Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Tldr: Tactical Genius is actually an unmarked aura ability (sorta) and thats why.

Hi there, I posted this on another site, but was told this was a better place for it, and after seeing it I cannot help but agree. I understand this topic has been brought up before, but not in the depth and focus with which I would like to examine it. I posit that Ursula Creed's Tactical Genius ability allows you to use the Reinforcements! Strategem for 0cp on sentinel units, and further make a weaker case allowing it for all units.



There was a lot of discussion when 10e was previewed on whether or not Reinforcements! Could receive the benefit of Creed's Tactical Genius ability, with the general consensus being that no, you couldn't since the unit the stratagem targeted couldn't be targeted by Ursula. However when you look at the specific wording of the Tactical Genius ability which reads as such :

"Once per battle round, one unit from your army within 12" of this model can be targeted with a Stratagem for 0CP, even if another unit from your army has already been targeted with that Stratagem this phase."

The fundamental misunderstanding is revealed! Nowhere does it say that Ursula actually targets. Rather, it grants the player the right to target units around her with a discounted strategum that could already legally target them, once per turn. Say for example, the Reinforcements strategum.

Now I know the other argument, since they are removed from play, how would you target them? Except that's not true, they are on the field, even after they are destroyed, albeit briefly. The mention of destroying a model, and then removing it from play are two distinct and sequential actions as noted in the deadly demise description: "...When such a model is destroyed, roll one D6 before removing it from play..."

Indeed, this is where you would normally play Reinforcements, as it must be played after the unit is destroyed as Reinforcements says to target "One Regiment unit from your army that was just destroyed. You can use this Stratagem on that unit even though it was just destroyed."

The inclusion of "just destroyed" is important, as it is a limiter that prevents gaurd from reinforcing units that died 3 turns ago, but it also means that this order must be issued before anything else, including the rolling of deadly demise damage, which is triggered after destruction, but before the unit is removed from play.

If a sentinel is destroyed, right before deadly demise occurs, Gaurd can target that unit with Reinforcements for 2cp. Indeed that is the only time Gaurd can target it, if it is within 12" of creed gaurd players simply have the privilege of doing it for 0cp.

Another argument is that the sentinel cannot exist on the battlefield and in reserves at the same time. I am going to bypass this since simply, both mechanically and lorewise, these are two separate units, with the new sentinels lacking certain attached units and still having hunter killers (though that last part is another discussion).

Anyways that's why it should work for deadly demise units. Indeed where it may work on any units is mostly dependent on the fact that Ursula's ability is statically granted to units around her. When we target a destroyed infantry unit with Reinforcements normally, I posit that must occur during an interruption between the sequencing of the units destruction and its removal, similar to deadly demise. However even if there is no special sequence interrupt, there may still be a window in which Reinforcements! can be used. In the rulebook the exceptions noticed in the forced disembarking section and deadly demise specify to take certain actions after the destruction of a model, but before its removal. Notably there are no rules mandating a reverse flow of action. In which a unit is removed from play, some action occurs, and is then destroyed. As such I posit that even normally, destruction of a model is an action that takes place before its removal, and is not simultaneous.

To the last point I offer one last argument, if this were not the case, and destruction and removal of a unit are simultaneous, that would suggest that Reinforcements, Creed or no, somehow targets units in the aether, as the unit would neither be on the battlefield, nor in reserves. I think as such Reinforcements used before removal but after destruction.

Rules Commentary wrote:DESTROYED
■ Destroyed Model: When a model is reduced to 0 wounds, it is destroyed and removed from play.
■ Destroyed Unit: When the last model in a unit has been destroyed, that unit is destroyed and removed from play.
■ Destroyed By: Some rules only trigger if an enemy model or unit was destroyed by you, or by a model or unit from your army. This means that the enemy model or unit was destroyed by an attack made by a model from your army, or by a mortal wound inflicted as a result of a rule a model from your army is using, or as a result of any other rule a model from your army is using that explicitly states that the enemy model or unit is destroyed. Enemy models or units that are destroyed by any other means are not destroyed by you, or by a model or unit from your army.

No. As noted above, when a model reaches 0 wounds, it is destroyed and removed from play. When the last model of a unit has been destroyed (and thus removed from play) then the unit is also destroyed. Just after the unit has been destroyed it can be the target of the Reinforcement Stratagem.

