I could swear I've seen this before, but now can't find any reference at all.

Some rulings have suggested the answer is YES, but I want to be sure.

Thanks!!

Unfortunately, it's probably not a simple, one-size-fits-all answer. It will probably depend on the context and exact wording of the effect in question.

For example, If a Chaos unit gets an ATK bonus while at a planet "with a Tzeentch unit," the only Tzeentch unit at the planet is likely to get the bonus. But if a Chaos unit gets an ATK bonus after moving to a planet "with a Tzeentch unit," a moving Tzeentch is probably not going to get the bonus unless another one was already there.

I'm sure this is in relation to the the recent Ragnar's Warcamp question in the other thread. That specific one is being discussed over there. Are there any other "with itself" effects that come to mind that are unclear?

Nah that was it specifically. And yeah, the Ragnar thread is what drove me to ask after I looked around here and ccdg, did a google search, and still couldn't find it.

I'm just about positive I saw an "official" ruling that would fit that (and many other rulings I'm seeing support a yes, like the KFG), but now I can't find anything other than a fairly thin "yes it does" in the collected thread.

Thanks though! Still getting my head around some of these not-so-common things!

But the real question people should be asking is, are they "with" themselves?

Each space wolves unit you control at a planet with the warlord. Ragnar is a unit, he is a space wolf and he is at the same planet as himself. This isn't rocket science it's rtfc science

The implications are a bit deeper than you're making them out to be.

The implications are a bit deeper than you're making them out to be.

Where you with yourself when you where typing this?

I don't know. How many people am I?

This was a bit of a head scratcher when it first came up in my games. It's seems like a clumsy, counterintuitive interaction. You shouldn't be "with yourself". You are yourself.

For now, I'm using the simplest ruling, so it's being played as Ragnar counts as being "with himself". This is going on the fact that he is a unit and a Space Wolf. I think if we get a ruling, it could go either way.

Personally, I would prefer to see the ruling that warlords are not "with themselves" and that such wordings are meant for separate units.

The thing is the card doesn't say "with the warlord " it says at the same planet as the warlord. The warlord will always be at the planet he is at

Sorry Fiddybucks, it does say "with".

And yeah Titan that's how we're doing it out here too.

I am positive I saw PBrennan post a ruling on this somewhere....

"Red paint is half price at hardware stores with paint."

Hardware store X only has red paint in stock. Is it half price or not?

I don't know. How many people am I?

Well we know Ragnar is a unit, which can be one or more persons.

"Red paint is half price at hardware stores with paint."

Hardware store X only has red paint in stock. Is it half price or not?

That analogy is a bit disingenuous, don't you think? There will only ever be one friendly warlord, you can't equate that to several cans of paint. It's also not worded the same way, which is the crux of the issue. This might be more appropriate:

"Red paint at hardware stores with a single can of a unique red paint are half price."

Well we know Ragnar is a unit, which can be one or more persons.

Ragnar is one person, and still only one unit for that matter. Having been a member of an actual military unit, I can tell you that we never once had occasion to describe our location as being "with" ourselves.

"B9R, what is Bravo company's current location?"

"Bravo company is currently with Bravo company."

"That doesn't help, can you give me something more specific?"

"Roger, we're at the location where Bravo company is at."

"... are you with any friendly army units?"

"Roger, we're with the friendly army unit called Bravo company."

Sorry Fiddybucks, it does say "with".

And yeah Titan that's how we're doing it out here too.

I am positive I saw PBrennan post a ruling on this somewhere....

Each space wolves unit you control at a planet with your warlord.

The planet is what needs to be with the warlord not the unit.

So if Ragnar is at planet 2, all space wolf units at planet 2 will get the bonus. If the card said all space wolf units with Ragnar at a planet then we would need to know if Ragnar was with himself.

But as I said previously Ragnar will be at Ragnars planet.

Each space wolves unit you control at a planet with your warlord.

The planet is what needs to be with the warlord not the unit.

So if Ragnar is at planet 2, all space wolf units at planet 2 will get the bonus. If the card said all space wolf units with Ragnar at a planet then we would need to know if Ragnar was with himself.

But as I said previously Ragnar will be at Ragnars planet.

English may not be your strong suit, so let me break it down for you. The confusion is regarding how to read that sentence, of which there are two different ways:

"Each Space Wolves unit you control (at a planet with your warlord)..."

"Each Space Wolves unit you control at a planet (with your warlord)..."

If we put emphasis on the former sentence, then yes, we count Ragnar as being at a planet with the warlord, where the planet itself is the limiting factor. If we emphasize the latter sentence, however, then it becomes a question of whether or not Ragnar is a unit that is with itself, which both happen to be at the same planet. So which do you think is the major intended restriction of receiving the bonus, being with the warlord or being at a specific planet? Or is it just a single condition? Hint: there is no official answer at present.

