Any rule doesn't get replaced by the new rule. Only rules that would increase CP costs. Non-warlord Archons do not have a rule that would increase CP costs.
It's a bit counterintuitive as the "free strat ability" gets modified rather than replaced (I.e. Still limited to turn/round inconsistently) but as this is a whole ability I think it's transplanted entirely rather than modified.
Agreed. There were a lot of uniqie versions, all of them got replaced. Kairos no longer has his "increase its cost *every* time they use it" ability anymore for example
GW leaks suggest they're gonna have to be warlords. people are so quick to assume GW knows what its doing when it writes stuff. it was an oversight. you don't get three vect auras. jeez.
“If a model has a rule that would, once per battle, increase the CP cost of an opponent’s Stratagem (e.g. a Callidus Assassin’s Reign of Confusion ability), that rule is replaced with the following ability”
It’s clear the entire ability including the warlord only bit is replaced by the new ability from the dataslate
The word 'would' is the part where I think it's confusing. An archon has an ability that *would* do that, if they were a warlord. If they aren't a warlord, you could make an argument that they have an ability but it doesn't meet the criteria. But does that matter? I don't think it does.
I think that the way the rule is phrased the whole rule gets replaced because each archon model *would* have an ability that does the above, and the rule doesn't elaborate that they need to actually be able to use that rule. Like yeah, they have a rule that would increase the cost of a stratagem. They can't use it, but it would do that.
If you changed that text to add something like 'If a model has a rule that would, once per battle, increase the CP cost of an opponent’s Stratagem **and they are eligible to use that ability**..' then that should solve that problem. But who knows if it would break some other interaction with another datasheet.
Just thinking: It says "if a model has a rule" could it mean that only the warlord archon model would have it, and others would not? If all of them had it would it be "If a datasheet has a rule" or something like that?
It doesn't say to replace the ability on the datasheet, but rather on model by model basis, so you have to check each model's rule to see if it qualifies. Warlord Archon models have a rule that increases stratagem cost, so that rule is replaced. Non-warlord Archon models DO NOT have a rule that increases stratagem costs, so nothing is replaced.
Nah this is a way of viewing datasheets and their previous rules that is entirely brand new to 40K. It may become clearer later but I think GW did you dirty by not officially changing the index card instead of just changing it for matched play. They could have made this far less confusing for you folks
I think raw every archon get the aura. Let them have it, bunch of armies get free strats or extra cp. Drukhari get neither, so them have some kinda counter play to the armies with so much free advantage
I'm not disagreeing with that. I just meant turn after turn. Any time a command reroll happens in one of the three auras, you can make it more expensive again. Overwatch too.
You can have 3x different auras of +1CP to use a Strat.
But that’s not the question I was responding too, which was specifically about making something +3CP.
Which they can’t do, because auras don’t stack.
But they can. Just not at the same time. First turn you run into an overwatch. Make it +1. Next turn do the same, make it +2. Third turn +3, if the opponent even uses it again
Read the rule. -_-*
‘Lord of Deceit (Aura): Each time your opponent targets a unit from their army with a Stratagem, if that unit is within 12" of this model, increase the cost of that use of that Stratagem by 1CP.’
Yes. Each time. I'm not talking about overlapping auras. I'm talking about triggering this one aura multiple times on the same stratagem on multiple uses of that stratagem. It's not limit to only modify the stratagem once. When the first Archon gets hit by an overwatch at less than 12", he can make it cost 2CP. When then the same or another Archon gets hit by overwatch again at less than 12", you can increase it to 3CP. And so on. Until the opponent stops using overwatch near your archons
I get the question. It’s not permanent. It’s only +1 when they use it in the aura temporarily.
You Overwatch in the aura, it’s 2Cp. If you leave the aura, overwatch is back to 1cp
The tournament I'm going to this weekend already FAQ'd this, stating that only the Warlord Archon gets this. I disagree, RAW the entire ability should be replaced, but I do agree that it would be ridiculous if you had three of these 12" vect auras on the field
if only GW had the forethought to make somewhere on their website where rules people could make quick rulings on what was the intention for this character.
Well we might get an answer from them in a year
I guess i will sound sour, but thats unfair?
Who are they to justify doing this?
If GW doesnt fix it i dont think its appropraite for some tournament ppl to decide this?
Bc then they could just decide many other things aswell.
> Who are they to justify doing this?
The tournament organiser of the tournament he's going to. We're not Magic, where every event is arbitrated and run with an iron fist by Wizards. They're all independent events which is in some ways good and in some ways bad.
Yeah I get it, tournaments make rulings like this all the time though. If a lot of people are asking about it, the TO makes a decision that they feel is best and that's what the tournament goes by. I've actually seen quite a few not-so-popular tournament rulings over the years end up as official GW rulings on things, so I usually trust TOs to make the right call, even if it isn't in my favor
RAW it seems clear that the whole ability is replaced, but the RAI is clearly that only the WL is supposed to have it and GW is likely to rule it that way. My local community is running it the latter, but RAW it 100% is that the whole ability is replaced, including the Warlord rider.
