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.

I posted this in another section a while back and received a bit of a mixed bag on how people would handle it. I'm looking at trying to find a general consensus for most people. If I'm running three Vindicator Preds and I decide to move, advance, pop smoke, and use Linebreaker, would people be salty about that? I'm looking at the RAW and the stratagem specifically states that the Vindicators "cannot fire their Demolisher Cannons". So, since you can't fire your Demolisher Cannons, that would mean you can advance (since you're not firing a weapon), pop smoke (same reason), and use Line Breaker (again, since it doesn't require you to fire a weapon and actually states not to).

I don't think I've ever even heard someone using this stratagem since 8th dropped. Vindicators seem rather meh overall but this gives a great turn 1 defense of -1 to hit on a T8 platform with some good early turn mortal wounds if the enemy crunches up without being overly costed. It's also unaffected by vehicle degradation.

I'm also not trying to make this a YMDC argument. It's been done a little and it seems like it's ending up being left to interpretation as rules don't seem to go against it (similar to the advance + smoke but obviously this would have a bit larger impact overall).

By RAW? You can do that. It's even been made clear in an FAQ, I think.

At a tournament? Ask your TO, see how they feel, but if they give you the greenlight, do it, man. Play to win.

In a casual game? Ask your opponent, and maybe only do it if your list is weaker than their's, or mostly even. Don't, for instance, be doing that against most Necron lists.

Can you make an arguement this is RAW?
Sure.
Can you make an arguement this is RAI?

Very unlikely.

Are you the sort of person I'd enjoy playing outside a tourny? No. If we were in a toury, would I call judge? Very much yes.

Take it how you will.

I'm sure it would be case by case.

Personally Im a sucker for rules as written for anything besides drawing line-of-sight to weapons, so would be fine with it. Pretty ingenious use of the stratagem.

Hoodwink wrote:
I'm also not trying to make this a YMDC argument. It's been done a little and it seems like it's ending up being left to interpretation as rules don't seem to go against it (similar to the advance + smoke but obviously this would have a bit larger impact overall).

HIWPI (and I'm a SM player myself):
When you advance you're unable to use your demolisher cannon because you're driving too fast to use it.
When you pop smoke you're unable to use your demolisher cannon because you're unable to see due to the smoke (at least that's how I'd reason it - doesn't make sense all the time but it's close enough).
When you're using Linebreaker you're unable to use your demolisher cannon because it's already in use.

So A+B work fine since your demo cannon isn't being used for driving faster or popping smoke. (I think this was confirmed in a FAQ or something?)

But your demo cannon is used for the bombardment, so it has to be operational - which it isn't if you're advancing or popping smoke.

This is an interesting one.

For me, the RAW is clear: this is allowed.

For me also, the RAI is clear: the strat is still representing the gun being fired, so you shouldn't be able to do things that would prevent you firing the gun.

If I was in your position, I would therefore be very sensitive to using it. The problem is that it goes against the intuition of how people will expect it to function, and that will make people rightfully quite salty.

If it's a tournament, I would check their stance before the event. RAW is not the be all and end all in a tournament, the call of the TOs are. So if they don't allow it then they don't allow it, and it's better to know which way that will go before you try to use it in a tournament game.

If it's a casual game, I would talk to the opponent before the game. I would explain why it is RAW. If they are firmly against it still I would say I understand and that I will not use it.

Either way, I wouldn't build a list that relies on it.

Stux wrote:
If it's a casual game, I would talk to the opponent before the game. I would explain why it is RAW. If they are firmly against it still I would say I understand and that I will not use it.

Either way, I wouldn't build a list that relies on it.

To be honest I'd suggest not even asking in a casual game. I wouldn't be very happy if you walked up to me "hey, listen! I've found this loophole in the rules and I wanted to know if you're cool with me abusing it". It's clearly a loophole. Don't use it.

nekooni wrote:

Stux wrote:
If it's a casual game, I would talk to the opponent before the game. I would explain why it is RAW. If they are firmly against it still I would say I understand and that I will not use it.

Either way, I wouldn't build a list that relies on it.

To be honest I'd suggest not even asking in a casual game. I wouldn't be very happy if you walked up to me "hey, listen! I've found this loophole in the rules and I wanted to know if you're cool with me abusing it". It's clearly a loophole. Don't use it.

It really depends. If you're running Iron Hands and taking three Vindicators... Look, that list is not especially strong. I'd be fine with someone using that "loophole" against my list, because my list is pretty strong. (Not tournament level, but damn good for casual games, in my experience.)

Vindicator a suck, if your running three you’ve already lost probably, so yeah, you can have first turn cheese.

I never realised that this was RAW (then again, I don't think I've ever seen three vindicators on the table since 5e), but now that I see it is, I actually think it could very well be RAI, too.

On the matter of RAW, using the stratagem this way is unequivocally legal and, well, 3 vindicators is not that strong of a choice in the first place so it doesn't seem that cheesy of an invocation of RAW. My assumption is that anyone who refuses to play you over this is probably not a stellar person to have a game with in the first place.

As for RAI...I could see it being a mistake, seeing that GW does seem to have historic issues with how written English works. At most I'd give it a 50-50 chance of being a mistake, but my inclination is to believe that this is probably RAI. Stratagems run off of a limited, valuable resource (CP) and can make or break the game for plenty of armies/units. Stratagems often let you outright break the normal rules, anyways.

I mean, if I can use a stratagem to make a Hellbrute fire twice or to make my entire unit of Guardsmen / Plague Marines throw grenades--things that they ordinarily cannot do--then I don't see why I should question it when a stratagem very clearly lets vindicators pump out some mortal wounds after they've moved and popped smoke.