Imagifiers in 8th

[Morticon]

Hey guys, I'm sure this has already been discussed here, but I dont know the Sisters area that well, and couldnt spot it.
 

I had my first game of 8th yesterday, and the opponent and I had a disagreement on the interpretation of how imagifiers work. 

I'd like to know the board consensus. 

Here is the "Act of Faith" rule verbatim:
 

Roll a d6 at the start of each of your turns. On a roll of 2+, one unit from your army with the Acts of Faith ability can perform an Act of Faith chosen from the following list.  Some abilities may allow you to use more than one Act of Faith in the same turn; when this is the case, a different unit must be chosen to perform each Act of Faith. 

 

Here is the Imagifier rule:

 

Roll a d6 at the start of each of your turns; on a roll of 4+ you can pick a friendly <order> unit within 6" of this model and perform an Act of Faith with it.  This is in addition to the Act of faith you are normally allowed to use in a turn. 

 

The argument, simply put, was that the Imagifier could therefore allow units without the "Acts of Faith" ability to use an "Act of Faith".

He argued that because the Acts of Faith wording (stipulated in the first sentence) was a requirement for a unit needing the rule "Acts of Faith" under "normal" Acts of Faith conditions for use, the Imagifier rule superceded it. 

I see the argument, I'm just not convinced. 


Thoughts?

 

[CaptainHelion]

I think you're right, but it's also a moot point, because I don't believe there are any <order> keyworded units that DON'T have Acts of Faith.

[Morticon]

I think you're right, but it's also a moot point, because I don't believe there are any <order> keyworded units that DON'T have Acts of Faith.

Tell that to the 3 double-firing Exorcists that wrecked my army yesterday :P

[Beams]

You don't need acts of faith rule when using an imagiifier, because it only stipulates that they have the [order] keyword, not the acts if faith rule.

 

The first sentence of the Acts of Faith rule governs who can use the initial one.

[Servant of Dante]

I'll admit it's not the best worded couple of rules, but I agree with Beams. The basic AoF opportunity that you get on a 2+ requires the unit to have the AoF rule. The Imagifier just requires the unit to have the same <order> keyword as the Imagifier, and Celestine only requires the unit to have the Adepta Sororitas keyword. There might be a RAI argument (depending on what you think was intended here, it's not necessarily obvious), but to me it seems clear that RAW each of these sources of AoFs has its own seperate condition. The basic AoF rule only requires the AoF rule for the single AoF you get on a 2+. It never even implies that other AoFs follow this same restriction.

 

(This discussion happened somewhere in the "hopes dreams and fears for Sisters in 8th" thread)

[CaptainHelion]

I think you're right, but it's also a moot point, because I don't believe there are any <order> keyworded units that DON'T have Acts of Faith.

Tell that to the 3 double-firing Exorcists that wrecked my army yesterday

Hm. Right you are then. Carry on.

[Daimhin]

I'll admit it's not the best worded couple of rules, but I agree with Beams. The basic AoF opportunity that you get on a 2+ requires the unit to have the AoF rule. The Imagifier just requires the unit to have the same <order> keyword as the Imagifier, and Celestine only requires the unit to have the Adepta Sororitas keyword. There might be a RAI argument (depending on what you think was intended here, it's not necessarily obvious), but to me it seems clear that RAW each of these sources of AoFs has its own seperate condition. The basic AoF rule only requires the AoF rule for the single AoF you get on a 2+. It never even implies that other AoFs follow this same restriction.

 

(This discussion happened somewhere in the "hopes dreams and fears for Sisters in 8th" thread)

I agree with this interpretation.

[Morticon]

I'll admit it's not the best worded couple of rules, but I agree with Beams. The basic AoF opportunity that you get on a 2+ requires the unit to have the AoF rule. The Imagifier just requires the unit to have the same <order> keyword as the Imagifier, and Celestine only requires the unit to have the Adepta Sororitas keyword. There might be a RAI argument (depending on what you think was intended here, it's not necessarily obvious), but to me it seems clear that RAW each of these sources of AoFs has its own seperate condition. The basic AoF rule only requires the AoF rule for the single AoF you get on a 2+. It never even implies that other AoFs follow this same restriction.

 

(This discussion happened somewhere in the "hopes dreams and fears for Sisters in 8th" thread)

That was exactly the argument made, Servant.  To me, it seemed reliant on poor wording in the first sentence of acts of faith, which didnt sit well with me, but I think RAW it does appear that way.  

 

Will have to just hope for a FAQ-bat then.  Cheers. 

[Servant of Dante]

I will say that I'm not sorry that Sisters finally get to do something powerful :P I'll be hoping that this doesn't get FAQed away, if only because I want to be able to double move my transports.

[Beams]

I'm expecting them to FAQ it like so:

 

Q:Do you need AoF rule to use imagiifier/celestines granted act of faith?

