Fear of the Unseen vs Transhuman

[deedus]

I'm still not buying it.
The transhuman strat says
"Use this Stratagem in any phase, when a primaris unit from your army is selected as the target of an attack. Until the end of the phase..."
FotU says:
"While an enemy unit is within engagement range of this unit, that unit cannot be selected for stratagems used by your opponent, and that unit cannot be affected by strategems used by your opponent when that unit is seleceted to shoot or fight."

so, at the start of the fight phase, both units are already in engagement range. if opponent wanted to use the transhuman strat to be able to give the unit the transhuman, he has to use it in that fight phase. but FotU is already in effect because they are ALREADY in engagement range, thus enemy unit can't be the target of the transhuman. you have to be able to pick (aka select) a unit that you want to use the strat on in the first place, no matter what the wording of the strat says, because the selection of the unit for the strat takes place BEFORE the effect of the strat itself.

[fuerchtegott]

Trevy is not a good source which rule interpretation TOs will follow.

[hivefleetkerrigan]

To those arguing that transhuman does not target a unit, then what do you consider targeting a unit to mean?
For example, if a unit in CC with deathleaper fails a save, can I reroll that save? After all, per the "not targeting the unit" argument, I'm targeting the save.

[piersonsmuppet]

Mar 25, 2022 12:00:49 GMT hivefleetkerrigan said:

To those arguing that transhuman does not target a unit, then what do you consider targeting a unit to mean?
For example, if a unit in CC with deathleaper fails a save, can I reroll that save? After all, per the "not targeting the unit" argument, I'm targeting the save.

If the stratagem tells the opponent to “Select X unit” or, for the second clause in Deathleaper’s rule, if the stratagem says to use after a unit is selected to fight/shoot. The second clause would not need to exist if all stratagems caused the user to select a unit.

[niiai]

Mar 25, 2022 0:30:30 GMT gigasnail said:

Yeah sometimes I forget why I dont have a lot of motivation to go out and get games.

(please do not swear) like this is why.

While I agree this is the RAW, I would play it as RAI until we get the RAW confirmed by an FAQ. (In case it was unclear. Since I am argumenting for the RAW interpretation. But that is just nuts.)

[hivefleetkerrigan]

Mar 25, 2022 12:48:13 GMT niiai said:

Mar 25, 2022 0:30:30 GMT gigasnail said:

Yeah sometimes I forget why I dont have a lot of motivation to go out and get games.

(please do not swear) like this is why.

While I agree this is the RAW, I would play it as RAI until we get the RAW confirmed by an FAQ. (In case it was unclear. Since I am argumenting for the RAW interpretation. But that is just nuts.)

Generally, if the RAW requires multiple paragraphs of discussion, GW will FAQ it away. I can't recall a single case where GW FAQed for a more complicated ruling.

[piersonsmuppet]

GW doesn't usually FAQ away RAW. Take a look at the 9E "not eligible to fight" silliness. By RAW (Core Rules RAW) it worked exactly how the designer commentary explained, but RAI was pushed by the community inventing a non-Core Rules definition for eligible and a 4th step in the combat phase after Fight Last. They would have to Errata Deathleaper's ability to make it work on all opponent's stratagems, and I just don't see that happening since the post-codex FAQ generally just errata's small typography errors.

This whole thread isn't about how to play it officially. This is here to discuss how it can / can't work so you have realistic expectations on how opponents or TOs might react to you claiming Deathleaper stops all opponents' stratagems. I'm not here to say, "This is how it should be played!", I'm just trying to play devil's advocate now so you know what may happen during the game if it's not discussed beforehand. Personally, I will discuss beforehand and just go with what my opponent or TO feels is right.

[bolk]

Mar 25, 2022 14:41:25 GMT piersonsmuppet said:

GW doesn't usually FAQ away RAW. Take a look at the 9E "not eligible to fight" silliness. By RAW (Core Rules RAW) it worked exactly how the designer commentary explained, but RAI was pushed by the community inventing a non-Core Rules definition for eligible and a 4th step in the combat phase after Fight Last. They would have to Errata Deathleaper's ability to make it work on all opponent's stratagems, and I just don't see that happening since the post-codex FAQ generally just errata's small typography errors.

This whole thread isn't about how to play it officially. This is here to discuss how it can / can't work so you have realistic expectations on how opponents or TOs might react to you claiming Deathleaper stops all opponents' stratagems. I'm not here to say, "This is how it should be played!", I'm just trying to play devil's advocate now so you know what may happen during the game if it's not discussed beforehand. Personally, I will discuss beforehand and just go with what my opponent or TO feels is right.

