GW finally said AOV stratagem is for BH only

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

amishprn86 wrote:

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

Indeed. You don't need to have a single Black Heart model on the board in order to use it, meaning it does not self-regulate.

Lord Asvaldir wrote:

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 am 100% okay with needing Black Heart models to use it, which is why the better fix is “While a <Black Heart> unit is alive and on the table, when your opponent uses a stratagem etc etc”. This would bring the stratagem into line with every other one. Instead, people are using the community team’s ignorance to basically upend the game by clamoring for pure subfaction requirements for stratagems. Several examples have been provided of the kind of stupid crap that results from that.

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.
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

Making up additional rules or house rules may resolve the issue for Guard or Drukhari, but it still craps all over Chaos, who are meant to be able to mix subfactions, and even have stratagems that revolve around switching subfactions. This is not a good interpretation or solution. This is NOT official. Community team have no relation to rules writers and no authority by their own disclaimer statement.

Personally I think that AoV should have been a BH warlord trait, not a strategem. That eliminates all this waffle about detachments because you would need a BH Archon as your Warlord to activate it. It also keeps it out of the hands of the Ynnari.

Count Adhemar wrote:

Personally I think that AoV should have been a BH warlord trait, not a strategem. That eliminates all this waffle about detachments because you would need a BH Archon as your Warlord to activate it. It also keeps it out of the hands of the Ynnari.

Would it still involve spending CPs to activate or would it be a once-per-game effect with no cost?

Either 1/game as is or maybe 1 /turn but only on a 4+

withershadow wrote:

Lord Asvaldir wrote:

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 am 100% okay with needing Black Heart models to use it, which is why the better fix is “While a <Black Heart> unit is alive and on the table, when your opponent uses a stratagem etc etc”. This would bring the stratagem into line with every other one. Instead, people are using the community team’s ignorance to basically upend the game by clamoring for pure subfaction requirements for stratagems. Several examples have been provided of the kind of stupid crap that results from that.

This would be the best solution.

Would it not be the most straight forward solution to adjust the wording of the stratagems section of our book to include "a stratgem may only be used if your army has a unit with the same faction keyword as the stratagem's subheading"

You can only have a faction keyword of black heart kabal if you are eligible for an obsession, which both clears up the stratagem issue and allows us mercs

LordSplata wrote:

Would it not be the most straight forward solution to adjust the wording of the stratagems section of our book to include "a stratgem may only be used if your army has a unit with the same faction keyword as the stratagem's subheading"

You can only have a faction keyword of black heart kabal if you are eligible for an obsession, which both clears up the stratagem issue and allows us mercs

It would not solve the ynnary soup abuse, would be simplier to make the "a faction is detachement is needed to play a faction stratagem official" and add some clarification for exception like mercenary, phoenix lord ect ... . I mean the intent of designing some stratageme as faction stratagem is pretty clear. RAW we can argue about how we should play it now i'm fine with that but stop playing idiot on what the idea of this was

There is nothing simple about your proposal, and you ignore armies designed to work with mixed detachments, like Chaos.

Chaos space marines are not affected by this thats much, idk about demon but i would be surprised thats they should be play as a mixed detachement. And its maybe hard to write it clearly but thats not hard to understand at all

Quauchtemoc wrote:

LordSplata wrote:

Would it not be the most straight forward solution to adjust the wording of the stratagems section of our book to include "a stratgem may only be used if your army has a unit with the same faction keyword as the stratagem's subheading"

You can only have a faction keyword of black heart kabal if you are eligible for an obsession, which both clears up the stratagem issue and allows us mercs

It would not solve the ynnary soup abuse, would be simplier to make the "a faction is detachement is needed to play a faction stratagem official" and add some clarification for exception like mercenary, phoenix lord ect ... . I mean the intent of designing some stratageme as faction stratagem is pretty clear. RAW we can argue about how we should play it now i'm fine with that but stop playing idiot on what the idea of this was

To be clear, my intended wording was intended to solve the mercenary issue and make it so you needed a detachment with the black heart keyword inorder to use the rule. I think it achieves these goals.

Ynnari soup; this it wasn't intended to touch on. If this were a point of contention for the rules development team (and there is litttle,to me, to suggest that there is) then I would say this should be handled in another area of the rules such as the ynnari main rules, where they discuss the losing of their craft world statuses.

Two concise rules are better than one clunky rule.

Quauchtemoc wrote:

Chaos space marines are not affected by this thats much, idk about demon but i would be surprised thats they should be play as a mixed detachement. And its maybe hard to write it clearly but thats not hard to understand at all

Really, so a ragtag band of renegades can’t give one unit the mark of slaanesh and use the Slaanesh stratagem? Or that other stratagem that changes their alligiance so you can use a specific alligned stratagem (that was also in a community article, since they are somehow an authority now) now becomes useless. “Not that much”? Not that much consideration on your part, I think.

withershadow wrote:

Quauchtemoc wrote:

Chaos space marines are not affected by this thats much, idk about demon but i would be surprised thats they should be play as a mixed detachement. And its maybe hard to write it clearly but thats not hard to understand at all

Really, so a ragtag band of renegades can’t give one unit the mark of slaanesh and use the Slaanesh stratagem? Or that other stratagem that changes their alligiance so you can use a specific alligned stratagem (that was also in a community article, since they are somehow an authority now) now becomes useless. “Not that much”? Not that much consideration on your part, I think.

