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.

On YouTube videos they said this does not work. However, I used to be an mtg judge and under that rule sett it would be allowed. So I thought I should run it past you.

Battlefield analasys: The Nexos can make a stratagem targeting one model or unit with this rule for 0 cp.

Coordinated trap targets two units I own and an enemy unit.

As far as I can see coordinated trap satisfies the conditions for Battlefield analasys - it targets the nexos model/unit.

What are your people's take on this? Is there an official GW commentery?

Battlefield analasys says you can target one...

Cension day does not target one, so they are not compatible.

Permission to play a Strat on one unit for zero CP does not give you permission to select a Stratagem requiring you to pick two units.

That seems self-evident. Unsure what relevance MTG cred has to a 40K rules question.

I would call this unclear. While the Nexos's Unit is a target of the stratagem, it is not the only target of the stratagem. I suggest sending it to GW and awaiting an errata or FAQ answer in the future.

It can be THE target of a Strat, not one if the targets of a Strat.

People always say that GW used a inclusive rule sett. If I target nexos, one other unit and an opposing unit the nexos is the target of the stratagem. The sunset of the nexos is included in that sett.

If the nexos abillaty said it had to be the only target for that stratagem, or the exclusive target of that stratagem then I would agree. But due to the flexibility/inaccuracy of the English language he does satisfy all the requirements for that 0 CP.

The reason I bring up MTG is that they also use the English language in that way. If there is a creature that is multicoloured red and black it count when you look for a black creature. Here the stratagem looks if you if you target the nexos, lo and behold the stratagem does target the nexos.

I’d say that logic doesn’t apply here.

He has to be the target.
The target here would be singular

 Niiai wrote:
People always say that GW used a inclusive rule sett. If I target nexos, one other unit and an opposing unit the nexos is the target of the stratagem. The sunset of the nexos is included in that sett.

If the nexos abillaty said it had to be the only target for that stratagem, or the exclusive target of that stratagem then I would agree. But due to the flexibility/inaccuracy of the English language he does satisfy all the requirements for that 0 CP.

The reason I bring up MTG is that they also use the English language in that way. If there is a creature that is multicoloured red and black it count when you look for a black creature. Here the stratagem looks if you if you target the nexos, lo and behold the stratagem does target the nexos.

You are not going to get a definitive answer here as it comes down to the vagaries of the English language combined with GWs not actual defining exactly what they mean by "the target" in relation to stratagems. The Rules Commentary does so for abilities, attacks, and charges, but not for stratagems. Until GW says one way or the other, you are left with language that could be defined as either exclusive to one target or inclusive of multiple targets.

So I suggest you let this go and discuss with your opponents and/or tournament organizer.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
He has to be the target.
The target here would be singular

He is the target. He has forfilled all the requirements.

Also the argument that GW does not define target is not really true: Every stratagem has it's own section with the word target defining what you target with it.

This is unclear, at best. I can see the argument that they are actually only "a" target and not "the" target but I don't think that's entirely convincing here. I'd err on the side of not allowing it, but wouldn't be surprised to see it FAQed the other way.

Well he is the target as well. But no need to hash it out here. I will just discuss it with my opponents if it comes up.

Question is how accurate gw is with a's and the's.

It would qualify under both. But using "the" in that sentence makes no sense as it had not yet brought up the stratagem. There is no "the" to refer to. It is only after it starts talking about a stratagem.

Why did you ask for people's opinions on this is as it appears all you really wanted is for them to agree with you?

I am open to beeing wrong. But no good argument has presented itself. There could be my understanding of the English language was incorrect. Or that I had some fundamental flaw in my understanding of their rules. Lastly there could be an errata or update I could have missed. All of that has happened before. And I figure asking generally is a good way to get outside verification on my assumptions.

You have reached the point where everyone is telling you that either you are wrong or GW did such a bad job writing the rules around this particular condition that we can't say you are right. Why are you still arguing the point? Talk it over with your opponents/organizers so that you don't get into a dispute mid-game.

Because after someone takes time after their day to help me I feel like responding is coming politeness. I awsered ccs much like I am awnsering you now.