 

A: No.

 

That said, I could be wrong.

[Servant of Dante]

I'm expecting them to FAQ it like so:

 

Q:Do you need AoF rule to use imagiifier/celestines granted act of faith?

 

A: No.

 

That said, I could be wrong.

I hope you're right :D

[GodwynDi]

I really don't think it should work that way.  I will be more than happy to be wrong though :).

 

I see them listed not as a discrete list, but as an order of related descending priorities.  The description of acts of faith says who can use them, units with the AoF special rule.  The restriction for imagifiers makes sense as an additional limitation for multiplayer games.  If two sisters armies are working together, but are from different orders, the imagifier does not work on the other units.  A unit could be friendly, have the AoF ability, but still not be from the same order.

 

I really think this is the proper interpretation.  It is, however, unclear how it is supposed to be, and if errata lets us keep double firing exorcists, I will be happy to do so. , but I think it will be a bad ruling going forward for its implication on other rule interactions as more specific codices get published.

[CaptainMarsh]

I tend to fall on the RAI side of the argument here. It would seem silly to have an abundance of units have the Act of Faith special rule listed on their profile only to say that Imagifiers and Celestine, the likely sources of the majority of Acts of Faith, don't care, especially Imagifiers. If having that Act of Faith rule means you are eligible for 2+ and that is *all* it means RAW, then it is an enormous and absolutely unintended oversight.

It would seem intentional vehicles can't have it. Why not give them the AoF ability if they could benefit from Acts of Faith? Celestine is reasonably costed and Imagifiers seem like something Sister Armies are tied to anyway, so it isn't like they can be considered an additional 'tax' for vehicles to use them.

[Servant of Dante]

I really don't think it should work that way. I will be more than happy to be wrong though .

I see them listed not as a discrete list, but as an order of related descending priorities. The description of acts of faith says who can use them, units with the AoF special rule. The restriction for imagifiers makes sense as an additional limitation for multiplayer games. If two sisters armies are working together, but are from different orders, the imagifier does not work on the other units. A unit could be friendly, have the AoF ability, but still not be from the same order.

I really think this is the proper interpretation. It is, however, unclear how it is supposed to be, and if errata lets us keep double firing exorcists, I will be happy to do so. , but I think it will be a bad ruling going forward for its implication on other rule interactions as more specific codices get published.

That's not what the rule says. This is a RAI interpretation, not RAW.

Edit: Nothing there says that the restriction of having the AoF ability applies to other things that allow access to AoFs. The Imagifier is worded the same as the base AoF, just with "AoF ability" replaced with "<order> unit" So assuming the restrictions from one rule apply to another, when it's not stated that they do, is not RAW.

[Noeh]

You're arguing RAW vs RAI for an army that didn't list Celestine as a unique character. They already clearly missed one thing in their writing, there's a good chance they overlooked a few other things too.
I would have to agree that only things WITH act of faith should be able to use acts of faith.

[Servant of Dante]

But that's RAI. All I'm saying is that I play RAW, so you don't need the AoF rule to benefit from an Imagifier. The rule works RAW, maybe just not the way you want it to.

[Beams]

The problem with RAI is that you're not the developer.

[Noeh]

It's basically just another oversight. I wouldn't recommend playing that way just because it could change with an FAQ. An FAQ which is so desperately needed on these codices that it shouldn't take long to come out.

[GodwynDi]

I really don't think it should work that way. I will be more than happy to be wrong though .

I see them listed not as a discrete list, but as an order of related descending priorities. The description of acts of faith says who can use them, units with the AoF special rule. The restriction for imagifiers makes sense as an additional limitation for multiplayer games. If two sisters armies are working together, but are from different orders, the imagifier does not work on the other units. A unit could be friendly, have the AoF ability, but still not be from the same order.

I really think this is the proper interpretation. It is, however, unclear how it is supposed to be, and if errata lets us keep double firing exorcists, I will be happy to do so. , but I think it will be a bad ruling going forward for its implication on other rule interactions as more specific codices get published.

That's not what the rule says. This is a RAI interpretation, not RAW.

Edit: Nothing there says that the restriction of having the AoF ability applies to other things that allow access to AoFs. The Imagifier is worded the same as the base AoF, just with "AoF ability" replaced with "<order> unit" So assuming the restrictions from one rule apply to another, when it's not stated that they do, is not RAW.

Actually, it is RAW. The entire reason we are having this discussion is because RAW is ambiguous. Either reading is perfectly valid from different logic/linguistic setups. There is nothing so far showing what is actually RAI. At its core, it depends on if the rules are supposed to be permissive or restrictive. Under a permissive ruleset, anything is legal unless the rules say otherwise. Under a restrictive ruleset, only that which is explicitly allowed are legal. Game rulebooks, by their very nature, tend to be restrictive. In a restrictive ruleset, it doesn't have to tell you what you can't do, because anything it doesn't tell you you can do, you can't.