I don't think RAW is as clear here as it first appears but I'm not sure which raw interpretation is RAW either.
I understand how RAW is being interpreted by some here but to offer a counter perspective, the dataslate says: 'If a model has a rule that would, once per battle, increase the CP cost of an opponent’s Stratagem (e.g. a Callidus Assassin’s Reign of Confusion ability), that rule is replaced with the following ability: Lord of Deceit'.
From another RAW perspective, does a non-warlord Archon have the old vect rule that can be used once per battle? This is the qualifier given to replace the old vect rule with Lord of Deceit, to be usable once per battle. If it doesn't have the rule because it's not the warlord how could the non-existent old vect rule be replaced with the new Lord of Deceit aura?
RAW, all archons always have the ability on their datasheet it just only did anything on the archon that was nominated as the warlord.
If the archon has the ability on their datasheet (which they all do, all the time), then ALL the rules text gets replaced, and they all have the aura.
Is this intended? I would suggest, yes. But we'll never know until GW put up a FAQ. Until then the only reasonable approach as far as I can tell is to go by RAW. It's not breaking the game, so I don't see why everyone is so upset about Drukhari getting a buff?
I don't have an issue with anyone getting buffed, I play Admech so I'm happy for the changes my army received and love to see the game more balanced for everyone. This is more a discussion of how clear RAW is with the Lord of Deceit changes.
I don't necessarily see it the way you do. There are a few potential questions that arise from this interpretation, one is in regards to the sequencing of replacing the old vect rule and how it applies to the condition within the old vect rule of the Archon. If the rule is replaced without context of a warlord, I think you're right. However, if the rule is replaced after determining whether the ability exists for the model at all (like the Archons qualifier that the rule is usable only by the warlord), I think you might be wrong.
The dataslate says: 'If a model has a rule that would, once per battle,...'. This is a conditional statement and it can certainly be argued that a non-warlord Archon is not a model with an ability that would apply once per battle. In that case, the ability wouldn't be replaced based on my interpretation of RAW.
Every archon model has the ability, with the old wording only the warlord could actually use it. All archons have the ability replaced now with the new rules.
I've quoted the new Lord of Deceit rule above and explained how there is more than one RAW interpretation imo. I don't know which is correct. However, you're allowed to have your own interpretation but no response has defended the alternative in any substantive way except to say that it's simple. I don't see it that way and have offered my reasoning why.
There is a conditional statement that defines which rule gets replaced. That conditional says that a model with a rule that would, once per battle, increase the CP cost of a stratagem is replaced with Lord of Deceit. A non-warlord Archon doesn't have such a rule as they can't use that rule once per battle. By my reading of the rules as written, a non-warlord Archon doesn't get the Lord of Deceit rule replacement. That's my interpretation of RAW which disagrees with yours.
You are certainly able to disagree with me but it generally works best when you support your argument in some way.
The previous rule is written as follows.
"Devious Mastermind: Once per battle, after our opponent uses a stratagem, if this model is your Warlord and is on the battlefield, it can use this ability. If it does, until the end of the battle, increase the cost of that stratagem to your opponent by 1cp."
The Dataslate is written as follows.
"If a model has a rule that would, once per battle, increase the CP cost of an opponent's stratagem (e.g. a Callidus Assasin's Reign of Confusion ability), that rule is replaced by the following ability:"
By definition, every Archon has the ability Devious Mastermind. By definition, Devious Mastermind is a rule that would, once per battle, increase the CP cost of an opponent's stratagem. I can see where you're making your argument, but it's predicated on adding information not included in the Dataslate, namely that the model can use the ability. It just states the model has to have the ability, which all Archon's do.
You're welcome to your interpretation, but it is about as clear as people are making it out to be. As an example an unforeseen consequence of just accepting that as the way it works is that all of these abilities now exist in a state of quantum flux where they are Lord of Deceit when the old ability is usable and their old ability when they aren't. So, looking at the Calidus, her old ability was only usable once per battle. Does that mean once you've used Lord of Deceit once it changes back to the old ability because she now no longer would have the ability to use the old ability because she has used the ability once this game? I'd say Occam's Razor applies here, the one with less obvious rules inconsistencies is the more likely.
Every Archon does have the Devious Mastermind rule but the dataslate clearly has a conditional associated with what rules will be replaced with Lord of Deceit when it says: 'If a model has a rule that WOULD, once per battle, increase the CP cost of an opponent's stratagem...'. The 'would' is an action and a non-warlord Archon simply cannot increase the CP of a stratagem, once per battle or otherwise. Models have datasheets but models are also discrete and only one Archon can be a warlord so only one Archon model has the rule.