For most people the Designer's Commentary made the Fight phase clear as day, but there's always someone who's making rocket science out of plain english, either because of getting an advantage in games or because of being scared of getting the OP stample.

I don't see this rule as broken in any way. It's on a named Character, and only works in Engagement Range, in an army that doesn't have any guaranteed way of making a charge out of Reserves.

[jesses]

I ignore all RAW arguments that require a very specific reading of the rules to support. GW are not technical writers. They write in plain English. This argument hinges on an absurdly narrow definition of the term "select", trying to use legalese to deny an opponent a specific ability. It is, to me, the definition of arguing in bad faith.

[piersonsmuppet]

Mar 25, 2022 15:50:13 GMT bolk said:

For most people the Designer's Commentary made the Fight phase clear as day, but there's always someone who's making rocket science out of plain english, either because of getting an advantage in games or because of being scared of getting the OP stample.

I don't see this rule as broken in any way. It's on a named Character, and only works in Engagement Range, in an army that doesn't have any guaranteed way of making a charge out of Reserves.

From a Tyranid player perspective, I mostly agree with you. I will probably be Deep Striking Deathleaper in a safe place for secondary scoring followed up with a charge and invisible hunter in the proceeding phase, or for 6" charges. From another faction's perspective, all my stratagems being unusable while Deathleaper is engaged with my units seems a bit excessive for a 95pt character.

[piersonsmuppet]

Mar 25, 2022 16:17:15 GMT jesses said:

I ignore all RAW arguments that require a very specific reading of the rules to support. GW are not technical writers. They write in plain English. This argument hinges on an absurdly narrow definition of the term "select", trying to use legalese to deny an opponent a specific ability. It is, to me, the definition of arguing in bad faith.

Ignoring the other point of view is also a large part of arguing in bad faith, and will honestly garner a reputation for yourself.

[bolk]

Mar 25, 2022 16:20:00 GMT piersonsmuppet said:

Mar 25, 2022 15:50:13 GMT bolk said:

For most people the Designer's Commentary made the Fight phase clear as day, but there's always someone who's making rocket science out of plain english, either because of getting an advantage in games or because of being scared of getting the OP stample.

I don't see this rule as broken in any way. It's on a named Character, and only works in Engagement Range, in an army that doesn't have any guaranteed way of making a charge out of Reserves.

From a Tyranid player perspective, I mostly agree with you. I will probably be Deep Striking Deathleaper in a safe place for secondary scoring followed up with a charge and invisible hunter in the proceeding phase, or for 6" charges. From another faction's perspective, all my stratagems being unusable while Deathleaper is engaged with my units seems a bit excessive for a 95pt character.

Not really no, considering what other factions bring to the table at this point. At the most, you'll shut down 2 units, and Deathleaper isn't that unkillable.

[miithos]

Would it not stop transhuman because the last line says “when that unit is selected to shoot or fight”? Transhuman happens when you fight not when that unit fights. I read this as it stops the enemy from using strats to buff their output but does nothing to stop defensive strats.

[piersonsmuppet]

Mar 25, 2022 16:41:25 GMT bolk said:

Not really no, considering what other factions bring to the table at this point. At the most, you'll shut down 2 units, and Deathleaper isn't that unkillable.

What other faction has a sub 100pt character as durable as Deathleaper that has something remotely close to turning off all stratagems on a unit in engagement? I'm genuinely curious since it does provide more backing to the "stop all" interpretation, but I don't think that there is another character that is comparable (especially if we add on counting as 5-model Obj Sec).

[bolk]

Mar 25, 2022 16:53:25 GMT piersonsmuppet said:

Mar 25, 2022 16:41:25 GMT bolk said:

Not really no, considering what other factions bring to the table at this point. At the most, you'll shut down 2 units, and Deathleaper isn't that unkillable.

What other faction has a sub 100pt character as durable as Deathleaper that has something remotely close to turning off all stratagems on a unit in engagement? I'm genuinely curious since it does provide more backing to the "stop all" interpretation, but I don't think that there is another character that is comparable (especially if we add on counting as 5-model Obj Sec).

I'm not talking about sub 100pt characters, but what other factions can bring in general. Would you say this is broken against Custodes or Tau?

How do Deathleaper count as a 5-model Objective Secured? That's something I've missed in that case.