Grand Strategy and Death Company

[Aidoneus]

Simple question: if I ally a Grey Knight Grand Master into a Blood Angels army, can I use Grand Strategy to make Death Company Scoring?

[asianavatar]

Nope, I am pretty sure they are allies of convenience, therefore no sharing of powers etc...

[ShinyRhino]

Nope, I am pretty sure they are allies of convenience, therefore no sharing of powers etc...

 

Correct. Grey Knights have ZERO Battle Brothers level allies.

[Aidoneus]

Nope, I am pretty sure they are allies of convenience, therefore no sharing of powers etc...

I'm not sure I understand the relevance of this. The rules for Allies of Convenience merely say the allies are treated in some respect as "enemies," and that they cannot be targeted by psychic powers. However, Grand Strategy has nothing to do with either of those things.

... choose that many... units in your army...

(emphasis added)

 

The only restrictor is unit type and that the units must be "in your army." Without question, allies are "in your army." I looked at the GK FAQ, and it never says Grand Strategy can't work on allied units.

 

My question was actually directed to the interaction between Unyielding Anvil (the part of GS that makes units scoring) and Black Rage. Assuming Grand Strategy can apply to allies (which I would still like to hear more opinions on), which rule would take precedence?

[DarkGuard]

So rather your question is about whether a unit that can never score can be made scoring?

 

Well there's precedent for it. For example Unyielding Anvil can make Dreadnoughts scoring.

 

I still think that it shouldn't work for Allies, but the rulebook is badly written. At the moment you may be able to.

[Grey Mage]

Id say black rage- as thats specific to the unit, while grand strategy is not.

[pyroknight]

I agree with the others.

 

If they were battle brothers I would say go for it. Since they are not, and are technically "non-hostile enemies", I would say that Grand Strategy does not work on them.

 

Assuming you got someone who thought they would work together... Your unit now has two conflicting rules and should roll off using the most important rule. That's a 50% that your grand strategy will do nothing, so i would rather not waste it. (You pick your death company for Grand Strategy, you lose the roll off, and now your grand Strategy is wasted.)

[Aidoneus]

If they were battle brothers I would say go for it. Since they are not, and are technically "non-hostile enemies", I would say that Grand Strategy does not work on them.

Under what rule does this make a difference? Does Grand Strategy target a unit? or only work on "allies" or "friendly" units? Unless I am missing something, the answer is "no." So, other than "it doesn't make sense," what is your reasoning here?

 

Assuming you got someone who thought they would work together... Your unit now has two conflicting rules and should roll off using the most important rule. That's a 50% that your grand strategy will do nothing, so i would rather not waste it. (You pick your death company for Grand Strategy, you lose the roll off, and now your grand Strategy is wasted.)

Hold on now. I actually like your appeal to The Most Important Rule, but where are you getting this order of operations from? Surely, you would roll off to see the effect of Unyielding Anvil and Black Rage, and then once you had the "ruling," as it were, you would be able to decide whether or not to select the Death Company (and, presumably, you would not). Why do you think you would select first, before getting your "ruling" on how the rules work together?

[Grey Mage]

While the most important rule is great for games that are on the table to prevent hurt feelings and keep things moving, we should concentrate on seeing what is most likely the accurate reading of the rules here, since we have the time and space to talk it over before anyone gets to a game.

 

I think that black rage takes precedence as its is specific to the death company, while with dreadnaughts its a basic rule on vehicles thats being overridden. As more specific rules override less specific- codex, to brb, advance to basic, etc- it makes sense to me that they wouldnt be able to accept the benefits of unyielding anvil.

 

Thoughts?

[Leonaides]

Or alternatively take an HQ/Warlord who allows himself nad any unit he is with to count as scoring - which is a more specific rule to the DC non-socring rule (which may apply to several DC squads, but only 1 warlord can make them scoring)

[Aidoneus]

I think that black rage takes precedence as its is specific to the death company, while with dreadnaughts its a basic rule on vehicles thats being overridden. As more specific rules override less specific- codex, to brb, advance to basic, etc- it makes sense to me that they wouldnt be able to accept the benefits of unyielding anvil.

I'm not sure I agree that one is any less specific than the other. One explicitly says they don't score, the other explicitly says they do. My biggest concern is with the word "never." However, I can't really think of any operative difference between saying it "does not count as scoring," and it "never counts as scoring," especially when another rule specifically says you now allow it to score.

[ShinyRhino]

I think that black rage takes precedence as its is specific to the death company, while with dreadnaughts its a basic rule on vehicles thats being overridden. As more specific rules override less specific- codex, to brb, advance to basic, etc- it makes sense to me that they wouldnt be able to accept the benefits of unyielding anvil.