Just After: If a rule is triggered ‘just after’ something has happened, it is resolved before anything else happens. For example, if a rule is triggered ‘just after’ a unit selects targets for its attacks, that rule is resolved before those attacks are resolved. The triggering of such rules can therefore interrupt normal sequences such as the attack sequence or the charge sequence. See Eligible Target (no longer eligible).

Since there are no models on the field when you use the Reinforcement Stratagem, the unit is not within 12" of Ursula Creed and cannot benefit from Tactical Genius.

 alextroy wrote:

Rules Commentary wrote:DESTROYED
■ Destroyed Model: When a model is reduced to 0 wounds, it is destroyed and removed from play.

This is traditionally how such an series of events occurs, with the destruction and removal of a model being treated as simultaneous. However, within the core rules of 10e we notice that there are some exceptions to this, with forced dismembarkment and deadly demise, which has a period of time where the model is on the battlefield but still considered destroyed. I'd say that what you have put forth is not a definition of what a "destroyed" model is, but rather a series of guidelines on what traditionally happens to a model when it is considered destroyed. However these actions are not simultaneous, as we can see here

Fight on Death: Some rules enable models to fight after they have
been destroyed, before being removed from play, following the
normal fight sequence (Core Rules, page 33)

as noted in the the rules commentary we can clearly see precedent for models being considered destroyed, but still on the battlefield. As such since it is destroyed and on the battlefield you should be able to target it with reinforcements, it is just that Ursala allows us to do so for 0cp. Thus removal from play is not a required condition of a unit that is destroyed, but more of an inevitability.

No, this does not work. If the unit still existed on the table the stratagem wouldn't need the "you can use the stratagem even though the unit was destroyed" rule, it would be a normal unit on the table that can be targeted normally. The presence of that special permission implies that when the stratagem is used the unit's destruction has been fully resolved, including its removal from the table.

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:
No, this does not work. If the unit still existed on the table the stratagem wouldn't need the "you can use the stratagem even though the unit was destroyed" rule, it would be a normal unit on the table that can be targeted normally. The presence of that special permission implies that when the stratagem is used the unit's destruction has been fully resolved, including its removal from the table.

In most cases that special permission is needed, however due to deadly demise, a narrow opportunity exists where that special permission is not needed. It is likely an oversight, but I see no reason to assume its non-functional. The allowance of a special action need not necessarily limit the use of that action in other circumstances like you are suggesting.

Cerebral_Harlot wrote:
In most cases that special permission is needed, however due to deadly demise, a narrow opportunity exists where that special permission is not needed. It is likely an oversight, but I see no reason to assume its non-functional. The allowance of a special action need not necessarily limit the use of that action in other circumstances like you are suggesting.

If your argument for a rule interpretation starts with "well technically there's a narrow timing window because of this precise interaction that only exists with this specific unit type and is not directly referenced at any point in the rules" it should be taken as a sign that your interpretation is at minimum against RAI and probably against RAW.

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:

Cerebral_Harlot wrote:
In most cases that special permission is needed, however due to deadly demise, a narrow opportunity exists where that special permission is not needed. It is likely an oversight, but I see no reason to assume its non-functional. The allowance of a special action need not necessarily limit the use of that action in other circumstances like you are suggesting.

If your argument for a rule interpretation starts with "well technically there's a narrow timing window because of this precise interaction that only exists with this specific unit type and is not directly referenced at any point in the rules" it should be taken as a sign that your interpretation is at minimum against RAI and probably against RAW.

Why do you think I am discussing it here specifically?

Cerebral_Harlot wrote:
Why do you think I am discussing it here specifically?

I don't know, but I've given you the answer on why it doesn't work and clearly isn't intended to work.

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:

Cerebral_Harlot wrote:
Why do you think I am discussing it here specifically?

I don't know, but I've given you the answer on why it doesn't work and clearly isn't intended to work.

Fair enough, I agree with you it is certainly not RAI, but I still disagree with your assertion that a rule granting special allowance carries an implicit restriction outside that allowance.

Cerebral_Harlot wrote:
Fair enough, I agree with you it is certainly not RAI, but I still disagree with your assertion that a rule granting special allowance carries an implicit restriction outside that allowance.

Why would you put a rule saying "you can do X even though Y" if you can already do X without the rule?

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:

Cerebral_Harlot wrote:
Fair enough, I agree with you it is certainly not RAI, but I still disagree with your assertion that a rule granting special allowance carries an implicit restriction outside that allowance.