Chaos space marines have no slannesh stratagems.

Quauchtemoc wrote:

withershadow wrote:

Quauchtemoc wrote:

Chaos space marines are not affected by this thats much, idk about demon but i would be surprised thats they should be play as a mixed detachement. And its maybe hard to write it clearly but thats not hard to understand at all

Really, so a ragtag band of renegades can’t give one unit the mark of slaanesh and use the Slaanesh stratagem? Or that other stratagem that changes their alligiance so you can use a specific alligned stratagem (that was also in a community article, since they are somehow an authority now) now becomes useless. “Not that much”? Not that much consideration on your part, I think.

Chaos space marines have no slannesh stratagems.

You’re right, even the deity aligned stratagems are generic heretic Astartes, so mea culpa on that. But is it really reasonable to turn the game on its head, have to create exceptions for other armies, and then deny a Chaos Daemon detachment 12 out of its 19 stratagems just because you want to use a variety of demons? Heaven forbid a Chaos Daemon army isn’t tightly regimented.

So it’s reasonable for the local guy who runs Word Bearers and a Daemon supreme command detachment, for his summoned daemons not to be able to use stratagems of their allegiance? That guy needs all the help he can get, especially with the Drukhari pain train back in town bigger than ever.

Just fix the single problematic stratagem and leave the game alone.

Hum thats a very specifiic case but i would say its reasonable if thats nerf Ynnarri and us in the process yes, as the nerf of deepstrike was a big nerf for some already weak codex

Mixed chaos daemons detachments is so bad now that it's probably intended that you can't use good specific strats without a detachment if that God.
Having a detachment of a given subfaction be a requirement for using their strat is a better rule all around, and mixed daemons needing a fix isn't a reason not to do it.

Gray knights being bad wasn't enough to stop them dropping the deep strike Nerf. Fix them and daemons with rebalance in chapter approved.

hexxenwyrd wrote:

Mixed chaos daemons detachments is so bad now that it's probably intended that you can't use good specific strats without a detachment if that God.
Having a detachment of a given subfaction be a requirement for using their strat is a better rule all around, and mixed daemons needing a fix isn't a reason not to do it.

Gray knights being bad wasn't enough to stop them dropping the deep strike Nerf. Fix them and daemons with rebalance in chapter approved.

Exactly yes !

Why is it better to hit everything with a change bat rather than just change the parts that were unintended like you could with my rule above.

Yes they released a deep strike beta rule (which they may well change in the future) which effects everything, but perhaps they wanted to effect everything. Perhaps the game was going in a direction that was difficult to make interesting rules and choices for.

but they don't have to in this case. They can make a surgical rule change and fix the one small rule issue.

You are blaming them for Changi g a rule that effects everything and then wanting them to do it again. Your logic makes no sense

Because it prevent futur problem of the same kind and it's more logical than such a general rule should apply to all army, even more considering in 95% of the army list it wont change anything and nerf some broken one ?

Quauchtemoc wrote:

Because it prevent futur problem of the same kind and it's more logical than such a general rule should apply to all army, even more considering in 95% of the army list it wont change anything and nerf some broken one  ?

Ok I am sorry man, but it is really hard to take you seriously or appreciate your point when you don't even bother to write properly. It is bordering on not being able to understand what you are talking about. You also come off, at least to me, as just arguing for the sake of having an argument.

Also, it seems fairly clear to me the solution: As long as you have a Detachment of Black Heart, you are able to use the Stratagem. If we try to mix detachments, we lose our subfaction keywords altogether. I don't know exactly how Daemons or other relevant armies work exactly, but if they are allowed combine subfactions in a detachment, I would say that they would be able to use both of those subfaction's stratagems. If a unit switched their subfaction into a new one that was not on the battlefield before, I would say that they would be able to use whichever Stratagem is linked to their current subfaction, ie switching would allow you to use the new stratagem even if you didn't have any of those units beforehand. However, if you no longer have any units of the subfaction that you switched away from, you wouldn't be able to use that subfaction's stratagem anymore.

Totally not an expert on the subject, just my 2 cents on the matter.

Crokadilla wrote:

Also, it seems fairly clear to me the solution: As long as you have a Detachment of Black Heart, you are able to use the Stratagem. If we try to mix detachments, we lose our subfaction keywords altogether.

That much seems straightforward. There is an issue with mercenaries technically meaning you count as a mixed Detachment, even if you still get the Obsession. The situation with mercenaries doesn't feel right, which is why I think it is one of those few cases where playing to the likely intention is the right approach.

So instead of “fix one problematic stratagem”, we decided to change all the stratagems except that one, and then create a bunch of house rules for dealing with the inevitable fallout. Genius approach.

Potentially they saw any case of qualifying for subfaction Stratagems without the relevant subfaction as a problem, and some soup armies were creating issues they hadn't anticipated, or had always intended things wouldn't work that way. It is not necessarily just one problematic Stratagem.

Having to house rule to deal with the change is messy though. Or we could not, and make mercenaries and similar less appealing.