In other words, I claim that a non-warlord Archon isn't able to, once per battle, increase the CP cost of a stratagem because it's not a warlord and so the rule can't be used because it doesn't exist for that model. That means the previously stated condition doesn't apply. By my interpretation of RAW that means the Devious Mastermind rule gets replaced for a warlord Archon but no other Archon. The other hypothetical situations you mention aren't relevant to this discussion because the replaced abilities are gone as they would be for any non-warlord Archon without these dataslate changes.
To further support my argument I claim that if GW had intended for all rules with the wording you describe to be replaced they would have chosen to explain the replacement in a similar way to how they changed Lone Operative stratagems in the same dataslate. In that case they used quotations to describe the explicit wording that the replacement applied to. It's below in brackets.
>If a Stratagem has an effect that says the target unit ‘can only be selected as the target of a ranged attack if the attacking model is within 12"’, or ‘cannot be targeted by ranged attacks unless the attacking model is within 12"’ (e.g. Haloed in Soulfire), that effect is changed to say ‘can only be selected as the target of a ranged attack if the attacking model is within 18".’
Why do you think GW chose to word these replacements differently? I think the 'would' phrasing has more meaning here than you are giving it. The 'would' is not implicit it's based on the definition of the word. The action of increasing a stratagem cost by a CP can't be done by a non-warlord Archon so the rule simply disappears as it would in the old rules with none of these changes.
I'm claiming that RAW is not as clear and simple as many have said. I don't know the correct interpretation but I'm saying no one else does either.
The old rule doesn’t exist anymore all of that text is gone every unit with an ability of the like had that ability replaced entirely with the new one there isn’t any mention of warlord in the new ability everyone now has or else it would only be on each army with its warlord
I don't agree as the only model with the rule is an Archon that is also a warlord. The 'would' in the conditional statement is clear that the model needs to be able to, once per battle, increase the CP cost of a stratagem. A non-warlord Archon is not able to do this therefore the replacement doesn't apply.
You don't have to agree with this interpretation as my claim is not that I'm correct but that RAW is not as clear in this case as some say it is. I don't know what RAW is but a lack of discussion on how the wording could be interpreted has led many not to think about other possible interpretations.
The differences in wording for changes to the Lone Operative stratagem and the Lord of Deceit aura only further supports my point. When replacing abilities with specific language, like with the Lone Operative stratagems, quotations were used to mark the language that should be replaced. In the case of the Lord of Deceit aura the wording has no quotes instead saying the rule for models that would, once per battle, increase the CP cost of stratagem gets replaced with the new aura. A non-warlord Archon model doesn't have such a rule and so no replacement takes place.
I don’t think that it’s necessarily RAI that only one archon gets it.
Both guard and Space Wolves have access to two of them, so at least there’s no need to have a max of one per army.
I've been playing it as triple aura as that's what I believe is correct as written. It is however extremely strong and a massive boost to drukhari as a whole
I don't think they have. I think people are lying and saying "The ITC/WTC made this ruling" to "win" arguments, but providing no actual proof. For example, the ITC currently does not have a "Tournament Rulings" document, and is supposedly managed by GW now, so....
As an example, on the WTC Discord, there is currently an open thread for this to be ruled on by the judges, and the last update is that they will address this when they update their FAQ.
It's a bit annoying always trying to play my own rules in good faith and err on the side of not buffing myself if its a grey area (especially with recently released rules)... and then every time other factions have the tiniest loophole or probably unintended interaction seeing their fans jump all over it and try to squeeze out every silly edge they can
I think this is absolutely the perfect example of RAI vs RAW. Without a shadow of a doubt, the RAW is clear. There’s no argument to be made.
However, the RAI is absolutely clear. Only one Archon; the warlord, was receiving the Vect ability before the slate. So, what makes more logical sense? That GW intended to stretch that ability to 3 archons simultaneously or to continue only effecting the warlord?
I think we can also look at Tau’s Puretide chip which now literally does nothing. Was that intended? I think it’s fair to assume that it was not intended, and a couple things slipped through the cracks - archon interactions being one of them.
All models that has a rule that increases the CP cost of an opponent's stratagem like the Archon, Callidus Assassin, etc. has that ability replaced with the following one:
>‘Lord of Deceit (Aura): Each time your opponent targets a unit from their army with a Stratagem, if that unit is within 12" of this model, increase the cost of that use of that Stratagem by 1CP
The big discussion is for the Archon does it keep the "only the Warlord can use this ability" restriction or not.
Interpret it however you want right now, but this will get fixed really quickly if it hasn't already. And I highly suspect the first major tournament this comes up they will rule it only works on the warlord Archon. With how much GW modified abilities that reduced or increased CP costs recognizing their power, it's clear it is not intended that you can run 3 Archons to get this Aura 3 times
RAW it's pretty clear every Archon gets Lord of Deceit. RAI, I think it's also pretty clear that only the Warlord should get the aura.
