I feel it would have helped if the card said "non-warlord unit". (Then we wouldn't be in this mess.)

But since it doesn't specify i figure the card checks the folowing:

A) Is it a (space wolves) unit? Yes? go to B.

B) Is it at a planet with your warlord. Yes? Resolve effect.

And your warlord is always at the same planet as your warlord. Because it is imposible for your warlord at a planet to NOT be at a planet with your warlord. (It can't be in two diffrent places at once.)

I've also checked the defination of the word "with". It doesn't help.

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.

Are you seriously proposing that we need a sound reason to post on an Internet forum?

Are you seriously proposing that we need a sound reason to post on an Internet forum?

No. I'm simply implying people should be honest with themselves about why they are posting.

Anyway, who said griping about FFG's templating choices isn't a "sound reason"?

Did you guys see PBrennan's post about how the card works and that it DOES benefit the warlord?

Are you seriously proposing that we need a sound reason to post on an Internet forum?

No. I'm simply implying people should be honest with themselves about why they are posting.

Anyway, who said griping about FFG's templating choices isn't a "sound reason"?

Well, who hasn't been honest so far? I think the forums are sometimes better off with random but civil conversation, rather than on-point and divisive arguments.

No. I'm simply implying people should be honest with themselves about why they are posting.

I agree.

But some people don't know if they are 'with themselves' as such I think they also can't be 'honest with themselves'.

For some this is irrelevant. Have you seen the 'Do Nurglings damage themselves' Thread?

Fair warning: Read it and your likely to damage yourself. So are we a Nurgling?

And some people have a needlessly inflated opinion of their mental faculties. A snarky comment from those types is about as alarming as a child wielding a very large sword.

No. I'm simply implying people should be honest with themselves about why they are posting.

I agree.

But some people don't know if they are 'with themselves' as such I think they also can't be 'honest with themselves'.

Did you guys see PBrennan's post about how the card works and that it DOES benefit the warlord?

For some this is irrelevant. Have you seen the 'Do Nurglings damage themselves' Thread?

Fair warning: Read it and your likely to damage yourself. So are we a Nurgling?

I'm not. I'm fairly sure I'm a Daemon Prince of Chaos Undivided.

(I stopped reading after it became "did not, does to!" type of conversation.)

Well, who hasn't been honest so far? I think the forums are sometimes better off with random but civil conversation, rather than on-point and divisive arguments.

It was more the general tone of the posting, which I admit, may be more of a reflection of the reader's bias than anything else when dealing in a text format.

Anyway, I was picking up a general vibe of, "There's no way we can know how to play this!" from people, when it turns out everyone was in agreement about how to play it. Since there is so much agreement on how to play it, the object seems to be one of templating preference than of outright confusion or ambiguity in the card interactions and/or rules. So the tone of "how are we supposed to know" felt dishonest to me. Although, perhaps "disingenuous" is the better adjective here.

And yeah, I'd agree that random conversation, provided that it is respectful, goes a long way on the forums since that free-flow of discussion often brings out new ideas, concerns, issues, etc. that a regimented topic of debate just can't do. It can make discussion threads hard to follow, but it usually makes for a good time.

For me at least it was less "we can't know" and more "there is room for disagreement". As much as we all agree on the reading, it's possible that someone else might not, and their reading could still be seen as a valid one.

For me at least it was less "we can't know" and more "there is room for disagreement". As much as we all agree on the reading, it's possible that someone else might not, and their reading could still be seen as a valid one.

The Commissar is right on here. I think we all can tell what FFG meant, but that isn't always a good situation to be in. When we start applying logic to games outside of their rules interpretations we can run into the trap of applying it incorrectly.

I'm sure most of us who have played games for years have been confronted with the, "That doesn't make any sense" person who has appropriately applied logic (flying vehicles don't have dozer blades) to a game. I wish I had a better example of this, but I cannot think of one right now.

Anyways, I appreciate this discussion if only to keep FFG honest and always working towards creating rules that are not open to interpretation.

