Tome of Vethric (Inquisition) in Carnage mission

[MagnusPihl]

Hi there,

 

 got an odd combination of digital releases coming up soon and I'm very much in doubt of this:

 

I'm playing Codex: Inquisition, which contains the artifact "Tome of Vethric". This artifact gives the bearer a special rule depending on his enemy's codex, with each Xenos faction giving a separate rule.

Specifically, pertaining to armies with multiple detachments, it says:

 

If your opponent’s army contains any detachments chosen from any of the codexes shown in the table below, the bearer of the Tome of Vethric gains the corresponding special rule. For example, if your opponent had a primary detachment chosen from Codex: Tau Empire and an Allied Detachment chosen from Codex: Eldar, the bearer would have both the Furious Charge and Split Fire special rules.

 

I'm going to be playing a Carnage mission pretty soon, which was one of the Advent Calendar special releases: a 4-player free-for-all mission. My opponents will be playing Orks, Eldar and Tau.

 

How would you interpret the Tome working in this scenario? The text specifically states my "opponent's army", singular, whereas I'll be facing multiple armies.

Do I get all of the rules all of the time? Do I get some of the rules some of the time?

[Dam13n]

One would assume that (by the wording of the quoted rule) that you would get the benefit of all three, all of the time.  Each enemy player is an opponent.

 

However, these items are usually written with 2-way games in mind, not 4-ways.  So it may be best to check with your opponents to make sure they agree.

[Lysere]

This is definitely the time to make a house rule for it. 40k is mostly written around the idea of there being only two teams. They often include rules for special missions that can make games have more than this but this is the exception rather than the rule. So definitely come to an agreement about it, I'd say depending on the enemy unit your facing you'd gain rules as if he was the "opponent" in terms of the rule. So if the Tau had an ally you'd get two rules against any of his units, but against someone without allies you'd just get the one for their army. Not sure if that makes sense but it would work.

[alex567]

I would agree that RAW you would attain each of the three special rules respective to each race.

 

I would also agree with a house ruling of each special rule only works against the particular race in which the rule is designed for.

[MagnusPihl]

Thanks for the comments so far - I will definitely be discussing this with my opponents. I intend to point them here, so I have a base to argue from.

 

The idea that each rule would only count against the player I'm attacking makes sense, but does have issues. For instance, would I be able to Split Fire where I'd be attacking one Eldar unit and one Ork unit? Would I have Furious Charge if I charged an existing close combat containing Tau and Orks, even if I attacked the Orks?

I realize answers aren't set in stone for this - it's an anomaly. I'm happy to hear opinions and interpretations, though :)

[Gentlemanloser]

I would also agree with a house ruling of each special rule only works

against the particular race in which the rule is designed for.

 

Strongly disagree...

 

What if you faced a single opponent who was Eldar Primary and Dark Eldar allied?  Would you then split when you would be able to use Night Fighting and Split Fire?

 

Would you base this on unit chosen to attack?  What about targeting a combined unit?

 

The bonuses are on all the time, regardless of who your are targeting to attack.

 

As shown by;

 

 

if your opponent had a primary detachment chosen from Codex: Tau Empire and an Allied Detachment chosen from Codex: Eldar, the bearer would have both the Furious Charge and Split Fire special rules

[Lysere]

 

I would also agree with a house ruling of each special rule only works

against the particular race in which the rule is designed for.

 

Strongly disagree...

 

What if you faced a single opponent who was Eldar Primary and Dark Eldar allied?  Would you then split when you would be able to use Night Fighting and Split Fire?

 

Would you base this on unit chosen to attack?  What about targeting a combined unit?

 

The bonuses are on all the time, regardless of who your are targeting to attack.

 

As shown by;

 

 

>>if your opponent had a primary detachment chosen from Codex: Tau Empire and an Allied Detachment chosen from Codex: Eldar, the bearer would have both the Furious Charge and Split Fire special rules

 

 

This is a unique case Gentlemanloser. Against a player's army you have all the rules all the time. If he somehow had orks, tau, and eldar all on the table you'd have all 3 rules at all times. The problem is this is a 4 way FFA, not a 1v1. My suggestion is then for this particular game is you gain all the bonuses you'd normally get when targeting a specific player. In the case of the Tau and orks in assault you'd gain the rules against both, if you declare eldar as your target for a shooting attack you still gain split fire. But if you charge the orks all on their own you wouldn't get the rules you get from the Tau since they are different players. Of course the group could be fine with you just getting the rules as if they were one player, but you can expect a lot to get thrown at your HQ should that happen.

[Gentlemanloser]

A single player, sure.

 

But a single Race, nope.

 

If a single player only had Eldar and Dark Eldar, you should get both Nightfighting and Split Fire all the time.

 

Still, this brings up weird situations.  Like if you face two different players, one Eldar and one Ork.  You target an Eldar unit and gain Split Fire, but can't then use that to shoot an Ork unit. (Or multicharges against two different players.  Say a Tau and Eldar player had charged each other, and you then join the fray.  Would you get or not get Furious Charge?  Only get it for those minis in your unit engaging the Tau, but not for those hitting the Eldar?)

 

End of the day, it's only one unit that gets these rules, not the entire army.  It's probably not worth getting into houserules and weird situations, when you could just let a single Inquisitor (and whatever unit he may be attached too) get all the rules, all the time.

 

It's hardly gamebreaking.  Playing against three other opponents is probably going to be much more of an issue.