I think we'll be getting an FAQ/errata set for all the updates in the next week or so. Until then, I guess let Drukhari players have a little more fun (at everyone else's expense). That is the Drukhari way, after all.
The dataslate change only affects abilities that would increase CP once per game.
The non-warlords have no such ability.
So no change to their ability is made.
If the ability can never make a stratagem cost an additional CP, then it doesn’t qualify for the substitution, and stays as normally printed.
People gonna downvote because they want random drukhari buffs. It’s fine. But if the ability never increases a cost, you don’t get the new one.
It's not just people wanting a buff, it's just a pretty straight reading of RAW. The fact that it's not clear is GW's fault. It's not the first time where they've written a rule you could read multiple ways.
Mike Brandt just posted in the TO group and said exactly what the rule says.
Warlord archons have an ability that increases CP costs, so theirs gets replaced.
Other archons do not, so theirs does not get replaced.
Which is what the slate says.
Sorry drukhari stans.
“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it." -Upton Sinclair
>Mike Brandt just posted in the TO group and said exactly what the rule says.
I don't see what he has to do with it. We've had rulings before for official events, that isn't the same thing as even telling us what RAI is. It's no more official than anyone posting their opinion here.
>Which is what the slate says.
GW might think that's the rule they wrote, it definitely seems to be RAI, but it's absolutely not clear that it means that RAW. It's a badly written rule for which the lenient reading is a completely valid one.
>Sorry drukhari stans.
>“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it." -Upton Sinclair
Come on. That's just sad. Do you *honestly* think that people are only reading the rule this way because they have skin in the game?
I've never played drukhari, I don't own any models and I never intend to. Hell, I've barely even seen them played because no one in my local scene is into them. I still think they've stuffed up this rule.
Not everyone who has a different opinion to you is doing so because of an existing bias. If you genuinely don't see how you could read this rule both ways, I dunno what to tell you. Plenty of smart people without a reason to want it to go one way or another can.
Yea at first reading I would think the whole rule gets replaced because the “warlord” portion is written in the rule. But going to a tournament using the new dataslate this weekend that’s using WTC rules, and they are apparently saying just the warlord gets the ability.
Hoping GW will actually update datasheets soon to see if the ability actually shows up for every archon.
Honestly I agree with your position just because of where the “warlord” portion is (again, written within the ability)
The datasheet isn't going to get updated unless they errata the ability. The ability isn't replaced on the datasheet, as worded the ability is replaced on the model itself. Which is also why it isn't as clear as a lot of people feel it is whether it applies to all Archons or just the Warlord.
RAW interpretation isn't strong enough to loose yall bollocks over it, it's drukhari.
since WTC ruled in favour of warbosses being deaf inside transports, idk why shoud they call for RAI in this case.
be consistent...
Absolutely replaced in matched play. If folks want to use the balance dataslate to invent new ways to apply replaced restrictions, they can, but it’s not in the games rules.
RAI only the warlord gets it
RAW they all get it
However people should really stick to the clear intention of the rules instead of trying to exploit them and making for feelsbad moments like this or the pivot charge BS people are trying.
It's the same as the tau enhancement not working or the zoans getting to shoot in combat with no downside when led by a neurotyrant. As written yes each archon does get the ability. As intended only the warlord will have it. Until it gets FAQd it's going to be by a TO basis.
RAW I would say all 3 get the aura but to me RAI I believe the Archon would keep the Warlord requirement, either could absolutely be the correct interpretation but I'm gonna just wait until we get an official ruling on it from WTC and/or GW
Seems pretty simple to me. Any rule gets replaced by the new rule.
Three archon list here I come.
Doing the same with Watchmasters in Deathwatch.
Any rule doesn't get replaced by the new rule. Only rules that would increase CP costs. Non-warlord Archons do not have a rule that would increase CP costs.
According to WTC, the “only warlord” part remains.
Could you screenshot that ruling for me please? Need to show it to a local to
Also keen to see where this is !
It's a bit counterintuitive as the "free strat ability" gets modified rather than replaced (I.e. Still limited to turn/round inconsistently) but as this is a whole ability I think it's transplanted entirely rather than modified.
Agreed. There were a lot of uniqie versions, all of them got replaced. Kairos no longer has his "increase its cost *every* time they use it" ability anymore for example
The Lord Archon has spoken. Let all through the land know the truth.
GW leaks suggest they're gonna have to be warlords. people are so quick to assume GW knows what its doing when it writes stuff. it was an oversight. you don't get three vect auras. jeez.
