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.

In addition, if your army is Battle-forged
and this model is your Warlord and on the battlefield, roll a D6 for
each Command Point spent when using Stratagems; on a 6 that
Command Point is immediately refunded.

What about that stops me from rolling when an opponent spends command points on stratagems?

While I see what you are saying, I don’t believe this is the intent or spirit of the rule to steal in your opponents phase.

It works for any command point spend. Doesnt matter which players spends it. A relic like kurovs aquila says "each time your opponent uses a Stratagem, roll a D6. On a 5+ you gain 1 Command Point."
The warlord trait grand strategist says "if your army is Battle-forged and this Warlord is on the battlefield, roll a dice for each Command Point spent when using Stratagems. On a 5+ that Command Point is immediately refunded." This would also work for your opponent, but it would be stupid to roll for him

Yes, "refunded" implies the CP goes back to the person who used it, so you're basically helping your opponent by rolling for him/her to regain CPs.

 DarknessEternal wrote:
In addition, if your army is Battle-forged
and this model is your Warlord and on the battlefield, roll a D6 for
each Command Point spent when using Stratagems; on a 6 that
Command Point is immediately refunded.

What about that stops me from rolling when an opponent spends command points on stratagems?

Well technically nothing but of course if you believe it works for opponent rolls then that CP goes to opponent. Not you.

As stated, "refunded" means it goes back to the person who used it.

In fact, since it's not optional, RaW you have to roll to see if your opponent gets them too!

 Uriels_Flame wrote:
While I see what you are saying, I don’t believe this is the intent or spirit of the rule to steal in your opponents phase.

This. It works on your army only.

Yep, there are several versions of this in other armies which explicitly state that it can be used when an opponent uses stratagems - this one does not.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
As stated, "refunded" means it goes back to the person who used it.

In fact, since it's not optional, RaW you have to roll to see if your opponent gets them too!

This 100%. This rule is mandatory, RAW and can refund the opponent.

Audustum wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
As stated, "refunded" means it goes back to the person who used it.

In fact, since it's not optional, RaW you have to roll to see if your opponent gets them too!

This 100%. This rule is mandatory, RAW and can refund the opponent.

I find this absurd and amusing, but would not force my opponent to do this as I think this is yet another wording oversight on GW's part.

Tristanleo wrote:

Audustum wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
As stated, "refunded" means it goes back to the person who used it.

In fact, since it's not optional, RaW you have to roll to see if your opponent gets them too!

This 100%. This rule is mandatory, RAW and can refund the opponent.

I find this absurd and amusing, but would not force my opponent to do this as I think this is yet another wording oversight on GW's part.

Love Dakka. Only abuse rules when it works in your favor.

 Nightlord1987 wrote:

Tristanleo wrote:

Audustum wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
As stated, "refunded" means it goes back to the person who used it.

In fact, since it's not optional, RaW you have to roll to see if your opponent gets them too!

This 100%. This rule is mandatory, RAW and can refund the opponent.

I find this absurd and amusing, but would not force my opponent to do this as I think this is yet another wording oversight on GW's part.

Love Dakka. Only abuse rules when it works in your favor.

Maybe just don't bend them out of shape in the first place, and play what's obviously meant instead of saying "aha YOUR Warlord Trait let's ME generate CP refunds too!" or some other such nonsense. Each to their own. (not a dig at you, just a general lament)

Tristanleo wrote:

Audustum wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
As stated, "refunded" means it goes back to the person who used it.

In fact, since it's not optional, RaW you have to roll to see if your opponent gets them too!

This 100%. This rule is mandatory, RAW and can refund the opponent.

I find this absurd and amusing, but would not force my opponent to do this as I think this is yet another wording oversight on GW's part.

It's a thing I'd happily house rule, but in a tournament we'd need a TO, haha.

 Nightlord1987 wrote:
Love Dakka. Only abuse rules when it works in your favor.

He didn't say only when it helps though. This can both help and hurt you so unless somebody switches will he play it by RAW or not he's not using it only when it works in his favour.

Yes, but it's that flavour of "RAW" where if you tried to use it you would excitedly announce your rules interpretation to the opponent who will think "oh no, my opponent is a massive ****" and call you wrong... forcing you to summon a TO, who will then have to take time reading through the rules in forensic detail, all the while thinking "why is there always one massive **** at these tournaments?"

A situation best summarized by The Dude, in this classic film clip: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZjibEkDoXQc

Walter Sobchak would be a perfect 40k player.

You're not wrong, Walter. You're just an a**hole.

