GW finally said AOV stratagem is for BH only

Siticus the Ancient wrote:

"Everyone" being the people incapable of/knowingly not reading the paragraph where it clearly states that an Ynnari detachment does not benefit from any further rules following said paragraph? This is not the case of the rules being wonky. This is a case of people being wonky with how they choose to read what's written and interpreting things to their advantage

Ironic really as you seem to have missed the section of those very rules that says "The Detachment is still considered to be a Craftworlds, Harlequins or Drukhari Detachment, and so can use Craftworlds, Harlequins or Drukhari Stratagems, Warlord Traits and Relics respectively."

@Ikol summarised the Saim-Hann situation neatly in this thread. It was 100% legal. The army was battle-forged, the warlord was one of the 3 required characters, the army contained a Craftworld detachment to unlock the relevant stratagems, the Saim-Hann unit in the Ynnari detachment retains the Saim-Hann keyword and is therefore a valid target for the stratagem.

withershadow wrote:

Yes, because there is absolutely no other stratagem like it, and absolutely no other stratagem requires you to have a pure subfaction detachment.

I think GW means all subfaction Stratagems require a pure subfaction Detachment now.

That does create a technical glitch with mercenaries, but I'm prepared to ignore that issue as people being overly literal around keywords.

You would assume that once a Ynnari codex comes out, it will remove any ability to use "parent" keywords such as kabal of the black heart, saim-hann etc in favour of a new set of Ynnari key words, stratagems and army bonuses. Until a codex is released, theres going to be some grey area because now Ynnari is using two codex books with an index soup-style faction rule set.

I'm really hyped for the Ynnari codex, either it will be glorius and everyone is happy, or it will be hideous and I will get a cardiac arrest from all the salt
oh what the heck I'll laugh anyway

Kantalla wrote:

withershadow wrote:

Yes, because there is absolutely no other stratagem like it, and absolutely no other stratagem requires you to have a pure subfaction detachment.

I think GW means all subfaction Stratagems require a pure subfaction Detachment now.

That does create a technical glitch with mercenaries, but I'm prepared to ignore that issue as people being overly literal around keywords.

Creates a glitch with Mercenaries and Regimental Advisors, and how overtly literal is it being to treat detachments as defined on page 240 of the rulebook?

Also really screws Chaos in a serious way. So now the Slaanesh-marked components of your army can’t use a Slaanesh stratagem unless everyone in the army is Slaanesh, it seems overly restrictive and makes little sense.

I think people are just blowing the FAQ throw away comment that is just reiterating the stratagem rules from every Codex out of proportion.

Thank you for the kind words, Count.

And as for Siticus’ the Ancient’s comment regarding the ‘Kabal of the Black Heart Stratagem’ piece, that is flavour text.

It is not a rule, there are no rules written regarding it. There is nothing to say that any DRUKHARI army would not have access to it.

And seeing as the Stratagem itself has no qualifiers on its activation beyond ‘opponent activates a stratagem’ and ‘you have the CP required to activate it’, Rules As Written, any army containing a DRUKHARI, detachment, even if it also happens to be YNNARI detachment, has access to this Stratagem.

Now, that’s not to say that the above is the Rules As Intended, the PR statements around it - both on release and within the image that started this whole thread - make their intent abundantly clear. But until they explicitly state that this Stratagem can only be activated if your army contains a BLACK HEART detachment or Unit either in an FAQ or Chapter Approved - which they have not - then anyone that decides to activate the stratagem in the above manner is correct and acting perfectly within the rules of the game.

Since this is a very rare case of the intent being more than abundantly clear, and with all major tournaments so far adopting that stated intent as a rule, I don't think it's beneficial to insist on RAW in the only remaining venue: friendly games.

That just starts a row that leads to the argument that you must have pure subfactions, which causes all sorts of problems as described above.

Ikol wrote:

Further more, the Agents of Vect stratagem does not target a BLACK HEART unit, instead it targets your opponent's Stratagem.  And so any DRUKHARI Detachment gives you access to it.