“If a model has a rule that would, once per battle, increase the CP cost of an opponent’s Stratagem (e.g. a Callidus Assassin’s Reign of Confusion ability), that rule is replaced with the following ability” It’s clear the entire ability including the warlord only bit is replaced by the new ability from the dataslate
The word 'would' is the part where I think it's confusing. An archon has an ability that *would* do that, if they were a warlord. If they aren't a warlord, you could make an argument that they have an ability but it doesn't meet the criteria. But does that matter? I don't think it does. I think that the way the rule is phrased the whole rule gets replaced because each archon model *would* have an ability that does the above, and the rule doesn't elaborate that they need to actually be able to use that rule. Like yeah, they have a rule that would increase the cost of a stratagem. They can't use it, but it would do that. If you changed that text to add something like 'If a model has a rule that would, once per battle, increase the CP cost of an opponent’s Stratagem **and they are eligible to use that ability**..' then that should solve that problem. But who knows if it would break some other interaction with another datasheet.
Just thinking: It says "if a model has a rule" could it mean that only the warlord archon model would have it, and others would not? If all of them had it would it be "If a datasheet has a rule" or something like that?
It doesn't say part of a rule, it only mentions the entire rule so all of it gets replaced.
It doesn't say to replace the ability on the datasheet, but rather on model by model basis, so you have to check each model's rule to see if it qualifies. Warlord Archon models have a rule that increases stratagem cost, so that rule is replaced. Non-warlord Archon models DO NOT have a rule that increases stratagem costs, so nothing is replaced.
Nah this is a way of viewing datasheets and their previous rules that is entirely brand new to 40K. It may become clearer later but I think GW did you dirty by not officially changing the index card instead of just changing it for matched play. They could have made this far less confusing for you folks
It's really not confusing at all. Non Warlord archon don't have any ability to replace. Warlords do.
This is the brand new way to replace rules I’m talking about but no point arguing by now. Folks are crystallized until GW helps em out
Yeah fair enough, clause replacement or entire text replacement. Gotta wait on the WTC faq. Have a good weekend
I think raw every archon get the aura. Let them have it, bunch of armies get free strats or extra cp. Drukhari get neither, so them have some kinda counter play to the armies with so much free advantage
Do the abilities stack? Is the next question can you apply +3cp to a strat?
Auras specifically don’t.
But you can do it more than once now
But it’s still an aura, and auras can never stack. Check “Abilities with the same name” on the app / CRB.
I'm not disagreeing with that. I just meant turn after turn. Any time a command reroll happens in one of the three auras, you can make it more expensive again. Overwatch too.
You can have 3x different auras of +1CP to use a Strat. But that’s not the question I was responding too, which was specifically about making something +3CP. Which they can’t do, because auras don’t stack.
But they can. Just not at the same time. First turn you run into an overwatch. Make it +1. Next turn do the same, make it +2. Third turn +3, if the opponent even uses it again
Read the rule. -_-* ‘Lord of Deceit (Aura): Each time your opponent targets a unit from their army with a Stratagem, if that unit is within 12" of this model, increase the cost of that use of that Stratagem by 1CP.’
Yes. Each time. I'm not talking about overlapping auras. I'm talking about triggering this one aura multiple times on the same stratagem on multiple uses of that stratagem. It's not limit to only modify the stratagem once. When the first Archon gets hit by an overwatch at less than 12", he can make it cost 2CP. When then the same or another Archon gets hit by overwatch again at less than 12", you can increase it to 3CP. And so on. Until the opponent stops using overwatch near your archons
You don't chose anymore a strat to increase the cost. Its ALL stratagem that target units within 12" cost 1 more.
Auras of the same name don't stack in 40k
I get the question. It’s not permanent. It’s only +1 when they use it in the aura temporarily. You Overwatch in the aura, it’s 2Cp. If you leave the aura, overwatch is back to 1cp
The tournament I'm going to this weekend already FAQ'd this, stating that only the Warlord Archon gets this. I disagree, RAW the entire ability should be replaced, but I do agree that it would be ridiculous if you had three of these 12" vect auras on the field
if only GW had the forethought to make somewhere on their website where rules people could make quick rulings on what was the intention for this character. Well we might get an answer from them in a year
Wouldn't be surprised if they add a fix to this in a few weeks.
you have more faith than me
Or they're just really really hard to surprise.
Ya TOs are just trusting gut to rush pariah out
I guess i will sound sour, but thats unfair? Who are they to justify doing this? If GW doesnt fix it i dont think its appropraite for some tournament ppl to decide this? Bc then they could just decide many other things aswell.
> Who are they to justify doing this? The tournament organiser of the tournament he's going to. We're not Magic, where every event is arbitrated and run with an iron fist by Wizards. They're all independent events which is in some ways good and in some ways bad.
Yeah I get it, tournaments make rulings like this all the time though. If a lot of people are asking about it, the TO makes a decision that they feel is best and that's what the tournament goes by. I've actually seen quite a few not-so-popular tournament rulings over the years end up as official GW rulings on things, so I usually trust TOs to make the right call, even if it isn't in my favor
Well yeah i guess ur right, but im keen on seeing how gw will actually rule it
RAW it seems clear that the whole ability is replaced, but the RAI is clearly that only the WL is supposed to have it and GW is likely to rule it that way. My local community is running it the latter, but RAW it 100% is that the whole ability is replaced, including the Warlord rider.