Why would you put a rule saying "you can do X even though Y" if you can already do X without the rule?

Because normally such a rule is needed, However with the destruction of a deadly demise unit, it is not needed.

"You can do X even though Y" ≠ "You may only do X with Y"

Cerebral_Harlot wrote:
Because normally such a rule is needed, However with the destruction of a deadly demise unit, it is not needed.

"You can do X even though Y" ≠ "You may only do X with Y"

Except there is nothing in the rules that even remotely suggests intent for it to work differently for those specific units, no reference at all to it explicitly. Nor is there any reason to believe the two unrelated abilities should be connected, or that Deadly Demise is intended to allow a timing window for other things to trigger. Even if it technically is RAW it's clearly not RAI and should not be played that way.

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:

Cerebral_Harlot wrote:
Because normally such a rule is needed, However with the destruction of a deadly demise unit, it is not needed.

"You can do X even though Y" ≠ "You may only do X with Y"

Except there is nothing in the rules that even remotely suggests intent for it to work differently for those specific units, no reference at all to it explicitly. Nor is there any reason to believe the two unrelated abilities should be connected, or that Deadly Demise is intended to allow a timing window for other things to trigger. Even if it technically is RAW it's clearly not RAI and should not be played that way.

Ah ok, my previous statements are in support of this capability in a RAW capacity. I am not making arguments for if it should be played that way, merely that the rules allow for it.

Cerebral_Harlot wrote:
Ah ok, my previous statements are in support of this capability in a RAW capacity. I am not making arguments for if it should be played that way, merely that the rules allow for it.

I'm not sure what your goal here is then. RAW doesn't matter if it's RAW on the level of the old "models with helmets can never shoot or charge" nonsense and nobody will ever play it that way. Why spend so much effort trying to prove RAW that doesn't matter in real games?

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:

Cerebral_Harlot wrote:
Ah ok, my previous statements are in support of this capability in a RAW capacity. I am not making arguments for if it should be played that way, merely that the rules allow for it.

I'm not sure what your goal here is then. RAW doesn't matter if it's RAW on the level of the old "models with helmets can never shoot or charge" nonsense and nobody will ever play it that way. Why spend so much effort trying to prove RAW that doesn't matter in real games?

To learn more about how rules interactions and sequencing works in 40k.

Cerebral_Harlot wrote:
To learn more about how rules interactions and sequencing works in 40k.

"This is an issue GW will FAQ" isn't really telling you much of value.

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:

Cerebral_Harlot wrote:
To learn more about how rules interactions and sequencing works in 40k.

"This is an issue GW will FAQ" isn't really telling you much of value.

True, I'm hoping to have more of a discussion about rules, rather than supposed intentions and speculations.

Destroyed and removed from battlefield are two seperate things, as can be seen in rules that apply to destroyed units, such as deadly demise, fight on death, and also several of the rules around transport. Therefore, there must be a timing gap between destroyed and removed.

The phrasing of reinforcements, "just destroyed", gives you the ability to interupt the normal sequence and act between these two actions.

 Trickstick wrote:
Destroyed and removed from battlefield are two seperate things, as can be seen in rules that apply to destroyed units, such as deadly demise, fight on death, and also several of the rules around transport. Therefore, there must be a timing gap between destroyed and removed.

The phrasing of reinforcements, "just destroyed", gives you the ability to interupt the normal sequence and act between these two actions.

Then why does the stratagem require a rule allowing you to target a destroyed unit? If this supposed timing gap exists then it wouldn't be necessary, the unit would still be on the table and engaging with the rest of the game so you could target it normally.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Cerebral_Harlot wrote:
True, I'm hoping to have more of a discussion about rules, rather than supposed intentions and speculations.

Bit of advice: don't. The people who "only want to talk about rules not intentions" are generally considered insufferable rules lawyers who quickly get a reputation for being someone you don't want to play with. You may not realize this because you're new but trust me, it is not an attitude you want to be known for.

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:
Then why does the stratagem require a rule allowing you to target a destroyed unit? If this supposed timing gap exists then it wouldn't be necessary, the unit would still be on the table and engaging with the rest of the game so you could target it normally.

Because that part of the stratagem is what allows you to target a unit that was just destroyed, but before it has been removed.

 Trickstick wrote:
Because that part of the stratagem is what allows you to target a unit that was just destroyed, but before it has been removed.