Completely disagree. The clear INTENTION of the stratagem is that it can only be used is if you are running some black heart units. Now I know a lot of more tournament focused players don't care about RAI and only care about RAW, but in a casual gaming group like the one where I get 95% of my games in, RAI is actually important.

Yeah, it is 100% clear the RAI, but like you said tournaments are 100% strict on RAW and TO's decisions.

withershadow wrote:

Creates a glitch with Mercenaries and Regimental Advisors, and how overtly literal is it being to treat detachments as defined on page 240 of the rulebook?

In case this isn't clear to others, here is the technical issue if you need a Black Heart Detachment for Agents of Vect, and why I don't think it really matters:

Imagine we have a pure <KABAL OF THE BLACK HEART> Detachment and add in a unit of Scourges...

1) The only common Faction keyword is <DRUKHARI>, as the Scourges don't have a <KABAL> keyword.
2) The Mercenaries rule allows the Kabal units to still gain an Obsession (but doesn't change the Detachment keyword at all).
3) GW intends you need a <KABAL OF THE BLACK HEART> Detachment to use Agents of Vect

Therefore:
4) Our Detachment doesn't allow us to use Agents of Vect because it isn't a <KABAL OF THE BLACK HEART> Detachment.

Similar issues in many other Codexes from things like Phoenix Lords.

Personally, I see the intent of the Mercenaries rule is to not interfere with Detachments that otherwise work, or to imagine they mean a Kabal of the Black Heart Obsession instead of Detachment for premise 3.

However, taking things completely literally, no subfaction Stratagems if you have Mercenary units.

Count Adhemar wrote:

Ironic really as you seem to have missed the section of those very rules that says "The Detachment is still considered to be a Craftworlds, Harlequins or Drukhari Detachment, and so can use Craftworlds, Harlequins or Drukhari Stratagems, Warlord Traits and Relics respectively."

This is from the Index Xenos 1 FAQ, not Craftworlds codex, the wording of which I was referring to. But after going through the FAQs, I see now what you mean. I may not agree with it, as I think an Ynnari unit should not have any Craftworld affiliation at all as it gives no benefit other than this kind of very specific stratagem case, due to Ynnari not receiving the Craftworld Attributes. However, I concede my objections.

So, here's a question, what counts as having a Black Heart detachment?

I know that this sounds silly, but here me out.

Let's imagine that I have a Flayed Skull detachment and include a single Black Heart Ravager in an Auxiliary Support Detachment.

During deployment, I use the stratagem to put the Ravager in reserve.

- Can I use Agents of Vect even though I have no Black Heart models on the board?

Now let's imagine my Ravager enters the board but is destroyed by enemy fire.

- Can I use Agents of Vect even though all my Black Heart models have been wiped out?

Stratagems aren't unlocked by Auxiliary Support Detachments, so your specific example doesn't quite work.

However, given there is nothing of yours you need to target, you could still do it if all your Black Heart units are off the board or wiped out.

Would make a bit more sense if a Black Heart Archon needed to activate it, but otherwise you just need to qualify for it.

Kantalla wrote:

Stratagems aren't unlocked by Auxiliary Support Detachments, so your specific example doesn't quite work.

Ah, I'd missed that. I was just trying to create the simplest scenario possible. Maybe a Patrol with an Archon in a Raider deep striking, then?

Kantalla wrote:

However, given there is nothing of yours you need to target, you could still do it if all your Black Heart units are off the board or wiped out.

Granted, but it's still a bit weird that your board presence can be functionally identical to an army without any Black Heart detachments, and yet you're still able to use it just fine.

Soulless Samurai wrote:

Kantalla wrote:

Stratagems aren't unlocked by Auxiliary Support Detachments, so your specific example doesn't quite work.

Ah, I'd missed that. I was just trying to create the simplest scenario possible. Maybe a Patrol with an Archon in a Raider deep striking, then?

