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.

Ignore, I posted before properly reading what I quoted.

I notice the Daemons article states that normally models choose one weapon to make attacks with, unless they have one or more (ex: KoS) marked "Extra Attacks".

That came up earlier in this thread iirc.

Yeah, I also had some worries about secondary weapons like Tyranid tail weapons and Extra Attacks solves that.

Why do people keep saying tanks can get resurrected?

I am giving GW points for not allowing that, because I have a feeling that in the past, someone would have "missed" it. On the other hand I fully expect in the future to get some sort of special abhuman or similar detachment suddenly respawning a throng of ogryns for a week or two.


In general I like what GW is doing in 10th. I think it is, at least initialy and from what we saw better then 9th and I considered 9th much better then 8th. They just kind of a REALLY need to reach pinacles of design with my magic space marines. Because the way demons look like, I am kind of a scared. But who knows how it will work (aside for leakers, GW staff, people working at printing the rules etc), as the proverb says, expect the worse, and you can only be positivily disappointed

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

Its faction hate when it only realistically affects the two factions that don't get regular saves with their invulns.

And even without that argument, i think it's bad design to start modifying an unmodifiable save

It's not though, there's plenty of units across the various books that have invuln saves. Those units are normally good, and are normally taken as a result. So it's a rule that's generally good across the board, not faction hate.

I will point you back to my "is something with AP faction hate against Orks, who traditionally have low saves?" point. No it isn't. By that stretch, the existence of a -1 to hit from cover for the current edition is faction hate against Orks too.

Also, why is an invuln save unmodifiable? It's an entirely new edition of the game, they can rewrite invuln saves to be whatever they want. There's literally nothing to stop them putting a rule somewhere in a codex that says "this weapon reduces invuln saves by 1".

 Afrodactyl wrote:

Also, why is an invuln save unmodifiable? It's an entirely new edition of the game, they can rewrite invuln saves to be whatever they want. There's literally nothing to stop them putting a rule somewhere in a codex that says "this weapon reduces invuln saves by 1".

because thats their sole reason for existing, its litterally the only difference between them and regular saves.

Karol wrote:

Why do people keep saying tanks can get resurrected?

I am giving GW points for not allowing that, because I have a feeling that in the past, someone would have "missed" it. On the other hand I fully expect in the future to get some sort of special abhuman or similar detachment suddenly respawning a throng of ogryns for a week or two.


In general I like what GW is doing in 10th. I think it is, at least initialy and from what we saw better then 9th and I considered 9th much better then 8th. They just kind of a REALLY need to reach pinacles of design with my magic space marines. Because the way demons look like, I am kind of a scared. But who knows how it will work (aside for leakers, GW staff, people working at printing the rules etc), as the proverb says, expect the worse, and you can only be positivily disappointed

Strategems are detachment-specific, so an Abhuman Detachment wouldn't have access to the respawn strategem from the Combined Regiment Detachment.

Avoiding that sort of interaction is one of the main benefits of making all the strategems and enhancements Detachment-specific.

Not that there won't be inevitable mistakes, but at least that specific problem has been thought through.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Afrodactyl wrote:

Also, why is an invuln save unmodifiable? It's an entirely new edition of the game, they can rewrite invuln saves to be whatever they want. There's literally nothing to stop them putting a rule somewhere in a codex that says "this weapon reduces invuln saves by 1".

because thats their sole reason for existing, its litterally the only difference between them and regular saves.

The difference between them is that you can still make invulnerable saves despite your armour being beaten. Their sole reason for existence is to make a unit tougher by giving it an extra save to fall back on.

If you could direct me to the published information by GW that invulns can never be reduced or negated under any circumstances I'd be happy to be educated on the point.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Afrodactyl wrote:

Also, why is an invuln save unmodifiable? It's an entirely new edition of the game, they can rewrite invuln saves to be whatever they want. There's literally nothing to stop them putting a rule somewhere in a codex that says "this weapon reduces invuln saves by 1".

because thats their sole reason for existing, its litterally the only difference between them and regular saves.

Their sole reason for existing is that they don't get modified by AP.

There's already a mechanic in the game that effectively modifies your invuln: Mortal Wounds. No reason you couldn't also have some weapons or abilities that reduce invulns, rather than eliminating them entirely.

ccs wrote:

You can absolutely make any argument you like.
Just don't be surprised when others laugh at you, think your being stupid, and if you try it in real life refuse to play you.

So do you want to make that argument?

Sure. The whole point is that it is slowed. I obviously can't do that, but in a better world, I couldn't make that argument et all.