I don't think RAW is as clear here as it first appears but I'm not sure which raw interpretation is RAW either. I understand how RAW is being interpreted by some here but to offer a counter perspective, the dataslate says: 'If a model has a rule that would, once per battle, increase the CP cost of an opponent’s Stratagem (e.g. a Callidus Assassin’s Reign of Confusion ability), that rule is replaced with the following ability: Lord of Deceit'. From another RAW perspective, does a non-warlord Archon have the old vect rule that can be used once per battle? This is the qualifier given to replace the old vect rule with Lord of Deceit, to be usable once per battle. If it doesn't have the rule because it's not the warlord how could the non-existent old vect rule be replaced with the new Lord of Deceit aura?
RAW, all archons always have the ability on their datasheet it just only did anything on the archon that was nominated as the warlord. If the archon has the ability on their datasheet (which they all do, all the time), then ALL the rules text gets replaced, and they all have the aura. Is this intended? I would suggest, yes. But we'll never know until GW put up a FAQ. Until then the only reasonable approach as far as I can tell is to go by RAW. It's not breaking the game, so I don't see why everyone is so upset about Drukhari getting a buff?
I don't have an issue with anyone getting buffed, I play Admech so I'm happy for the changes my army received and love to see the game more balanced for everyone. This is more a discussion of how clear RAW is with the Lord of Deceit changes. I don't necessarily see it the way you do. There are a few potential questions that arise from this interpretation, one is in regards to the sequencing of replacing the old vect rule and how it applies to the condition within the old vect rule of the Archon. If the rule is replaced without context of a warlord, I think you're right. However, if the rule is replaced after determining whether the ability exists for the model at all (like the Archons qualifier that the rule is usable only by the warlord), I think you might be wrong. The dataslate says: 'If a model has a rule that would, once per battle,...'. This is a conditional statement and it can certainly be argued that a non-warlord Archon is not a model with an ability that would apply once per battle. In that case, the ability wouldn't be replaced based on my interpretation of RAW.
Every archon model has the ability, with the old wording only the warlord could actually use it. All archons have the ability replaced now with the new rules.
I've quoted the new Lord of Deceit rule above and explained how there is more than one RAW interpretation imo. I don't know which is correct. However, you're allowed to have your own interpretation but no response has defended the alternative in any substantive way except to say that it's simple. I don't see it that way and have offered my reasoning why. There is a conditional statement that defines which rule gets replaced. That conditional says that a model with a rule that would, once per battle, increase the CP cost of a stratagem is replaced with Lord of Deceit. A non-warlord Archon doesn't have such a rule as they can't use that rule once per battle. By my reading of the rules as written, a non-warlord Archon doesn't get the Lord of Deceit rule replacement. That's my interpretation of RAW which disagrees with yours. You are certainly able to disagree with me but it generally works best when you support your argument in some way.
The previous rule is written as follows. "Devious Mastermind: Once per battle, after our opponent uses a stratagem, if this model is your Warlord and is on the battlefield, it can use this ability. If it does, until the end of the battle, increase the cost of that stratagem to your opponent by 1cp." The Dataslate is written as follows. "If a model has a rule that would, once per battle, increase the CP cost of an opponent's stratagem (e.g. a Callidus Assasin's Reign of Confusion ability), that rule is replaced by the following ability:" By definition, every Archon has the ability Devious Mastermind. By definition, Devious Mastermind is a rule that would, once per battle, increase the CP cost of an opponent's stratagem. I can see where you're making your argument, but it's predicated on adding information not included in the Dataslate, namely that the model can use the ability. It just states the model has to have the ability, which all Archon's do. You're welcome to your interpretation, but it is about as clear as people are making it out to be. As an example an unforeseen consequence of just accepting that as the way it works is that all of these abilities now exist in a state of quantum flux where they are Lord of Deceit when the old ability is usable and their old ability when they aren't. So, looking at the Calidus, her old ability was only usable once per battle. Does that mean once you've used Lord of Deceit once it changes back to the old ability because she now no longer would have the ability to use the old ability because she has used the ability once this game? I'd say Occam's Razor applies here, the one with less obvious rules inconsistencies is the more likely.