Kantalla wrote:

However, given there is nothing of yours you need to target, you could still do it if all your Black Heart units are off the board or wiped out.

Granted, but it's still a bit weird that your board presence can be functionally identical to an army without any Black Heart detachments, and yet you're still able to use it just fine.

You dont need to be on the table, you only needed the detachment to unlock the stratagem, nothing says "a unit uses this stratagem"

Kantalla wrote:

withershadow wrote:

Creates a glitch with Mercenaries and Regimental Advisors, and how overtly literal is it being to treat detachments as defined on page 240 of the rulebook?

In case this isn't clear to others, here is the technical issue if you need a Black Heart Detachment for Agents of Vect, and why I don't think it really matters:

Imagine we have a pure <KABAL OF THE BLACK HEART> Detachment and add in a unit of Scourges...

1) The only common Faction keyword is <DRUKHARI>, as the Scourges don't have a <KABAL> keyword.
2) The Mercenaries rule allows the Kabal units to still gain an Obsession (but doesn't change the Detachment keyword at all).
3) GW intends you need a <KABAL OF THE BLACK HEART> Detachment to use Agents of Vect

Therefore:
4) Our Detachment doesn't allow us to use Agents of Vect because it isn't a <KABAL OF THE BLACK HEART> Detachment.

Similar issues in many other Codexes from things like Phoenix Lords.

Personally, I see the intent of the Mercenaries rule is to not interfere with Detachments that otherwise work, or to imagine they mean a Kabal of the Black Heart Obsession instead of Detachment for premise 3.

However, taking things completely literally, no subfaction Stratagems if you have Mercenary units.

Careful, I tried to lay this logic out on Facebook and 90% of the braying idiots on there failed to grasp it and just called me a WAAC cheater.

More fun scenarios:
A Cadian army with a Commissar or Psyker loses its Cadian stratagem.
A renegade Chaos marine list gives a unit the mark of Slaanesh, that unit isn’t allowed to use Slaanesh stratagems.

Basically the whole game is turned on it’s head. Now hubbub is saying ITC is changing their previous ruling on this to work exactly as you’ve outlined. I am not surprised, since the ITC ruleset is a steaming crap anyway, but I’m still disappointed.

Sometimes you have a way with words that can get a bad reaction. Were you really arguing for the intent is that mercenaries don't cause an issue and people were claiming the opposite should apply?

Intent? That thing that gets increasingly more muddled? I was discussing rules as written. If pure subfactions are required and we’ve all been playing it wrong for a year (so we really don’t understand intent), I am pointing out the RAW consequences of that. 2/3rds of the readers assumed I was trying to abuse Agents of Vect despite my constant reiteration in simpler and simpler terms that I’m arguing for the opposite (limit stratagem as appropriate instead of this sweeping and ill thought out change to the game as a whole). Nothing, just a bunch of morons calling me a cheater. One guy bragged about testing in the top 25% for reading comprehension in his Tennessee high school, which is like being in the top 25% smartest kids with Down’s syndrome, but apparently that translates to bragging rights on Facebook.

And it’s not just the regimental advisors or mercenaries, who as written absolutely and unequivocally do disqualify you, but stupid stuff like a mixed daemon or chaos marine list not being able to use any chaos god-specific stratagem, even though they have stratagems that changes a unit’s allegiance specifically so they can use the stratagem. That unit of Khorne berserkers supporting your Iron Warriors can’t use Khorne stratagems, that is brilliant, truly!

Really what happened was GW screwed up the writing of Agents of Vect, and the community team of nitwits is stirring the pot despite not being any kind of authority and being by their own admission completely clueless on anything rules-related.

I mean I feel that it's perfectly fair to argue from a RAW perspective, most of the time that's right and that's often technically how you should be looking at it, but 95% of my games are casual where we are happy to just work with the intent of the rule. Now no matter the RAW, stuff like agents of vect is clearly meant to only be used by armies with black heart models, and that's how I'm personally going to keep playing it.