I’d buy that but posting “No good argument has presented itself” doesn’t feel like polite recognition and replying - it feels like you’re saying everyone is wrong and you’re looking for agreement with your stance.

I’d say you’ve had some pretty good argument pro and con, and deriding everyone’s input as meaningless isn’t particularly good form.

JohnnyHell wrote:I’d buy that but posting “No good argument has presented itself” doesn’t feel like polite recognition and replying - it feels like you’re saying everyone is wrong and you’re looking for agreement with your stance.

I’d say you’ve had some pretty good argument pro and con, and deriding everyone’s input as meaningless isn’t particularly good form.

But did any good argument present itself? They did not. This is just my opion. Lets look at them.

DeathReaper wrote:Battlefield analasys says you can target one...

Cension day does not target one, so they are not compatible.

Battlefield analasys does not say you can target one. "Once per turn, you can select one
model or unit from your army with this ability as the target
of a Stratagem for 0CP, even if you have already selected a
model or unit from your army as the target of that Stratagem
this phase."

I choose one model with this abilaty. (I choose the Nexos.) It needs to be the target for a stratagem. He is. DeathReaper does not quote the rule we are discussing.

JohnnyHell wrote:Permission to play a Strat on one unit for zero CP does not give you permission to select a Stratagem requiring you to pick two units.

That seems self-evident. Unsure what relevance MTG cred has to a 40K rules question.

It does not say that you can not use it on a stratagem that targets multiple units. You are making that up. What it says it that it needs to be the target of a stratagem, with the Nexos is.

nosferatu1001 wrote:It can be THE target of a Strat, not one if the targets of a Strat.

This is interesting. Let us exchange the wording removing the word "the" with "a".

"Once per turn, you can select one
model or unit from your army with this ability as a target
of a Stratagem for 0CP, even if you have already selected a
model or unit from your army as the target of that Stratagem
this phase."

This really does not change anything the way English works.

nosferatu1001 wrote:He has to be the target.
The target here would be singular

It does not need to be singular. In English it can also be used for other things. "The definite article (the) is used before a noun to indicate that the identity of the noun is known to the reader. The indefinite article (a, an) is used before a noun that is general or when its identity is not known".

tneva82 wrote:Question is how accurate gw is with a's and the's.

See above.

So no, I do not feel like any of the arguents where good. The reason for that is because they do not land on a definetive awnser. They, in my ponion, mostly end up reading "I feel like this should not work, but I can't express why." Usually YMDC is a straight to the point no nonsence resource that I am very gratefull for as it has helped me a lot up through the years, and most likly will again.

That is not meant to express any opinon on your charaters. Only for the weight of the argument itself.

 Niiai wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:Battlefield analasys says you can target one...

Cension day does not target one, so they are not compatible.

Battlefield analasys does not say you can target one. "Once per turn, you can select one
model or unit from your army with this ability as the target
of a Stratagem for 0CP, even if you have already selected a
model or unit from your army as the target of that Stratagem
this phase."

I choose one model with this abilaty. (I choose the Nexos.) It needs to be the target for a stratagem. He is. DeathReaper does not quote the rule we are discussing.

But the sett of two (or three in this case, if you include the opponents unit) includes one. Did you select one model from your army with this abilaty as the target for a stragem, yes. Checks out. That is just how english works.

However what that wording prevents is using multiple Nexos to reduce more then one stratagem to 0 CP each turn.

They could choose to add "excslusive", "singel" or something else. They did not do so. RAW and RAI are both quite clear here.

Does not matter if the set includes one.

Battlefield analasys does not allow for multiple units to be a target.

Selecting two, is not selecting "one model or unit from your army with this ability as the target"

It is though. In a permissive rule sett it qualifies.

You used the “it doesn’t say I can’t” argument, which as we all know is not how rules work. You need permission, not omission or lack of prohibition.

You then say I’m making things up. Cute, as you then variously claim that “the” and “a” are interchangeable in meaning (they aren’t), that the Definite Article is somehow relevant here (it’s not, just a linguistic red herring), and that 1=2 (do we need to explain here…?).

See why people are suggesting that you’re just looking for assent/an argument?

We are done here.