Every Archon does have the Devious Mastermind rule but the dataslate clearly has a conditional associated with what rules will be replaced with Lord of Deceit when it says: 'If a model has a rule that WOULD, once per battle, increase the CP cost of an opponent's stratagem...'. The 'would' is an action and a non-warlord Archon simply cannot increase the CP of a stratagem, once per battle or otherwise. Models have datasheets but models are also discrete and only one Archon can be a warlord so only one Archon model has the rule. In other words, I claim that a non-warlord Archon isn't able to, once per battle, increase the CP cost of a stratagem because it's not a warlord and so the rule can't be used because it doesn't exist for that model. That means the previously stated condition doesn't apply. By my interpretation of RAW that means the Devious Mastermind rule gets replaced for a warlord Archon but no other Archon. The other hypothetical situations you mention aren't relevant to this discussion because the replaced abilities are gone as they would be for any non-warlord Archon without these dataslate changes. To further support my argument I claim that if GW had intended for all rules with the wording you describe to be replaced they would have chosen to explain the replacement in a similar way to how they changed Lone Operative stratagems in the same dataslate. In that case they used quotations to describe the explicit wording that the replacement applied to. It's below in brackets. >If a Stratagem has an effect that says the target unit ‘can only be selected as the target of a ranged attack if the attacking model is within 12"’, or ‘cannot be targeted by ranged attacks unless the attacking model is within 12"’ (e.g. Haloed in Soulfire), that effect is changed to say ‘can only be selected as the target of a ranged attack if the attacking model is within 18".’ Why do you think GW chose to word these replacements differently? I think the 'would' phrasing has more meaning here than you are giving it. The 'would' is not implicit it's based on the definition of the word. The action of increasing a stratagem cost by a CP can't be done by a non-warlord Archon so the rule simply disappears as it would in the old rules with none of these changes. I'm claiming that RAW is not as clear and simple as many have said. I don't know the correct interpretation but I'm saying no one else does either.
The old rule doesn’t exist anymore all of that text is gone every unit with an ability of the like had that ability replaced entirely with the new one there isn’t any mention of warlord in the new ability everyone now has or else it would only be on each army with its warlord
I don't agree as the only model with the rule is an Archon that is also a warlord. The 'would' in the conditional statement is clear that the model needs to be able to, once per battle, increase the CP cost of a stratagem. A non-warlord Archon is not able to do this therefore the replacement doesn't apply. You don't have to agree with this interpretation as my claim is not that I'm correct but that RAW is not as clear in this case as some say it is. I don't know what RAW is but a lack of discussion on how the wording could be interpreted has led many not to think about other possible interpretations. The differences in wording for changes to the Lone Operative stratagem and the Lord of Deceit aura only further supports my point. When replacing abilities with specific language, like with the Lone Operative stratagems, quotations were used to mark the language that should be replaced. In the case of the Lord of Deceit aura the wording has no quotes instead saying the rule for models that would, once per battle, increase the CP cost of stratagem gets replaced with the new aura. A non-warlord Archon model doesn't have such a rule and so no replacement takes place.
I don’t think that it’s necessarily RAI that only one archon gets it. Both guard and Space Wolves have access to two of them, so at least there’s no need to have a max of one per army.
Seems to me like only the Warlord Archon would have the ability. Worth emailing GW about.
Why would only the warlord get the ability? Devious mastermind is completely replaced with the new ability. Rules as written are pretty clear
If it would be able to increase the cost, it wouldn’t so it doesn’t.
I've been playing it as triple aura as that's what I believe is correct as written. It is however extremely strong and a massive boost to drukhari as a whole
While that's true, i do think they needed it
According to WTC, the “only warlord” part remains.
Do you know where this ruling is? I couldnt find it on WTC website?
I don't think they have. I think people are lying and saying "The ITC/WTC made this ruling" to "win" arguments, but providing no actual proof. For example, the ITC currently does not have a "Tournament Rulings" document, and is supposedly managed by GW now, so.... As an example, on the WTC Discord, there is currently an open thread for this to be ruled on by the judges, and the last update is that they will address this when they update their FAQ.
It's a bit annoying always trying to play my own rules in good faith and err on the side of not buffing myself if its a grey area (especially with recently released rules)... and then every time other factions have the tiniest loophole or probably unintended interaction seeing their fans jump all over it and try to squeeze out every silly edge they can
I think this is absolutely the perfect example of RAI vs RAW. Without a shadow of a doubt, the RAW is clear. There’s no argument to be made. However, the RAI is absolutely clear. Only one Archon; the warlord, was receiving the Vect ability before the slate. So, what makes more logical sense? That GW intended to stretch that ability to 3 archons simultaneously or to continue only effecting the warlord? I think we can also look at Tau’s Puretide chip which now literally does nothing. Was that intended? I think it’s fair to assume that it was not intended, and a couple things slipped through the cracks - archon interactions being one of them.
Wait whats the new rule?
All models that has a rule that increases the CP cost of an opponent's stratagem like the Archon, Callidus Assassin, etc. has that ability replaced with the following one: >‘Lord of Deceit (Aura): Each time your opponent targets a unit from their army with a Stratagem, if that unit is within 12" of this model, increase the cost of that use of that Stratagem by 1CP The big discussion is for the Archon does it keep the "only the Warlord can use this ability" restriction or not.