[alex567]

And that is your opinion gentlemanloser. It has been agreed that RAW we would play as you say with regards to using all the rules.

 

But I personally would house rule it in the way of you use said rule against said race. If an issue arises where a problem occurred for say your example with split fire I would deal with it when and how. As I don't play under a competitive environment per say, although some people can get very worked up.

 

The reason for this view as that from a fluff perspective and inquisitor reading a book for tactica that would work against one opponent wouldn't necessarily transfer the same tactics to another, ergo, only one rule is used.

 

Remember this is my opinion on the matter and how I would suggest house ruling it, irrelevant of what RAW say, as we have I believe already established how the game works.

[Raeven]

The reason for this view as that from a fluff perspective and inquisitor reading a book for tactica that would work against one opponent wouldn't necessarily transfer the same tactics to another, ergo, only one rule is used.

 

Remember this is my opinion on the matter and how I would suggest house ruling it, irrelevant of what RAW say, as we have I believe already established how the game works.

Just put your inquisitors through a speed reading course!! :)

[Gentlemanloser]

It's the opinion I disagree with.

If you houserule it to be single race only, then you are nerfing it for single players who use two or more races.

Which isn't and shouldn't be the case.

As said, the tome should work if a single opponent uses two (or more) races.

Why is this now a problem if you face two different opponents who use a single race each?

Edit;

For clarity, why is;

Facing;

One opponent using Eldar + Dark Eldar

OK and doesn't need a houserule.

When facing;

First opponent using Eldar

Second opponent using Dark Eldar

A problem that requires houseruling?

[alex567]

I disagree with the primary + allied dual rule as it is. You should use each rule versus each opponent.

 

If you encounter a scenario where you are facing off against both opponents simultaneously then you should lose both rules for the duration of the encounter?

 

If you can't furious charge a space marine on its own, how are you going to do it with an ally present?

[nurglez]

If your opponent’s army contains any detachments chosen from any of the codexes

shown in the table below, the bearer of the Tome of Vethric gains the corresponding

special rule. For example, if your opponent had a primary detachment chosen from

Codex: Tau Empire and an Allied Detachment chosen from Codex: Eldar, the bearer

would have both the Furious Charge and Split Fire special rules.

 

The way I would play it, would be to randomly select an enemy force, and to base my upgrades on that. You don't only use the special rule vs enemies of that race, but vs them all. And its got a soft cap of 2 naturally, so why mess with it?

 

Yes RAW you should gain all the special abilties depending on which enemy you face, but I think we may have to give up RAW considering how often GW fix their rules.

[alex567]

We alter the "soft cap" due to the fact that if we face more than two races suddenly you only have one rule instead of two by the rulling.

 

Remember I'm playing from my perspective of the fluff It is perfectly acceptable to play not using the way I suggested house ruling it, but this is the way I would play it because it is the most accurate fluff wise to me.

 

In my head it doesn't make sense that should you be able to counter attack an ork, suddenly the same tactics apply to a tau, who is drastically different to an ork in almost every way, I mean for one orks taste better, they've got a lot more meat on them. :D

[Gentlemanloser]

 

And its got a soft cap of 2 naturally, so why mess with it?

 

Depending on if Dataslates count as 'detachments' nor not, there might not be a soft cap at all.

[MagnusPihl]

I disagree with the primary + allied dual rule as it is. You should use each rule versus each opponent.

 

If you encounter a scenario where you are facing off against both opponents simultaneously then you should lose both rules for the duration of the encounter?

 

If you can't furious charge a space marine on its own, how are you going to do it with an ally present?

 

I suspect that the "if your opponent has allies, just take the rules for all of them" is an easy way to simplify the rule. In other words, they chose to let it apply for all detachments to avoid the headache that we're trying to solve right now.

 

By extension, I would suggest that one should get all the rules all of the time in Carnage, just to avoid issues.

[alex567]

I'm not denying any of the opinions above, all I'm saying is that that I would house rule it differently. The solution has been made. I say we lay this topic to bed before more people misunderstand what I mean. :D

[Raeven]

You don't need a house rule when RAW are clear.  It says , "For any Detachments in the codex list below..."   It is perfectly possible for a single player to have 4 different race detachments with data slates and the new "Detachment of it's own" rules.  

 

This is no different than facing 4 different players.  This is RAW.  Does it make this particular artifact a bit OP or under priced?  That's up to your opinion on the matter.

 

 

 

Me personally, I prefer games with no named characters and no artifacts.  It maintains the balance of most armies.  But I wouldn't deny a player the benefits from this particular artifact, just because it's suped up by an unusual situation.

[alex567]

Again raeven misunderstanding what I mean. Yes you are correct, and no it doesn't need a house ruling.

 

BUT the gaming environment I play in prefers fluffy accurate over RAW. Therefore house ruling it the way we see more fluff accurate is something that my group would do.

 

Read what I'm saying and understand that, this is the way we would house rule it IRRELIVANT of RAW because WE feel it needs a house rule.

 

Like I said above, lay this topic to rest before more people misunderstand what I mean. It was meant to be a passing final point, but people seem to be held up on it. Remember this is my OPINION and therefore cannot be wrong.

[Dam13n]

While I have no issue with you all discussing this rule, house rules and the implications of them in game, please keep it friendly and be respectful of others opinions.

 

Thanks.

[Raeven]

Alex, my response was in regards to this entire thread.  Sorry you thought I was addressing just you, since my post came directly after yours, but I was not.