I'm not sure I agree that one is any less specific than the other. One explicitly says they don't score, the other explicitly says they do. My biggest concern is with the word "never." However, I can't really think of any operative difference between saying it "does not count as scoring," and it "never counts as scoring," especially when another rule specifically says you now allow it to score.

 

You might think of it in opposites, which are the terms that cancel the existing rule.

When reversed/canceled "does not count as scoring" becomes "does count as scoring."

When reversed/canceled "never counts as scoring" becomes "always counts as scoring."

 

Unyielding Anvil can canel the first sentence, but not the second.

 

Honestly, the fact that the two detachments are not Battle Brothers is enough to disallow the rule from applying to Death Company. The rules state that the non-GK detachment units are treated like enemy units that cannot be targeted. Unyielding Anvil requires a target.

[Aidoneus]

You might think of it in opposites, which are the terms that cancel the existing rule.

When reversed/canceled "does not count as scoring" becomes "does count as scoring."

When reversed/canceled "never counts as scoring" becomes "always counts as scoring."

 

Unyielding Anvil can canel the first sentence, but not the second.

I honestly don't understand what you're trying to show here. How does reversing them make anything more clear?

 

Honestly, the fact that the two detachments are not Battle Brothers is enough to disallow the rule from applying to Death Company. The rules state that the non-GK detachment units are treated like enemy units that cannot be targeted. Unyielding Anvil requires a target.

What makes you say that? The rules states:

 

Roll a D3 and choose that many infantry, jump infantry, monstrous creature, or walker units in your army...

 

Where do you see the word "target"? Because I don't see it anywhere.

[thade]

Since GK and BA are not "Battle Bros." the BA can't be the target of any GK unit's powers or abilities. Nothing in the GK codex overrides that specific point, so them's the brakes. Full stop. <_<

 

Besides, virtually every power and ability mentioned in FAQs very specifically state the name of the codex that can be affected by each given ability. This offers a little more basis in case you're still uncomfortable with the idea.

[Aidoneus]

You can't *TARGET* allies of convenience. Targeting is a term of art, and means something particular. If you don't believe me, read the rules for Shooting, or even better, for the Psychic Powers in the BRB. Those rules use the word "target" consistently to mean the same thing: the friendly or enemy unit being picked out in a particular way. Not every way of picking out a unit is therefore "targeting" that unit. The Grand Strategy rule never uses the word "target." It just says you choose units in your army. Just because it has you pick out a unit does not mean it is "targeting" that unit. Otherwise, GW would have used the word "target."

[thade]

We had this whole discussion on here months ago as to what constitutes a target; seems you missed it?

 

The rules do not formally define "target"; that was true in 5th and is true now. Since it's not formally defined, we fallback on the conventional definiton. If you use a gun, melee weapon, power, or ability on a unit, that would-be affected unit is the "target", per the conventional definition.

 

So, whatever units would benefit from Grand Strat are a target of it...or, more to the point, must be elligible to be a target in the first place.

 

So, sorry, man...but we're buried.

 

EDIT: typo

[Aidoneus]

I'm sorry, Thade, but I simply fail to agree. I honestly mean no offense when I say this, but your personal interpretation doesn't really do me any good. I don't really care what you agreed to with other people. That doesn't tell me what is correct.

 

Now, I'll grant you, I'm relying on interpretation too, so my version isn't set in stone either. But I'm not just trying for an advantage here; I honestly do find my interpretation more compelling than yours. It just seems like GW uses the word "Target" consistently when they want to, so the fact that they didn't use it in Grand Strategy is very telling to me. So is the fact that they FAQed Grand Strategy and Unyielding Anvil, yet did not change the wording to "target."

 

So it seems like we're down to interpretation on either side, and we're both convinced we're right. I don't know what I can do to convince you, and unless you show me something that either explicitly says you can't do this or convincingly changes how I understand the word "target," you won't convince me either. I guess we're back to "GW can't write clear rules," and sighing audibly to each other. :)

 

Meanwhile, does anyone else have any thoughts on this? The two of us seem to have taken over the thread, and I'd like to hear some other opinions. Maybe some of you have caught something that Thade and I missed.

[thade]

All precendent points in the other direction, man. So many abilities in the first FAQ wave to go by. Blood Chalice only affects models in Codex: Blood Angels, for instance. Why should we assume Grand Strat would go against this? Especially when we stand to grossly benefit from it. :) Not only does it not make sense...it's cheeky.

