When you look at warlord traits, it's first assuming your army is drawn from one codex/faction. So the traits are written with that in mind.

pg 117 choosing your army gives an example of an army including 2 different armies and how to choose the warlord. it would then be inaccurate to state that they are assuming its drawn from one codex as choosing a warlord comes after choosing your army.


i can confirm that the strategic traits is not written in italics.

So based on everything i have learned in this debate

1 .order of permissions goes from most general down to specific
2. you cannot infer or ignore statements they have to be taken at face value.

Cannot benefit from the Warlord Trait of an Allies of Convenience Warlord ( A statement affecting every single warlord traits )
Strategic traits are skills that affect your entire army, representing tricks or gambits your warlord sets in motion long before the battle begins (a statement affecting 6 warlord traits)

you cannot ignore that the statement on strategic traits makes it more specific then the one on warlord traits

RAW? No, Strategic traits do not affect Allies of Convenience.

RAI? They don't either.

HIWPI? Nope.