The timing window of the Stratagem is clear, it is defined in the 'When' line: any phase. That's it. That's when I can use it. Not when a unit is destroyed, that's not what it specifies. I can use it in any phase, any time it tickles my fickle, even in a phase where I haven't lost any units. Then I can target a unit that was just destroyed in an unspecified time window. There is no need to get wordy here, this should just look like this:
When: Any phase, when a Regiment unit from your army was just destroyed. (This is how it is supposed to be and what you guys think it is when it isn't)
Target: The unit that was just destroyed. You can use this Stratagem on the unit even though it was just destroyed.
If you have a defined timing window line for your ability then USE IT.

Well a unit can die in any phase. That is why the "when" is any phase. The rest is not needed, because you are not going to have non regiment IG units in your army getting destroyed, unless we get rules for inquisition forcing itself in to other detachments.

Karol wrote:
Well a unit can die in any phase. That is why the "when" is any phase. The rest is not needed, because you are not going to have non regiment IG units in your army getting destroyed, unless we get rules for inquisition forcing itself in to other detachments.

The timing window has to be specific. Interestingly enough, while searching for Born Soldiers, I stumbled into the previewed Armour of Contempt Strategem that does specify the timing window in the When line and then references it later in Target, exactly like how I proposed for Reinforcements. So I'm starting to think that Reinforcements can really revive any unit in any phase that was ever "just destroyed" during the entire battle. Otherwise, they would specify it like with Armour of Contempt.

ccs wrote:

 AtoMaki wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
What was the last thing that happened. What just happened before you play the strat that you can use at literally any time?

The entire battle up to that point, obviously. Heck, an argument can be made that I can revive a unit that was just destroyed in the previous game of my Warhammer 40k career.

You can absolutely make any argument you like.
Just don't be surprised when others laugh at you, think your being stupid, and if you try it in real life refuse to play you.

So do you want to make that argument?

The SovCits of 40k.

 AtoMaki wrote:

Karol wrote:
Well a unit can die in any phase. That is why the "when" is any phase. The rest is not needed, because you are not going to have non regiment IG units in your army getting destroyed, unless we get rules for inquisition forcing itself in to other detachments.

The timing window has to be specific. Interestingly enough, while searching for Born Soldiers, I stumbled into the previewed Armour of Contempt Strategem that does specify the timing window in the When line and then references it later in Target, exactly like how I proposed for Reinforcements. So I'm starting to think that Reinforcements can really revive any unit in any phase that was ever "just destroyed" during the entire battle. Otherwise, they would specify it like with Armour of Contempt.

The timing window is already specific, it says "that was just destroyed". As someone else said, it means was the unit's destruction the last thing that happened, yes or no? If yes, respawn. If no, too late.

If I went to the shops three weeks ago, I wouldn't say I was "just there".

I don't understand the leaps of logic you're taking here.

 AtoMaki wrote:

Karol wrote:
Well a unit can die in any phase. That is why the "when" is any phase. The rest is not needed, because you are not going to have non regiment IG units in your army getting destroyed, unless we get rules for inquisition forcing itself in to other detachments.

The timing window has to be specific. Interestingly enough, while searching for Born Soldiers, I stumbled into the previewed Armour of Contempt Strategem that does specify the timing window in the When line and then references it later in Target, exactly like how I proposed for Reinforcements. So I'm starting to think that Reinforcements can really revive any unit in any phase that was ever "just destroyed" during the entire battle. Otherwise, they would specify it like with Armour of Contempt.

Except it says "Just destroyed", not just "destroyed".
As in, very recently destroyed. As in, you play the stratagem right after you lose a unit.
If it simply said destroyed you'd have a point, but it has "Just" as a qualifier.

 AtoMaki wrote:

Karol wrote:
Well a unit can die in any phase. That is why the "when" is any phase. The rest is not needed, because you are not going to have non regiment IG units in your army getting destroyed, unless we get rules for inquisition forcing itself in to other detachments.

The timing window has to be specific. Interestingly enough, while searching for Born Soldiers, I stumbled into the previewed Armour of Contempt Strategem that does specify the timing window in the When line and then references it later in Target, exactly like how I proposed for Reinforcements. So I'm starting to think that Reinforcements can really revive any unit in any phase that was ever "just destroyed" during the entire battle. Otherwise, they would specify it like with Armour of Contempt.

Then why does it not have 'target: any of your units that has been destroyed (this game or whatever)' but specifies an unit that was *just* destroyed? If it wanted you to have a pick among any units that were destroyed during the game, it would probably tell you.

IMHO it is intended here that you need to decide right at that moment, and need to have the CP ready to pay for it - no bringing back units that were blown up in turn 1 at the end of the game, no picking among all destroyed units, and no abuse with double-vox blobs if you don't have the initial CP ready.

 Afrodactyl wrote:

 AtoMaki wrote:

Karol wrote:
Well a unit can die in any phase. That is why the "when" is any phase. The rest is not needed, because you are not going to have non regiment IG units in your army getting destroyed, unless we get rules for inquisition forcing itself in to other detachments.