Playing by the rules makes you an donkey-cave? Does making you roll to hit instead of saying all your models automatically hit mean being an donkey-cave?

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Playing by the rules makes you an donkey-cave? Does making you roll to hit instead of saying all your models automatically hit mean being an donkey-cave?

Oh look a fallacious comparison what a surprise. Using an obviously not intended application and claiming "its RAW haha look I'm right and you're cheating" isnt appropriate.

Honestly, this rule is so obvious in its application and this thread is just wordplay nonsense. Tenets of YMDC cover it ably - it's just GW language and if the intent is abundantly clear crying "RAW RAW!" isn't appropriate.

 JohnnyHell wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Playing by the rules makes you an donkey-cave? Does making you roll to hit instead of saying all your models automatically hit mean being an donkey-cave?

Oh look a fallacious comparison what a surprise. Using an obviously not intended application and claiming "its RAW haha look I'm right and you're cheating" isnt appropriate.

Honestly, this rule is so obvious in its application and this thread is just wordplay nonsense. Tenets of YMDC cover it ably - it's just GW language and if the intent is abundantly clear crying "RAW RAW!" isn't appropriate.

Uhh, you have this backwards. You look at intent when RAW is unclear not the other way around. There's lots of games with mechanics like this so I'm not sure it's entirely crazy to think that's what GW meant either.

Audustum wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Playing by the rules makes you an donkey-cave? Does making you roll to hit instead of saying all your models automatically hit mean being an donkey-cave?

Oh look a fallacious comparison what a surprise. Using an obviously not intended application and claiming "its RAW haha look I'm right and you're cheating" isnt appropriate.

Honestly, this rule is so obvious in its application and this thread is just wordplay nonsense. Tenets of YMDC cover it ably - it's just GW language and if the intent is abundantly clear crying "RAW RAW!" isn't appropriate.

Uhh, you have this backwards. You look at intent when RAW is unclear not the other way around. There's lots of games with mechanics like this so I'm not sure it's entirely crazy to think that's what GW meant either.

Uhhm it's so obviously intended to function for one army alone any "RAW RAW" discussion is pointless.

 JohnnyHell wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Playing by the rules makes you an donkey-cave? Does making you roll to hit instead of saying all your models automatically hit mean being an donkey-cave?

Oh look a fallacious comparison what a surprise. Using an obviously not intended application and claiming "its RAW haha look I'm right and you're cheating" isnt appropriate.

Honestly, this rule is so obvious in its application and this thread is just wordplay nonsense. Tenets of YMDC cover it ably - it's just GW language and if the intent is abundantly clear crying "RAW RAW!" isn't appropriate.

Please take your trolling to a different forum.

 DarknessEternal wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Playing by the rules makes you an donkey-cave? Does making you roll to hit instead of saying all your models automatically hit mean being an donkey-cave?

Oh look a fallacious comparison what a surprise. Using an obviously not intended application and claiming "its RAW haha look I'm right and you're cheating" isnt appropriate.

Honestly, this rule is so obvious in its application and this thread is just wordplay nonsense. Tenets of YMDC cover it ably - it's just GW language and if the intent is abundantly clear crying "RAW RAW!" isn't appropriate.

Please take your trolling to a different forum.

I'm not trolling, please stop that. This rule is so clear in its intent I find it ridiculous that people would try and twist it. There's literally a section of the Tenets to prevent this sort of thread, yet here we are again.

You may want to review those tenets.

Audustum wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Playing by the rules makes you an donkey-cave? Does making you roll to hit instead of saying all your models automatically hit mean being an donkey-cave?

Oh look a fallacious comparison what a surprise. Using an obviously not intended application and claiming "its RAW haha look I'm right and you're cheating" isnt appropriate.

Honestly, this rule is so obvious in its application and this thread is just wordplay nonsense. Tenets of YMDC cover it ably - it's just GW language and if the intent is abundantly clear crying "RAW RAW!" isn't appropriate.

Uhh, you have this backwards. You look at intent when RAW is unclear not the other way around. There's lots of games with mechanics like this so I'm not sure it's entirely crazy to think that's what GW meant either.

You can also look at intent when the RAW is clear but is also clearly silly.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DarknessEternal wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Playing by the rules makes you an donkey-cave? Does making you roll to hit instead of saying all your models automatically hit mean being an donkey-cave?

Oh look a fallacious comparison what a surprise. Using an obviously not intended application and claiming "its RAW haha look I'm right and you're cheating" isnt appropriate.

