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.

Does the Stratagem Veterans of the Long War count as a different stratagem for the purposes of using it multiple times in the same phase if its selected from different Codexes?

For example, I have a Battalion Detachment from Codex Death Guard, and a Battalion Detachment from Codex Thousand Sons, both Codexes have Veterans of the Long War but with different restrictions (the DG one says it can only target DG units and the TS one is only for TS units). The Strategic Discipline restriction for Matched Play says that you cant use the SAME stratagem twice in the same phase, but these aren't the SAME stratagems - they just apply the same effect to their target units.

So, can you use the Thousand Sons VotLW stratagem and the Death Guard VotLW stratagems in the same phase because they are different stratagems (coming from different Codexes and with different restrictions)?

Whether or not you can use the 'same' stratagem from different books, I would argue that as the text of the ability is different (different targets) it is not the same stratagem.

Same name, same stratagem.

Similar to psychic powers, covered in the Death guard FAQ.

Rules as intended? They're probably intended to be the same strategem, reworded slightly to make them available to different armies.

Rules as written? They come from different Codexes, so they're different rules that happen to have the same name. I'd call it similar to how Codex: Necrons and Codex: Tyranids both have a unit called Warriors.

Honestly, this is a side effect of splitting Codex sub-factions out into a separate Codex. Death Guard and Thousand Sons should just be in Codex: Chaos Space Marines. I expect we'll see Codex: Emperor's Children and Codex: World Eaters at some point with their own versions of Veterans of the Long War.

Getting the feeling this ones going to be "talk to your opponent until an FAQ" answer.

I get the Psychic powers answer as they are the same power - just from a different source - but because of the additional restriction placed on the stratagems from different sources I think I'd be happy to let my opponent use them on different units... well "happy" is a strong word lol

I'd say since they have the same name AND same affect (just a different specific target) the general consensus "should" be that they are the same Stratagem and therefore could only be used once per phase.

However, there is clearly some wiggle room since a faction keyword differs in both.

 Kriswall wrote:

Rules as written? They come from different Codexes, so they're different rules that happen to have the same name. I'd call it similar to how Codex: Necrons and Codex: Tyranids both have a unit called Warriors.

Not true. Codex: Tyranids has a unit called Tyranid Warriors. It contains models called Tyranid Warriors, etc. Even their keyword is Tyranid Warrior, and the Tyranid Prime gives rerolls to Tyranid Warrior units.

By the same token, Index: Xenos 1 has a unit called Necron Warriors.


While they may not be perfect at it, they do seem to be making a concerted effort to differentiate things by name (Tyranid Warriors vs. Necron Warriors, Daemon Prince vs. Daemon Prince of Chaos vs. Daemon Prince of Tzeentch vs. Daemon Prince of Nurgle). At least for units, it seems very much like the intention is for things that have the same name to be the same unit (Rhinos, Bloodletters, etc.), and to give different names otherwise. The errata of the CSM Horrors to match the CD Horrors seems to support that too, though the idea is undermined by the TS Horrors being slightly different. We'll see if they get brought in line with an errata or not. If not, then it seems to defeat the purpose of being so strict with the naming conventions otherwise.

So that being said, I think giving the same name was RAI to mean they're the same stratagem, but I can understand the argument to the contrary. I honestly don't think RAW really gives an actual answer either way--it's not like there's a rule written somewhere that specifies whether a stratagem is defined by its name or its text, so I think you could make a decently compelling RAW argument for it either way.

They have the same name, but are not the same Stratagem.

The psychic power FAQ has no effect here because Stratagems are not Psychic Powers. Might as well claim that a Flamer automatically wounds as well because it automatically hits.

Simple test: Are the two stratagems identical in literally every single possible way? That means the wording of the stratagem itself, the book they are from, the flavour text, everything. If the answer is no, then they are not the same stratagem for the purpose of matched play.