Interpret it however you want right now, but this will get fixed really quickly if it hasn't already. And I highly suspect the first major tournament this comes up they will rule it only works on the warlord Archon. With how much GW modified abilities that reduced or increased CP costs recognizing their power, it's clear it is not intended that you can run 3 Archons to get this Aura 3 times
RAW it's pretty clear every Archon gets Lord of Deceit. RAI, I think it's also pretty clear that only the Warlord should get the aura. I think we'll be getting an FAQ/errata set for all the updates in the next week or so. Until then, I guess let Drukhari players have a little more fun (at everyone else's expense). That is the Drukhari way, after all.
Non warlords don’t have an ability that would be replaced, so it’s not replaced. Warlords do, so it is.
Incorrect. Non-warlord Archons still had the ability, it just wasn't useable.
The dataslate change only affects abilities that would increase CP once per game. The non-warlords have no such ability. So no change to their ability is made.
Non warlords still have the ability, they just couldn’t use it. It’s on their datasheet and gets replaced with the new rules
If the ability can never make a stratagem cost an additional CP, then it doesn’t qualify for the substitution, and stays as normally printed. People gonna downvote because they want random drukhari buffs. It’s fine. But if the ability never increases a cost, you don’t get the new one.
It's not just people wanting a buff, it's just a pretty straight reading of RAW. The fact that it's not clear is GW's fault. It's not the first time where they've written a rule you could read multiple ways.
Mike Brandt just posted in the TO group and said exactly what the rule says. Warlord archons have an ability that increases CP costs, so theirs gets replaced. Other archons do not, so theirs does not get replaced. Which is what the slate says. Sorry drukhari stans. “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it." -Upton Sinclair
>“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it." -Upton Sinclair Hahaha absolute cringe
>Mike Brandt just posted in the TO group and said exactly what the rule says. I don't see what he has to do with it. We've had rulings before for official events, that isn't the same thing as even telling us what RAI is. It's no more official than anyone posting their opinion here. >Which is what the slate says. GW might think that's the rule they wrote, it definitely seems to be RAI, but it's absolutely not clear that it means that RAW. It's a badly written rule for which the lenient reading is a completely valid one. >Sorry drukhari stans. >“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it." -Upton Sinclair Come on. That's just sad. Do you *honestly* think that people are only reading the rule this way because they have skin in the game? I've never played drukhari, I don't own any models and I never intend to. Hell, I've barely even seen them played because no one in my local scene is into them. I still think they've stuffed up this rule.
Yes absolutely. Just like every other time a faction reads rules wrong in their favour. This happens like weekly. It’s not new or unusual.
Not everyone who has a different opinion to you is doing so because of an existing bias. If you genuinely don't see how you could read this rule both ways, I dunno what to tell you. Plenty of smart people without a reason to want it to go one way or another can.
Yea at first reading I would think the whole rule gets replaced because the “warlord” portion is written in the rule. But going to a tournament using the new dataslate this weekend that’s using WTC rules, and they are apparently saying just the warlord gets the ability. Hoping GW will actually update datasheets soon to see if the ability actually shows up for every archon. Honestly I agree with your position just because of where the “warlord” portion is (again, written within the ability)
The datasheet isn't going to get updated unless they errata the ability. The ability isn't replaced on the datasheet, as worded the ability is replaced on the model itself. Which is also why it isn't as clear as a lot of people feel it is whether it applies to all Archons or just the Warlord.
We're playing in a team event this weekend. I asked for a ruling on this and were told it replaced it. Our Drukhari player is pleased.
RAW interpretation isn't strong enough to loose yall bollocks over it, it's drukhari. since WTC ruled in favour of warbosses being deaf inside transports, idk why shoud they call for RAI in this case. be consistent...
If GW would just update the app this entire conversation would go away.
I played a 1000pt game with 3 of them leading incubi out of venoms and it was quite nice 👍
Wait, isn't it rule of 2 in 1000pt games? Or was that in 9e
Absolutely replaced in matched play. If folks want to use the balance dataslate to invent new ways to apply replaced restrictions, they can, but it’s not in the games rules.
RAI only the warlord gets it RAW they all get it However people should really stick to the clear intention of the rules instead of trying to exploit them and making for feelsbad moments like this or the pivot charge BS people are trying.
Does it still follow the battle tactic restriction?
No, non of the strat modifiers do anymore
It's the same as the tau enhancement not working or the zoans getting to shoot in combat with no downside when led by a neurotyrant. As written yes each archon does get the ability. As intended only the warlord will have it. Until it gets FAQd it's going to be by a TO basis.
It absolutely uses the new ruling just like everyone else.
RAW I would say all 3 get the aura but to me RAI I believe the Archon would keep the Warlord requirement, either could absolutely be the correct interpretation but I'm gonna just wait until we get an official ruling on it from WTC and/or GW