Fun list of RAW fun.

To keep the Ynnari thread from becoming cluttered, I'm moving some posts here.

This thread is about interesting conundrums or power combos that arise from playing the rules exactly as written.

The members of the Ynnari Triumvirate can be bundled into any formation with Eldar, Harlequins, or Dark Eldar Faction designation.

(I'll give you some time to do your thing so I don't create repeat ocmments.)

That Fall of Cadia one btw includes any army including Baronial Courts.

Also, on the subject of wonky units, the Corsairs power that allows you to place an enemy unit in Ongoing Reserves excludes Superheavies, but the power that specifies moving a friend or foe unit 2D6" does not. Furthermore it says it can target any unit, and with IC's being a unit, it can target, say, a Farseer in a Seer Council. The Farseer cannot leave the Seer Council unit, but the psychic power states the unit MUST move 2D6". In similar logic to the Raider tank shocking an immobilized Stormsurge, RAW, I believe any Farseer targeted by this in a Seer Council must be removed from play.

Why wouldn't you simply be out of coherency?

Because the model cannot be moved out of the unit, but you must move it out of the unit. Likewise, a Stormsurge cannot be moved, but it must move out of the way. You have a rules contradiction.

At the beginning of 6th ed, I knew a guy who argued that the Sanguine Sword psychic power lasted all game long. Since it wasn't explicitly a Blessing, it didn't have a default expiration of the beginning of your next turn. Since it didn't have a duration in its listing, he argued it didn't end.

I mentioned this discussion to my friend. He offered a response:

That's...not horrifically far from the truth.

Here's another one, that I'm pretty sure is still current. If your vehicle is wrecked (not explodes), and is an Assault Vehicle, you can declare an assault in your opponent's assault phase on the turn he wrecks it.

This is from the forum topic I lifted my Fall of Cadia relic thing from:

Quote :

X unless Y

is equivalent to

If not X then Y
or (inclusive)
If not Y then X

Where X = A model can only be given a single relic or artefact
and Y = [the rules] specifically note otherwise

If a model can take more than one relic, then the rules specifically noted otherwise.
or
If the rules did not specifically note otherwise, a model can only be given a single relic or artefact

If a model can take more than one relic, the quality of a model only being able to take one is not a necessary condition for being a relic.

Models can take more than one relic, so long as the rules specifically note they can.

Thus, the second requirement I was discussing cannot be the case.

I think my main contention here is that the second requirement (that it must include language limiting taking to a single relic) is a quality of the model, and not really a quality of the relic itself - relics are perfectly fine being and remaining a relic, even if a model is taking more than one. Their nature as a relic is independent of the particular qualities of the model.

This person is bad at logic. "Specifically note they can " is clearly a wholly different term, we'll call it S, and not evidence that sub-premise 2 is false. When it's modeled correctly their conclusion does not follow.

But I digress: That's a pretty neat one Jimsolo.

By book, Eldar Jetbikes can make their 2d6 Assault Phase move and then declare a charge. Or declare a charge, fail it, and then make the 2d6 assault phase move.

@amorrowlyday I have something for you:

I play in tournaments where the obvious choice is to steamroll, because players have no choice but to play your list, and they probably brought some wonky rules of their own.

Then everyone involved gets to have fun, because competition is fun.

amorrowlyday wrote:

The members of the Ynnari Triumvirate can be bundled into any formation with Eldar, Harlequins, or Dark Eldar Faction designation.

(I'll give you some time to do your thing so I don't create repeat ocmments.)

This is IMO not correct... the rules actually say...

"Unlike most units in 40k, Yvraine, visarch and Yncarne are new army list entries that can be included in an CWE, DE or EH detachment, regardless of faction restrictions".

So, you have no permission to add it to a grotesquerie as the grotesquerie has no space for them in its formations structure.

The Rule only allows you to circumvent the single faction pre detachment. They still take up a slot.

slots aren't relevant to discussions about formations. Same question I asked Jimsolo @massaen: do you feel the same way about the Court of the Archon? And if not, aside from lacking an FOC slot, which formations don't care about, what's different?

The court has a specific exception allowing it to be added where there is an archon.

These models are allowed to be added to detachments regardless of faction. The formations list specific units allowed. The court gets around it by being an extension of the archon and having a rule allowing it to be added regardless.

this is a rule that allows it to be added in regardless. In terms of restriction avoidance the rules are identical

@TeenageAngst :p

There are no slots in formations, is what amorrowlyday is saying, so a slot doesn't need to be vacant to include a unit that you're given permission to include in any detachment.

I actually agree with him, in the absence of any evidence showing that formations have slots. If someone can show us a page indicating that formations have slots, I'm sure both myself and amorrowlyday will happily alter our position.

They are in no way identical at all.

Retainers - "For each archon included in a detachment, the detachment can include a court of the archon that does not take up a slot on the force organisation chart"

Ynaari - "Unlike most units in 40k, Yvraine, visarch and Yncarne are new army list entries that can be included in any CWE, DE or EH detachment, regardless of faction restrictions".

The Court has a specific exception telling us that they can be added to a detachment where an archon is present which uses up no space in the detachment.

The Ynaari only ignore the FACTION restriction (which is typically that all models in the detachment are the same faction or have no faction). They have zero permission like the court to be part of detachments without space for them

BetrayTheWorld wrote:

There are no slots in formations, is what amorrowlyday is saying, so a slot doesn't need to be vacant to include a unit that you're given permission to include in any detachment.

I actually agree with him, in the absence of any evidence showing that formations have slots. If someone can show us a page indicating that formations have slots, I'm sure both myself and amorrowlyday will happily alter our position.

Slots must be relevant to formations or the courts retainers rule does not work in allowing them in.

You have a SUPER important typo: Triumvirate it doesn't say AN it says ANY.

Updated - that's my typo

It changes nothing however - you are allowed to add them to any detachment regardless of faction restrictions. You still must have the ability to add them into the detachment (ie have a slot or have them named in the formation).

Again - you only have permission to ignore the faction restriction - you have no permission to ignore any other parts of the detachment

Edit: Very well.

Sorry Jimsolo - but that's what's going to happen constantly in this thread.

You cant generate a thread "about interesting conundrums or power combos that arise from playing the rules exactly as written" without expecting rules arguments because it creates an environment where readings of rules are different despite perceived RAW(as highlighted above).