[Beams]

All I'm saying is that it could very well be either way, but RAW it is one way.

 

I've been on as a Quality tester before, and it's always frustrating hearing people argue RAI, since we don't really know the intent.

 

Sometimes I'd find myself arguing with people, and because of my NDA, I'd just have to concede the point, because they were reading between lines and not what was on the page and I couldnt say: "No, I wrote that rule. I discussed it with the lead designer. I know exactly what the intent was, and it's what's on the card."

 

Other times, we found that a typo or an ambiguously worded rule or a previous version of the card made its way into the public, and if I wasn't playing with someone who knew, id have to play with the RAW until an faq came out. It's be super frustrating because, again, I knew the intent, but no one else did, and we had to resolve to using the words as written.

 

RAI only matters when a Developer comes out and says "this is how I intended it, and this is the official ruling."

[micahwc]

I have to agree that as written an imagifier can use its ability on an exorcist because exorcists have keyword "adepts sororitas (order)".

 

Penitent Engines do not have this key word so it won't work with them.

 

Immolators and rhinos also have the required key words.

[CaptainMarsh]

It just seems silly. If they were supposed to be able to benefit from using Acts of Faith, why not just give them the ability Act of Faith like all other Sister models (and even Crusaders)? The only reason not to would be so they couldn't benefit from the 2+ at the start of turn, but with Imagifiers and Celestine already looking like stone cold super locks for the majority of armies (not all, obviously), that doesn't seem logical.

So while I agree with them being able to use it may be the strictest definition of RAW, I don't believe it is RAI, and I believe it is simply a huge oversight and mistake (same as Celestine not being unique). I believe it will get rectified in a FAQ. I plan on playing how I (and the people I play with) interpret this rule, which is the RAI version of it

[Servant of Dante]

I really don't think it should work that way. I will be more than happy to be wrong though .

I see them listed not as a discrete list, but as an order of related descending priorities. The description of acts of faith says who can use them, units with the AoF special rule. The restriction for imagifiers makes sense as an additional limitation for multiplayer games. If two sisters armies are working together, but are from different orders, the imagifier does not work on the other units. A unit could be friendly, have the AoF ability, but still not be from the same order.

I really think this is the proper interpretation. It is, however, unclear how it is supposed to be, and if errata lets us keep double firing exorcists, I will be happy to do so. , but I think it will be a bad ruling going forward for its implication on other rule interactions as more specific codices get published.

That's not what the rule says. This is a RAI interpretation, not RAW.

Edit: Nothing there says that the restriction of having the AoF ability applies to other things that allow access to AoFs. The Imagifier is worded the same as the base AoF, just with "AoF ability" replaced with "<order> unit" So assuming the restrictions from one rule apply to another, when it's not stated that they do, is not RAW.

Actually, it is RAW. The entire reason we are having this discussion is because RAW is ambiguous. Either reading is perfectly valid from different logic/linguistic setups. There is nothing so far showing what is actually RAI. At its core, it depends on if the rules are supposed to be permissive or restrictive. Under a permissive ruleset, anything is legal unless the rules say otherwise. Under a restrictive ruleset, only that which is explicitly allowed are legal. Game rulebooks, by their very nature, tend to be restrictive. In a restrictive ruleset, it doesn't have to tell you what you can't do, because anything it doesn't tell you you can do, you can't.

And it doesn't tell you to check whether the unit has the AoF ability, so you don't. Simple as that. There is nothing in the wording that even suggests that restriction applies to the Imagifier.

"Choose a unit with the AoF ability to preform and AoF"

And

"Choose an <Order> unit to preform an AoF"

Both the base AoF and the Imagifier provide separate ristrictions. It never says a unit can never perform an AoF if it doesn't have the AoF ability, only that the ability is needed in order to use the basic AoF you get on a 2+. Just like the Imagifier says you need the <Order> keyword in order to use the AoF it offers.

I'm not going to argue RAI, since I wouldn't be surprised if this is an oversight :D but it just as easily could be working as intended, so . . .

[CaptainMarsh]

They did open up a rules question and answer thing on facebook. I just asked about this, so we'll see.

[Daimhin]

If there was no intention for Imagifiers/ Celestine to work on the Exorcist, then the keywords <Order> and Adepta Sororitas are completely superfluous, as not a single rule other than these refer to them.

 

Edit - realised that the Canoness special rule also refers to <Order>, but my point still stands. Imagifiers are specifically referencing a different rule/ keyword to the special rule.

 

While it's not an official ruling, I discussed this in GW yesterday and my local store (the flagship London store) read the rule the same as me.