I think it's fairly easy:
You want to use a strategem of a sub faction like black heart or white scars or whatever?
You need a detachment of any kind that shares that sub faction key word.
Auxiliaries like advisors and mercenaries excluded.

I get it, this needs some kind of.... common sense, but it's the only way it makes sense now, given this official publication of games workshop. Everything else is a mess and would create more problems instead of solving them.

Sent from Topic'it App

CptMetal wrote:

I think it's fairly easy:
You want to use a strategem of a sub faction like black heart or white scars or whatever?
You need a detachment of any kind that shares that sub faction key word.

The difference is that other subfaction stratagems are self-regulating.

If you want to use 'Failure is not an Option' you need a unit of <Obsidian Rose> Infantry to target with it.

If you want to use 'Concealed Booby Traps' you need a unit of <Cursed Blade> Infantry within 1" of the enemy.

If you want to use Agents of Vect you need . . . nothing.


And if we're going to talk about common sense, it's also common sense that a unit which spends its entire turn running will move firther than an identical unit which stops to shoot and then stops again to fight. But no, the former can only move M+d6", whilst the latter can move M+2d6+3+3". You cannot use 'common sense' as an argument when many existing mechanics demonstrably do not use common sense.

withershadow wrote:

One guy bragged about testing in the top 25% for reading comprehension in his Tennessee high school, which is like being in the top 25% smartest kids with Down’s syndrome, but apparently that translates to bragging rights on Facebook.

I can imagine that kind of response doesn't lead to a happy agreement.

I just find myself reading rules like the mercenaries rule or the rules for if you have a Kabal not named in the book, and think they are intending these situations to essentially work without excessive penalties.

This seems like a case where they have tweaked the rules a little in their FAQ, and some other rules may have some RAW dramas as a result, which is what has happened with mercenaries here. The right approach to me is to give some leeway for intent in those cases, and in this case I imagine most people wouldn't want to see this type of situation limit access to key stratagems.

To be honest, I think the sensible thing would have been to just make Agents of Vect a general DE Stratagem in the first place.

Maybe swap it for Cruel Deception, or one of the other Stratagems that affects an actual unit.

Soulless Samurai wrote:

CptMetal wrote:

I think it's fairly easy:
You want to use a strategem of a sub faction like black heart or white scars or whatever?
You need a detachment of any kind that shares that sub faction key word.

The difference is that other subfaction stratagems are self-regulating.

If you want to use 'Failure is not an Option' you need a unit of <Obsidian Rose> Infantry to target with it.

If you want to use 'Concealed Booby Traps' you need a unit of <Cursed Blade> Infantry within 1" of the enemy.

If you want to use Agents of Vect you need . . . nothing.


And if we're going to talk about common sense, it's also common sense that a unit which spends its entire turn running will move firther than an identical unit which stops to shoot and then stops again to fight. But no, the former can only move M+d6", whilst the latter can move M+2d6+3+3". You cannot use 'common sense' as an argument when many existing mechanics demonstrably do not use common sense.

Well

It does have Black Heart in its name and stratagem part of the name, it also is in the Keyword section of the stratagems.

B.c it doesnt have <keyword> in the sentence is why others say "I can use it with all DE", common sense would say "Oh, they forgot to add that to AoV ok, but i understand the intent"

Just like in 6th, the Tryanids codex, it was NEVER faq, but everyone knew GW used the wrong wording for Pyrovores, the entire community had common sense then, why cant we now?

Pyrovore Rule if you didnt know:

amishprn86 wrote:

Well

It does have Black Heart in its name and stratagem part of the name, it also is in the Keyword section of the stratagems.

B.c it doesnt have <keyword> in the sentence is why others say "I can use it with all DE", common sense would say "Oh, they forgot to add that to AoV ok, but i understand the intent"

I'm not sure what your argument is here. It also doesn't appear to relate to anything I actually said.