Honestly, this rule is so obvious in its application and this thread is just wordplay nonsense. Tenets of YMDC cover it ably - it's just GW language and if the intent is abundantly clear crying "RAW RAW!" isn't appropriate.

Please take your trolling to a different forum.

I'm assuming that you're referring to both of them now.

Actually it say "...for each command point spent when using strategems..."

Are you using a stratagem? No? Then you can't roll a D6 to get a cp back from it.

Wagguy80 wrote:
Actually it say "...for each command point spent when using strategems..."

Are you using a stratagem? No? Then you can't roll a D6 to get a cp back from it.

It doesn't specify which side is spending the command point. The intention is obvious, however.

 doctortom wrote:

Audustum wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Playing by the rules makes you an donkey-cave? Does making you roll to hit instead of saying all your models automatically hit mean being an donkey-cave?

Oh look a fallacious comparison what a surprise. Using an obviously not intended application and claiming "its RAW haha look I'm right and you're cheating" isnt appropriate.

Honestly, this rule is so obvious in its application and this thread is just wordplay nonsense. Tenets of YMDC cover it ably - it's just GW language and if the intent is abundantly clear crying "RAW RAW!" isn't appropriate.

Uhh, you have this backwards. You look at intent when RAW is unclear not the other way around. There's lots of games with mechanics like this so I'm not sure it's entirely crazy to think that's what GW meant either.

You can also look at intent when the RAW is clear but is also clearly silly.

Eh, I'm not as sure on that one. "Clearly silly" is really subjective. Take the character targeting rule. I was figuratively called silly for saying that a unit out of line-of-sight, but that is closer, would prevent you from shooting a character who was in line-of-sight, but farther. CA rolled out and they reworded it to make it explicitly clear in favor of my interpretation. Things I think are silly you might think are perfectly reasonable and vice-versa.

Audustum wrote:

 doctortom wrote:

Audustum wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Playing by the rules makes you an donkey-cave? Does making you roll to hit instead of saying all your models automatically hit mean being an donkey-cave?

Oh look a fallacious comparison what a surprise. Using an obviously not intended application and claiming "its RAW haha look I'm right and you're cheating" isnt appropriate.

Honestly, this rule is so obvious in its application and this thread is just wordplay nonsense. Tenets of YMDC cover it ably - it's just GW language and if the intent is abundantly clear crying "RAW RAW!" isn't appropriate.

Uhh, you have this backwards. You look at intent when RAW is unclear not the other way around. There's lots of games with mechanics like this so I'm not sure it's entirely crazy to think that's what GW meant either.

You can also look at intent when the RAW is clear but is also clearly silly.

Eh, I'm not as sure on that one. "Clearly silly" is really subjective. Take the character targeting rule. I was figuratively called silly for saying that a unit out of line-of-sight, but that is closer, would prevent you from shooting a character who was in line-of-sight, but farther. CA rolled out and they reworded it to make it explicitly clear in favor of my interpretation. Things I think are silly you might think are perfectly reasonable and vice-versa.

Clearly silly RAW such as not getting to fire assault weapons after advancing because by RAW not getting to select the unit to be able to fire in the first place. Clearly silly in past editions like Terminators not having terminator armor in 4th editions, or (until they FAQ'd it, and something to keep in mind for this specific tropic) Res Orbs affecting enemy units if it's a Necron vs Necron battle. They clarified then that you don't affect the enemy without a specific statement that you do; that's certainly something to keep in mind here.

Yes but the word refund is obvious, and clear. Even if you do roll for it, you can't be refunded a CP you didn't spend.

Somewhere in the United States, a total stranger is getting a refund. Am i also entitled to a refund for his or her purchase?

It was an interesting thought, but it's very clearly addressed in the wording of the rule. /thread

 Marmatag wrote:
Yes but the word refund is obvious, and clear. Even if you do roll for it, you can't be refunded a CP you didn't spend.

Somewhere in the United States, a total stranger is getting a refund. Am i also entitled to a refund for his or her purchase?

It was an interesting thought, but it's very clearly addressed in the wording of the rule. /thread

Thanks for joining the thread. Maybe read more than the OP next time though, since we've already been over the fact that it refunds points to the player that spent them.

 Marmatag wrote:
Yes but the word refund is obvious, and clear. Even if you do roll for it, you can't be refunded a CP you didn't spend.

Somewhere in the United States, a total stranger is getting a refund. Am i also entitled to a refund for his or her purchase?

It was an interesting thought, but it's very clearly addressed in the wording of the rule. /thread

good thing nobody is saying you would be getting refund but that if this rule is in use BOTH players gets the CP THEY spend refuned on 5+.