Stratagem Interaction

[40kChrista]

Hi all,

 

A buddy and I had an interesting interaction the other day... I used Tide of Traitors to move my Cultist blob and my buddy used  Infoslave Skull to fire on them with his Vanguard.  

 

Now for Infoslave Skull to activate the opposing unit needs to be coming in from reserve. But Tide of Traitors doesn't come from Reserves, it starts on the board and since it is removed from the battlefield then placed again and not coming from Reserves, it's more of a redeployment, right?

 

We ended up placing my Cultists but not firing on them because we weren't sure.  Or is it just a matter of us overthinking it and since ToT doesn't state the Cultists come from reserve there was no issue?

 

We are still wrapping our heads around 8th since we don't get to play very frequently.

 

 

Thanks for any help.

Edited November 13, 2017 by 40kChris

[Toomanyprojects]

I'd agree that it isn't entirely clear. My personal interpretation would be that infoslave skull could be used as a stratagem against any unit which began its turn off the board and arrived on to it by any means except disembarking a transport.

[Toasterfree]

being removed from the table and being placed back on it is NOT the same as coming out of reserves.

[NovemberIX]

While generally in these instances we do a roll off, I'd say y'all played it the right way. Unless Tide of Traitors says it's putting those units into some sort of reserve situation I don't think infoslave would be usable against those units, reserve being a very specific concept separate form redeployment.

[Eddie Orlock]

... Now for Infoslave Skull to activate the opposing unit needs to be coming in from reserve.

Infoslave Skull itself does not say a thing about 'reserves'. It does mention 'reinforcements' though. Sidebar on pg 177 of the main rulebook provides some definition of what constitutes 'reinforcement', but by my reading these would be any unit that sets up on the battlefield outside of initial deployment. Which would seem to include so called redeployments and any other case where an ability instructs a player to 'set something up'. Tide of traitors instructs the player to set up the unit, within some certain metes and bounds.

 

Ergo, the info skull allows the pre-emptive strike against the fresh cultists.

[Gentlemanloser]

I'm not sure redeployments (like interceptor shunt moves) count as reinforcements though.

 

As in Matched play you have to pay point costs for all reinforcements.

 

Edit. Nope. They would be reinforcements. Never mind me.

Edited November 13, 2017 by Gentlemanloser

[40kChrista]

 

... Now for Infoslave Skull to activate the opposing unit needs to be coming in from reserve.

Infoslave Skull itself does not say a thing about 'reserves'. It does mention 'reinforcements' though. Sidebar on pg 177 of the main rulebook provides some definition of what constitutes 'reinforcement', but by my reading these would be any unit that sets up on the battlefield outside of initial deployment. Which would seem to include so called redeployments and any other case where an ability instructs a player to 'set something up'. Tide of traitors instructs the player to set up the unit, within some certain metes and bounds.

 

Ergo, the info skull allows the pre-emptive strike against the fresh cultists.

 

 

True, I didn't catch that earlier about Infoslave... but then again I don't play AdMech, just mostly against them.  

 

I can see that as Tide states "at the end of the movement phase" as a qualifier for being considered reinforcements.  However, Tide does not specifically state the unit is coming back on as Reinforcements like AdMechs Fresh Converts stratagem... "Remove your chosen unit from the battlefield. You can then set it up again as you would a unit arriving as reinforcements;..." so I'm not sure if anything outside initial deployment can be considered as being reinforcements when there is specific wording on other stratagems that actually qualify that.  And I only bring it up since 8th seems to be written in a way that if it's not there... then don't bring it there.

 

Also you aren't adding anything new to the existing unit.  You can never take the Cultist unit above what it started at in the first place.  This would be a qualifier for Reinforcements on page 3 of the rulebook FAQ... Q: What about rules that add models to existing units; do I need to pay reinforcement points for those models?

A: No (unless the rule itself says otherwise).  ​This would mean the Cultists added back to the unit don't cost reinforcement points at all.

 

*I have emailed GW, we'll see if I get anything and if I do I'll post it here.*

Edited November 14, 2017 by 40kChris

[Gentlemanloser]

Another confusing nomenclature from GW.

 

Reinforcements seems to be totally seperate to matched play reinforcement points.

 

I'd have named one of them differently.

[Eddie Orlock]

*I have emailed GW, we'll see if I get anything and if I do I'll post it here.*

Do share a response if you get one, but Gee Dub has a very, very, long history of trolling the player base with customer service answers to rules questions. It's unlikely to be broadly considered a definitive opinion, especially if it contradicts any other probable interpretation or otherwise plays havoc with parsing the rules.

 

Regarding the change in language between the two books for a largely similar effect: This variably could imply a difference in functional intent, but I'd also conject that it may just be an evolutionary step in rules writing technology to build in the clarification. If I had my library at my finger tips I could demonstrate this concept in prior editions of the game, but it's packed away in another city.

 

Regarding not paying points for the new cultists, as GML notes, 'reinforcement' is likely an overloaded word. Which is unfortunate, but not without precedent. I don't think anyone here is likely to claim that the regenerated cultists cost any more points.

 

Generally, you're quite right, that the rules in eighth are very much written that you're not to infer very much in how they work, but they're also written to be more concerned about how the models were moved and placed rather than any nominal states. In particular this appears in movement and firing restrictions around being within an inch of the enemy, the rules are largely agnostic as to how the units got there, only that they're either close or not and the consequences there of. Under this principle we wind up with the notion that if a rule looks, smells, and acts like a duck, it's probably a duck.

[40kChrista]

If I get a response Eddie, I will.

 

I know GW has had a sordid past with customer service for rules before, but I think that this new type of GW is a ray of hope.  Especially if they are trying to make sure points are up to date and rules clarified in a short amount of time.