But the whole premise here is that the unit interacts with the rest of the game normally in this supposed timing window between "destroyed" and "removed", that's why Creed's ability supposedly works. That would mean it could be targeted by stratagems normally and would not need the "even though the unit is destroyed" rule. The rule is only needed if the unit doesn't interact normally with the rest of the game and only effects which explicitly apply can be used.

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:
The rule is only needed if the unit doesn't interact normally with the rest of the game and only effects which explicitly apply can be used.

I get your point, but it is difficult to make the argument that an exception written in a rule means that it implies the exception is needed (edit: unless it is stated that an exception is needed, of course). GW often puts exceptions in rules when they are not needed. For example, the Votann CP gain rule has it written that it is an exception to the CP cap, when the similar rule for Knights has no exception written, but would be non-functional without bypassing the CP cap rule.

This topic is very much FAQ fodder, but I think that the RAW is on the side of allowing creed-reinforcements, and that the FAQ would only be needed to clarify the rule.

I still don't understand how you're measuring to a unit, which requires you to measure to a model, after that model is destroyed. It's no longer a possible measurement.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
I still don't understand how you're measuring to a unit, which requires you to measure to a model, after that model is destroyed. It's no longer a possible measurement.

Because you measure between the model being destroyed and removing it from the board. Like how you can measure vehicle explosions even though the model is destroyed.

But the unit isn't destroyed until the last model has been destroyed and removed from play. Only then do you have permission to use the stratagem on the unit. So even by your interpretation, there is a short window between the removal of the last model of the unit that the unit is destroyed but still in play. However, as there are no models on the board during this short window, you cannot determine if it is within 12" of Creed.

 Trickstick wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
I still don't understand how you're measuring to a unit, which requires you to measure to a model, after that model is destroyed. It's no longer a possible measurement.

Because you measure between the model being destroyed and removing it from the board. Like how you can measure vehicle explosions even though the model is destroyed.

You have no permission to wait however.

You may only use the strat when the unit is destroyed

The unit is ONLY destroyed AFTER the last model is removed. Nit dead, removed.

A vehicle going bang is when the vehicle MODEL is reduced to 0 sounds, NOsT a unit. Different entirely.

 alextroy wrote:
But the unit isn't destroyed until the last model has been destroyed and removed from play. Only then do you have permission to use the stratagem on the unit. So even by your interpretation, there is a short window between the removal of the last model of the unit that the unit is destroyed but still in play. However, as there are no models on the board during this short window, you cannot determine if it is within 12" of Creed.

Page 12: "When every model in a unit has been destroyed, that unit is destroyed."

So when the last model had been destroyed, but before the model is removed, then the unit counts as destroyed.

"■ Destroyed Model: When a model is reduced to 0 wounds, it is destroyed and removed from play"
Destroyed model requires the model to be removed. Otherwise the model has not been Destroyed.

Destroyed unit requires every model to have been Destroyed, which requires every model to have been removed from play.

You cannot satisfy " unit destroyed?" Until after every model is removed from play.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
"■ Destroyed Model: When a model is reduced to 0 wounds, it is destroyed and removed from play"

Which makes destroyed and removed into two seperate things.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
"■ Destroyed Model: When a model is reduced to 0 wounds, it is destroyed and removed from play"

A note here is that this entry from the rules commentary is not necessarily a definition of "destroyed" the commentaries broadly consist of single line definitions which seek to define game terms, and bullet pointed sections that generally serve as guidelines as to how series of events will usually trigger.

However since the quoted text above is not pulled from a single line definition section, that it is not a be-all end-all definition for destroyed. But rather attempts to clarify what happens to most models when they reach zero wounds.

However clearly established exceptions already exist to this guideline, including deadly demise and Fight on death.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Cerebral_Harlot wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
"■ Destroyed Model: When a model is reduced to 0 wounds, it is destroyed and removed from play"

A note here is that this entry from the rules commentary is not necessarily a definition of "destroyed" the commentaries broadly consist of single line definitions which seek to define game terms, and bullet pointed sections that generally serve as guidelines as to how series of events will usually trigger.

However since the quoted text above is not pulled from a single line definition section, I think it would be a leap to assume that it is not a be-all end-all definition for destroyed. But rather attempts to clarify what happens to most models when they reach zero wounds.

However clearly established exceptions already exist to this guideline, including deadly demise and Fight on death.