 

Check in with your gaming group before dropping this on a table to make sure they're cool with it. I can guarantee you peeps local to me would roll their eyes at it. <3

[Aidoneus]

All precendent points in the other direction, man. So many abilities in the first FAQ wave to go by. Blood Chalice only affects models in Codex: Blood Angels, for instance.

So you're saying that GW specifically thought of this exact problem, and specifically chose to correct it numerous times in other codices... yet somehow just "forgot" to correct it in this one case?

 

To me, that screams intention. GW knew that this issue would come up, chose to address it where they saw fit, and chose to leave it be in other cases.

 

Also, so you know, I'm not just coming up with this out of my... well, you know. Not that this automatically makes me an expert or anything, but just so you know where I'm coming from, I'm in law school. We are taught extensively how to interpret vague rules (in our case, they're usually statutes). There is a canon of statutory interpretation called expressio unius est exclusio alterius (the express mention of one excludes the others). In this case, by expressly using the word "target," instead of something like "affect" or saying special rules from allies "don't apply" to each other, that implies to me that GW meant to exclude other forms of affecting one another that aren't "targeting." Same with your FAQ examples. By expressly changing some of them, GW is indicating that it intentionally left others as they were.

[thade]

40k is not - and had never been - built to stand up to legal-style interpretations. Besides, an "appeal to authority" argument won't gain ground here. <3

 

Allies of Convenience isn't Battle Bros. That's the closer. I've offered other angles pointing at the same conclusion. You still disagree; that's your prerogative. It's not us you need to convince, man; it's your local crew.

 

EDIT: typo

[Morticon]

Aidoneus,

 

Two things, firstly - im 100% with you regarding the allies thing.

It makes no difference about the level. And its fast becoming the most oft misquoted rule.

There is no part that says "psychic powers or abilities" in the other two ally levels. In fact the only time they mention abilities is in the battle brother level. So, poor writing there.

 

Secondly,

 

(gripes about DC in your GK aside :) ;) ) I believe that there is a direct contradiction in the two rules.

 

Its not a simple case of the two rules being able to interact when combined.

 

If the wording with the DC Black Rage was "DC do not count as scoring", then I would have NO problem with it.

 

However, the wording is "the DC never count as a scoring unit" (emphasis mine).

 

 

Because this rule directly contradicts it, I believe that if you wish to use the GK ability, you will need to follow the rule for rule contradictions and dice off to see which take precedence.

 

 

edit: personally, as well as believing this is how it is RAW, I also think it's awesomely fluffy to see if the GM can get the crazy rage monsters under control long enough to score! :D

[thade]

However, the wording is "the DC never count as a scoring unit" (emphasis mine).

I lol'd. I never considered this, but it pretty much shuts this entire idea down. Fair play, Mort. I should've referenced my BA dex myself.

[awfulawful]

Mort, I don't think that the two rules really contradict each other so mach as one simply nullifies the other. If the BA Codex said that Death Company are not a scoring unit, then it would leave the possibility open to certain situations causing them to become scoring. By saying that they are never a scoring unit, GW seems to have shut down the idea even when it might otherwise be possible to make non-scoring units scoring. They are saying that it can never be the case with DC. When using Grand Strategy (allied issues aside, I agree with you an others on that one) you would simply have to choose a different unit to make scoring.

[Morticon]

By saying that they are never a scoring unit, GW seems to have shut down the idea even when it might otherwise be possible to make non-scoring units scoring. They are saying that it can never be the case with DC. When using Grand Strategy (allied issues aside, I agree with you an others on that one) you would simply have to choose a different unit to make scoring.

 

I stand to be corrected here, and a lot will rely on the wording of the dex ability, but I believe this is a logic issue.

ie:

 

I never go the shops on Fridays.

If I have a car I can go to the shops on Fridays.

 

(DC never score)

(If you have Grand Strategy you can make a unit scoring)

 

To me, irrespective of "never", I believe this is a perfect example of one rule saying possible, and the other saying impossible.

 

Again, why I think you would need to elect to try it on the DC, and then roll to see which rule took precedence.

[thade]

Again, why I think you would need to elect to try it on the DC, and then roll to see which rule took precedence.

I disagree. It really does seem clear to me that when it says "never" it means "never"; Death Company are Troops (which are Scoring) but they can never Score. If you give them something other than Troops which might allow them to be Scoring (say, Grand Strat) they still can "never" score. That's their rule.

 

Of course, if your locals want to dice it off, that's fine...but I recommend not insisting on a Dice Off if you are the only one that wants it. Just let it go. <3