ambit Posted April 12, 2019 Share Posted April 12, 2019 The Dagger of Tu'Sakh INFANTRY OFFICER model only. During deployment, you can set up the bearer and one INFANTRY unit from your army behind enemy lines instead of placing them on the battlefield. The infantry unit must have the same <REGIMENT> keyword as the bearer if the bearer has one. At the end of any of your Movement phases these units can launch their daring attack – set them up within 3" of each other, anywhere on the battlefield that is wholly within 6" of any battlefield edge and more than 9" away from any enemy models. So the relic states that bearer must be an INFANTRY OFFICER (officer restriction added in the FAQ), and that the accompanying unit be of the same <REGIMENT> if the bearer has one. Now, look at Officer of the Fleet's keywords. He has CHARACTER, check. He's an OFFICER, check. But look at that, no <REGIMENT>. He has AERONAUTICA IMPERIALIS, but the codex quite explicitly states that to NOT be a <REGIMENT>. So since he does not have a<REGIMENT> keyword, then as per the dagger's rules, the unit brought along does not have to be of the same <REGIMENT>. RAW, you can actually use it for non guard infantry, since it doesn't actually specify ASTRA MILITARUM. 6 Centurions? Valid. 10 Custodian Guard? Valid. 10 Hellblasters? Valid. 20 Electro-Priests? Valid. Does anyone have a counter to the above, with actual rules? Because it could lead to some unexpected combinations. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/355252-the-dagger-of-tusakh-officer-of-the-fleet/ Share on other sites More sharing options...
mertbl Posted April 12, 2019 Share Posted April 12, 2019 "The logic for the Dagger of Tu'sakh relic works like this: If the bearer has a <regiment>, the target unit must have the same <regiment>. Also, the target unit must be Infantry and have a <regiment>. Custodes do not have a <regiment> and are therefore not eligible targets." This was the response from the adepticon TO when I asked. It wasnt worth arguing so I ran as ruled even though I believe it's the opposite. No regiment, no restriction. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/355252-the-dagger-of-tusakh-officer-of-the-fleet/#findComment-5295191 Share on other sites More sharing options...
ambit Posted April 12, 2019 Author Share Posted April 12, 2019 Do you remember if you pointed out the line 'if the bearer has one' as that is the key phrase here. Without that 'exception' wording we wouldn't be having this discussion, but because it's there, the only way a TO can deny the relic being used in this way is to actually make up rules that fit their own interpretation. There isn't actually a grey area if you're applying the rules as written. Re-reading the actual wording of the relic, where the TO says 'the target unit must be Infantry and have a <regiment>. Custodes do not have a <regiment> and are therefore not eligible targets' is not interpreting the rules, it's making them up... Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/355252-the-dagger-of-tusakh-officer-of-the-fleet/#findComment-5295218 Share on other sites More sharing options...
sairence Posted April 12, 2019 Share Posted April 12, 2019 Yeah, I feel I gotta agree here, that the Adepticon TO made up an extra condition. As long as the relic bearer has no regiment, the question whether or not the target unit has one simply isn't asked by the relic rules. So you're free to take whatever infantry with it. That said...if a tournament official makes a ruling, you gotta abide by it for the tournament. They have every right to house rule stuff, so if they want to slap extra conditions on something they can do that. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/355252-the-dagger-of-tusakh-officer-of-the-fleet/#findComment-5295266 Share on other sites More sharing options...
HallofStovokor Posted April 12, 2019 Share Posted April 12, 2019 I agree about it being a rule made up on the spot. That shouldn't happen at a tournament, but I can see a downside to making a stink about it. Adepticon, LVO, Nova and the London GT are the main events GW looks at when making rules changes. If mertbl had argued and got his way, GW might have noticed a mistake in the rule set. As it stands, you can't take a Bullgryn squad with the dagger unless the officer of the fleet gets it. This means that a Bullgryn deepstrike technique could be written out of the rules, if attention is brought to it. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/355252-the-dagger-of-tusakh-officer-of-the-fleet/#findComment-5295342 Share on other sites More sharing options...
our_baz Posted April 12, 2019 Share Posted April 12, 2019 @Ambit your logic definitely makes sense. As a counter argument (for the purposes of balance). RAI (slightly guessing the designers mind here) this was probably designed for with AM units in mind. To my mind bringing in Bullgryns etc (or any other AM unit with <regiment> keyword) was the design idea (again guessing). Hence the specific wording on regiment or lack there of. But I think we all know the difference between RAW vs RAI. My point of view its a little "gamey" for my tastes but seem legit. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/355252-the-dagger-of-tusakh-officer-of-the-fleet/#findComment-5295354 Share on other sites More sharing options...
ambit Posted April 12, 2019 Author Share Posted April 12, 2019 @Ambit your logic definitely makes sense. As a counter argument (for the purposes of balance). RAI (slightly guessing the designers mind here) this was probably designed for with AM units in mind. To my mind bringing in Bullgryns etc (or any other AM unit with <regiment> keyword) was the design idea (again guessing). Hence the specific wording on regiment or lack there of. But I think we all know the difference between RAW vs RAI. My point of view its a little "gamey" for my tastes but seem legit. Yeah I totally agree that the exception wording RAI was for Bullgryn and other non-regiment AM units. Definitely gamey using it on 6 Centurions, but if your approaching it from a competitive perspective it's worth knowing. People use all kind of overpowered combinations in tournaments if they can get away with it. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/355252-the-dagger-of-tusakh-officer-of-the-fleet/#findComment-5295377 Share on other sites More sharing options...
duz_ Posted April 12, 2019 Share Posted April 12, 2019 Moving to the OR Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/355252-the-dagger-of-tusakh-officer-of-the-fleet/#findComment-5295475 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panzer Posted April 12, 2019 Share Posted April 12, 2019 RAW seems like OP pointed out. I don't see much of a problem balance wise either to be fair as you still have to be more than 9" away from any enemy unit AND have to be within 6" of a battlefield edge, which isn't just very limiting, it also makes charge shenanigans very unlikely to work since it has the same problem as regular deep strikes, so is mostly interesting for shooty units that try to get into rapid fire range. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/355252-the-dagger-of-tusakh-officer-of-the-fleet/#findComment-5295484 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.