The timing window has to be specific. Interestingly enough, while searching for Born Soldiers, I stumbled into the previewed Armour of Contempt Strategem that does specify the timing window in the When line and then references it later in Target, exactly like how I proposed for Reinforcements. So I'm starting to think that Reinforcements can really revive any unit in any phase that was ever "just destroyed" during the entire battle. Otherwise, they would specify it like with Armour of Contempt.

The timing window is already specific, it says "that was just destroyed".

The timing window only says "Any Phase", that's literally the entire thing. The Target is a unit that was just destroyed. But which one? I can fire off the Stratagem when no unit is lost, or I can use the Strategem later in the same/consequent phase when the unit was destroyed. You can compare the 'When' line in Reinforcements and Armour of Contempt to see the difference: the latter actually specifies the timing window in that line while the former very clearly doesn't.

Another reason the Strategem might affect any unit destroyed during the battle is because if the start-with-0-CP-gain-1-per-turn thing is true then you can't bring back any unit you lose in the first or even the first two turns because you won't have 2 CP to fire off the Strategem exactly when the unit is destroyed. It feels counterintuitive from a game design perspective to deny a recovery mechanic for the time when the player likely suffers the most casualties and thus encourage the opponent to perform an alpha strike.

 AtoMaki wrote:

The timing window only says "Any Phase", that's literally the entire thing. The Target is a unit that was just destroyed. But which one? I can fire off the Stratagem when no unit is lost, or I can use the Strategem later in the same/consequent phase when the unit was destroyed. You can compare the 'When' line in Reinforcements and Armour of Contempt to see the difference: the latter actually specifies the timing window in that line while the former very clearly doesn't.

you can't play a stratagem without a valid target, stop being so stupid

 AtoMaki wrote:

 Afrodactyl wrote:

 AtoMaki wrote:

Karol wrote:
Well a unit can die in any phase. That is why the "when" is any phase. The rest is not needed, because you are not going to have non regiment IG units in your army getting destroyed, unless we get rules for inquisition forcing itself in to other detachments.

The timing window has to be specific. Interestingly enough, while searching for Born Soldiers, I stumbled into the previewed Armour of Contempt Strategem that does specify the timing window in the When line and then references it later in Target, exactly like how I proposed for Reinforcements. So I'm starting to think that Reinforcements can really revive any unit in any phase that was ever "just destroyed" during the entire battle. Otherwise, they would specify it like with Armour of Contempt.

The timing window is already specific, it says "that was just destroyed".

The timing window only says "Any Phase", that's literally the entire thing. The Target is a unit that was just destroyed. But which one? I can fire off the Stratagem when no unit is lost, or I can use the Strategem later in the same/consequent phase when the unit was destroyed. You can compare the 'When' line in Reinforcements and Armour of Contempt to see the difference: the latter actually specifies the timing window in that line while the former very clearly doesn't.

Another reason the Strategem might affect any unit destroyed during the battle is because if the start-with-0-CP-gain-1-per-turn thing is true then you can't bring back any unit you lose in the first or even the first two turns because you won't have 2 CP to fire off the Strategem exactly when the unit is destroyed. It feels counterintuitive from a game design perspective to deny a recovery mechanic for the time when the player likely suffers the most casualties and thus encourage the opponent to perform an alpha strike.

The Target is a unit that was just destroyed.

Please tell me what the word "just" means in the context of time.

Funnily enough, Armour of Contempt also uses the word "just". Would you be okay with me retroactively activating AoC in the fight phase against your shooting attacks? Because it just happened, at least by the logic you are presenting.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 AtoMaki wrote:

The timing window only says "Any Phase", that's literally the entire thing. The Target is a unit that was just destroyed. But which one? I can fire off the Stratagem when no unit is lost, or I can use the Strategem later in the same/consequent phase when the unit was destroyed. You can compare the 'When' line in Reinforcements and Armour of Contempt to see the difference: the latter actually specifies the timing window in that line while the former very clearly doesn't.

you can't play a stratagem without a valid target, stop being so stupid

Hey, a unit destroyed two phases ago was just destroyed too in the battle (or the turn, or the day, or the year, etc.). Again, refer to the Armour of Contempt timing where the actual activation step is clearly specified (then later referenced for choosing a target) and compare it to Reinforcements where no step is specified et all. AFAIK, we also don't know if we can play a Stratagem without a valid target. Kinda like how we don't know if Marines will get that 2+ save in cover or not.

 Afrodactyl wrote:

Please tell me what the word "just" means in the context of time.

It is not used in the context of time (unlike in Armour of Contempt) but in the context of choosing a target. What does it mean there? That's my whole problem with it.