Ragnar is one person, and still only one unit for that matter. Having been a member of an actual military unit, I can tell you that we never once had occasion to describe our location as being "with" ourselves.

I can agree on the latter, but Ragnar's card or the term unit is never considerd to be an single person per definition.

The term unit allows for multiple interpetations, a single person or a multitude. Which is indeed why FFG could give some more info about the matter...

However, directly in the rules at hand, Ragnar is considerd to be a Space Wolves unit at the planet he is at. Which would lead me to believe he is infact with himself. Strange as it might sound.

If it helps, I know (from many discussions with the design team on how these cards should or should not be constructed) that "with/without", and its following text qualifier, is only ever used to qualify the noun that precedes it. The template is designed to be read as "Each Space Wolves unit you control at a (planet with your warlord)".

"With" is never meant to be read as "along with" or any other variant.

If it helps, I know (from many discussions with the design team on how these cards should or should not be constructed) that "with/without", and its following text qualifier, is only ever used to qualify the noun that precedes it. The template is designed to be read as "Each Space Wolves unit you control at a (planet with your warlord)".

"With" is never meant to be read as "along with" or any other variant.

It helps me enough, so thanks! But I do understand that some wording might actually confuse people about the matter if they think to long about it.

The single thing I dislike is how the Flying keyword was worded for the Core set. As this is not a very correct representation of what Flying actually does...

Each space wolves unit you control at a planet with your warlord.

The planet is what needs to be with the warlord not the unit.

So if Ragnar is at planet 2, all space wolf units at planet 2 will get the bonus. If the card said all space wolf units with Ragnar at a planet then we would need to know if Ragnar was with himself.

But as I said previously Ragnar will be at Ragnars planet.

English may not be your strong suit, so let me break it down for you. The confusion is regarding how to read that sentence, of which there are two different ways:

"Each Space Wolves unit you control (at a planet with your warlord)..."

"Each Space Wolves unit you control at a planet (with your warlord)..."

If we put emphasis on the former sentence, then yes, we count Ragnar as being at a planet with the warlord, where the planet itself is the limiting factor. If we emphasize the latter sentence, however, then it becomes a question of whether or not Ragnar is a unit that is with itself, which both happen to be at the same planet. So which do you think is the major intended restriction of receiving the bonus, being with the warlord or being at a specific planet? Or is it just a single condition? Hint: there is no official answer at present.

There doesn't need to be an official answer. Seeing as how "with" commonly refers to the noun preceding it.

You seem like a smart person. But it seems like you try to use lateral thinking when common sense is a more logical approach.

Part of being a smart person is being able to see things multi-dimensionally. Again, the sentence isn't as cut and dried as you might think. I'm not arguing in favor of either interpretation, and of course when I play it Ragnar gets the bonus. That still doesn't mean you can't read the sentence either way, though.

the sentence isn't as cut and dried as you might think. I'm not arguing in favor of either interpretation, and of course when I play it Ragnar gets the bonus. That still doesn't mean you can't read the sentence either way, though.

Have to agree here. While I think (and have always thought) the sentence should be read as at (a planet with your warlord) you CAN read it the other way. The RRG sadly didn't define 'with'.

The RRG sadly didn't define 'with'.

Well, to be fair, it doesn't define "at," "your" or "or," either. None of those seem to be a problem. Heck, it doesn't even define "draw." Are you sure cards are always taken from the top of the deck when you draw? The rules don't say that you must always draw from the top of your deck....

The point I'm trying to make is that not every word has a specialized in-game definition that needs to be spelled out in the RRG.

Anyway, the disagreement here isn't the definition of the word "with;" it's whether the sentence construction is such that "with" relates to the Space Wolves unit, or to the planet. And while people have said they believe either interpretation could be argued, I haven't heard anyone say they find the "in relation to the unit" interpretation to be the more credible argument. Everyone, even those who say they are unsure, gravitate toward the "in relation to the planet" interpretation as the way to read the card.

It seems to me that while the construction of the sentence may not be perfect, it isn't causing any actual confusion in the way the card is used. So what are we discussing here, really? Seems the discussion is more a gripe about FFG's templating choices than it is about an actual game-play issue that needs to be solved.

But the real question people should be asking is, are they "with" themselves?

Now i'm no psychiatrist, but I like to think i'm with me, rather than against me.

Now I and I are going to lissten to this song .

The RRG sadly didn't define 'with'.

Well, to be fair, it doesn't define "at," "your" or "or," either. None of those seem to be a problem. Heck, it doesn't even define "draw." Are you sure cards are always taken from the top of the deck when you draw? The rules don't say that you must always draw from the top of your deck....

No, but they did define a lot of other common words ("to", for example) and how they work within the context of the game. Seeing as they choose to use "with" to refer to the word immediately previous, that could have been defined (assuming they keep it consistent of course).

Not that this is a super-confusing thing, but obviously enough to cause some people to scratch heads.