The one thing I really wish they had been more specific about is the term Move . This term is so integral to the game - more so than others. For me, it is the first one I've played where units move dynamically around the game area, with each location meaning a very different thing. I believe they even used it incorrectly to describe units returning to HQ in one of the books. That's their biggest miss, in my mind.

It would help a lot if they also defined 'place' and 'return,' especially with some relation to 'move.' If they count as moves, it should say so; if they don't count as moves, it should say so.

It would help a lot if they also defined 'place' and 'return,' especially with some relation to 'move.' If they count as moves, it should say so; if they don't count as moves, it should say so.

I believe we need a FFG staff member to come with their games so we can get proper interpretations. "What did you guys mean here?" "Oh that, yes you played that right."

It would help a lot if they also defined 'place' and 'return,' especially with some relation to 'move.' If they count as moves, it should say so; if they don't count as moves, it should say so.

I believe we need a FFG staff member to come with their games so we can get proper interpretations. "What did you guys mean here?" "Oh that, yes you played that right."

Quiet you fools! Before FFG comes out with a mandatory app!

But I agree with Wonderwaagh here. This game has about 50 words that all mean "move" except for the 16 that don't. And so confusion reigns.

Now personaly I want to know the definitions of "Slight" and "Return" so i can understand what Jimmy Hendrix was singing about.

Now personaly I want to know the definitions of "Slight" and "Return" so i can understand what Jimmy Hendrix was singing about.

Well, you see out there in the Inquisitorial Fortress Watchtower, there was a Fetid Purple Haze, and Colonel Straken asked an Ultramarine: Hey Joe, where are you going with that Godwyn Pattern Bolter in your hand?

I'm going to kill that Uber Grotesque Voodoo Child, caught him messing around with that Syren Zythlex woman.

That about clear it up for you?

@Killax - LOL!!
Yeah...I did. Then slowly backed out while averting my eyes
(no cut n paste, now no quoting...**** this ancient ipad!)

after reading this whole thread in one sitting my head hurts. I'm so **** confsued I don't even know if I'm with myself. Wait...my brain just exploded. I'm most certainly not with myself any longer...

Now personaly I want to know the definitions of "Slight" and "Return" so i can understand what Jimmy Hendrix was singing about.

roflmao!!!

after reading this whole thread in one sitting my head hurts. I'm so **** confsued I don't even know if I'm with myself. Wait...my brain just exploded. I'm most certainly not with myself any longer...

You could say you are besides yourself with confusion.

Having read it a few times over here is the conclusion I'm drawing: Yes Ragnar himself would benefit from it.

I'm seeing the checklist that a unit must fulfill to benefit from the card, namely be a Space Wolves Unit, be at the same planet as my warlord and be attacking an enemy warlord. My biggest point of justification comes from within the game itself, and a single word that multiple cards make use of...

"Other".

Just at a quick glace both Straken and Nazdreg use the word "other" in their rules to exclude themselves from the text. Fantasy Flight has established that as a method for saying "No, this card doesn't benefit from this effect". As Ragnar's Warcamp doesn't say something like "Other than your Warlord" I cannot logically exclude Ragnar from the benefits.

Now, there was a great post on the first page pointing out how silly it does sound to say someone is "with" themselves, but the game mechanics don't have to match up to real life, they have to match up to other card mechanics. (And you lucked out with your unit, I'm 100% someone from my Bn would have said that stupidity over the net)

Finally, there is (to me) the fact that the Warcamp card is not designed to actually bloody or kill a warlord, but to scare them into retreating as fast as possible, or to make the opponent hesitant to attack with the Warlord out of fear that the Ragnar player might be holding the card in waiting for you to exhaust and be unable to flee a severe beat-down.

If Fantasy Flight does drop an FAQ/errata and decides that Ragnar is excluded from the effect, I believe they would have to actually errata the card's text to keep it within the games own internal logic.

Just my take on it.