Common English would make it clear that "Just destroyed" in this context would mean after a unit is destroyed, but before anything else happens.

 AtoMaki wrote:

Hey, a unit destroyed two phases ago was just destroyed too in the battle (or the turn, or the day, or the year, etc.).

Man, you HAVE to be a troll lol.

Atomaki, by your flag I'm assuming English isn't your first language, and perhaps that's where your confusion is coming from.

In common English usage, is something 'just' happened, it means it happened immediately prior to now. It's clearly referring to something you do in immediate reaction to a unit being destroyed. Not next phase, not next turn, immediately.

 AtoMaki wrote:

It is not used in the context of time (unlike in Armour of Contempt) but in the context of choosing a target. What does it mean there? That's my whole problem with it.

By your reading, can i use the stratagem repeatedly, in different turns or whatever, targetting the same unit that was 'just' removed, and bringing e..g. three units 'back' for one that got destroyed? There's nothing in the stratagem preventing that if 'just' is as meaningless as you stipulate.

pgmason wrote:
Atomaki, by your flag I'm assuming English isn't your first language, and perhaps that's where your confusion is coming from.

In common English usage, is something 'just' happened, it means it happened immediately prior to now. It's clearly referring to something you do in immediate reaction to a unit being destroyed. Not next phase, not next turn, immediately.

I thought this too, but then I clarified the timing and it was removed from the quote when they responded.

Atomaki, are you perhaps interpreting "just destroyed" as meaning "only destroyed, and nothing else has happened to it"?

I don't mean to come across as overly hostile about this point, or ignorant of any difficulties with English you may have, so I apologise if that's the way you're reading my messages. I genuinely just (theres that word again) want to get to the bottom of your confusion around the timing.

:EDIT:
Having an absolute meltdown trying to spell words in English while asking whether someone might have difficulties with English as a language. Fairly embarrassing for me

Tsagualsa wrote:

 AtoMaki wrote:

It is not used in the context of time (unlike in Armour of Contempt) but in the context of choosing a target. What does it mean there? That's my whole problem with it.

By your reading, can i use the stratagem repeatedly, in different turns or whatever, targetting the same unit that was 'just' removed, and bringing e..g. three units 'back' for one that got destroyed? There's nothing in the stratagem preventing that if 'just' is as meaningless as you stipulate.

Hey, as far as I'm concerned, you absolutely can. And it would be pretty awesome too: take out one, two other takes its place. That really embraces the spirit of the ability.

It's clearly referring to something you do in immediate reaction to a unit being destroyed.

Then it would refer to that in the When line, like in Armour of Contempt where it refers to the immediate reaction to an enemy unit targeting one of yours in the When line. If GW really intended this to work in reaction of a unit being destroyed then they would include it in the When line, like in the case of AoC.

Atomaki, are you perhaps interpreting "just destroyed" as meaning "only destroyed, and nothing else has happened to it"?

My problem is with how the Stratagem is structured, not its grammar. As I said earlier, the trigger of the unit getting just destroyed should be in the When line, because in Target it is in the wrong context. The timing window and the targeting criteria are clearly separated and the former is very clearly specified (Any Phase) with no ado (unlike in AoC where it goes on to further specify the timing) while the former apparently also includes a timing window requirement despite it being a targeting criteria field and another ability of the same type making a proper distinction of the two? Something is amiss here.

AtoMaki, do you intend to play it this way?
Or are you just poking fun at GW's imperfect writing?

Because I don't think this writing is particularly unclear, much like 8th edition Assault weapons. But if you're just japing, I get it.

AtoMaki is not arguing in good faith, theirs no point carrying on. they are not confused, they knows damm well thats not what it says, they just deliberately taking a pedantic RAW interpretation to trash the rules writing. Its would never stand in any actual, real world game, and any TO would just tell him "yeah, nah" and walk off.

That said, i dont think AtoMaki would actually try this in an actual game, they are just using it as an example of "bad rules writing" form GW.

Ah this old misreading chestnut. Similar things have driven YMDC into non-utility in the past, and now General Discussion too it seems! What fun.

 JNAProductions wrote:
AtoMaki, do you intend to play it this way?
Or are you just poking fun at GW's imperfect writing?

I actually like it much better as an undefined ability. There is quite a lot of depth for deciding when I want to bring back a lost unit and I can make risky moves in the first and second turns knowing that I have a decent safety net in case one of my key units take a nap. I can react to a changing battlefield by bringing back a fast unit OR a tough unit and keep the enemy guessing what will come back and when. That's pretty friggin' awesome if you ask me.

But otherwise, my main issue is with the writing. Especially since AoC got it right, so I have no idea why Reinforcements didn't. Other than it actually working indefinitely.