Cycle of the Storm is incredibly strong because of 14.2

[PJetski]

11 minutes ago, yukishiro1 said:

 If you have a unit of two models with 2 wounds each, with one model with a wound allocated to it and one without a wound allocated to it at the start of your turn, and then your opponent does a point of damage to it, you have to pull the model with the wound allocated, you can't say "no I'm going to allocate this wound to the unwounded one so neither dies because 14.1 only applies once I start allocating a given set of wounds."

I never said you could to this? We were discussing models that were conjured into existence with wounds suffered, but no wounds allocated to them. You are describing a different situation.

11 minutes ago, yukishiro1 said:

 What 14.1 says in clear English is that if a model has wounds allocated to it, you need to continue allocating to it. 

No, that is not what it says.

It says "Once you allocate a wound to a model" not "if a model has wounds allocated to it" as you just stated. The former is a verb, but you are conflating it with a noun. You are not reading the rule correctly!

This is a moot point because there is currently no way to create a model with wounds suffered without allocating wounds to it, but if there was then 14.1 would not prevent you from allocating to either model.

11 minutes ago, yukishiro1 said:

I mean feel free to try to convince the people you play with that you can pick unwounded models in the unit to allocate wounds to from a given attack sequence, even if there's a model with a wound allocated from a previous sequence, if you want. 

If the model is slain and revived you do not have to pick that model as the target because 14.1 stops once the model is slain, so reviving with Cycle works just fine. Since there is nothing in the rules to prevents two models with wounds in a unit, everything works RAW.

Edited September 29, 2021 by PJetski

[yukishiro1]

23 minutes ago, PJetski said:

It says "Once you allocate a wound to a model" not "if a model has wounds allocated to it"

Those are the same thing. A model can't have a wound allocated to it without having been allocated a wound. It isn't possible. 

23 minutes ago, PJetski said:

If the model is slain and revived you do not have to pick that model as the target because 14.1 stops once the model is slain, so reviving with Cycle works just fine. Since there is nothing in the rules to prevents two models with wounds in a unit, everything works RAW.

No, this doesn't work. CotS says the model doesn't count as having been slain. That means it is treated as it it was never slain in the first place, it doesn't mean you slay it and then resurrect it. There is no "reviving," if you apply CotS, that means it never died. Since it hasn't been slain, you still have to allocate wounds to it in the normal way for any future damage the way you would with any other model that has a wound allocated to it. Hence you end up with two models (assuming you had a second model with wounds allocated as well) you have to allocate wounds to, which breaks the game.

You need to read what CotS actually says. A model that has CotS used on it has not been slain. 14.1 still applies to it for future damage allocation from a new sequence. 

 

Edited September 29, 2021 by yukishiro1

[NinthMusketeer]

@PJetski so right now how will you be playing Cycle of the Storm in games?

[PJetski]

4 hours ago, yukishiro1 said:

Those are the same thing. A model can't have a wound allocated to it without having been allocated a wound. It isn't possible. 

No, this doesn't work. CotS says the model doesn't count as having been slain. That means it is treated as it it was never slain in the first place, it doesn't mean you slay it and then resurrect it. There is no "reviving," if you apply CotS, that means it never died. Since it hasn't been slain, you still have to allocate wounds to it in the normal way for any future damage the way you would with any other model that has a wound allocated to it. Hence you end up with two models (assuming you had a second model with wounds allocated as well) you have to allocate wounds to, which breaks the game.

You need to read what CotS actually says. A model that has CotS used on it has not been slain. 14.1 still applies to it for future damage allocation from a new sequence. 

 

No, they're not the same thing. We are going in circles and will have to agree to disagree about that. 

 

The model was slain, obviously, and it would activate abilities like Blaze of Glory before it gets removed, then Cycle will heal a wound and make it count as not slain. These timings are strictly defined and activating Cycle is not retroactively stopping other abilities that have already been resolved by the time Cycle activates.

[yukishiro1]

I didn't say it would stop other abilities that have already resolved before CotS. But it does retroactively "unslay" the model - it does not say you revive it, it says you treat it as if it had not been slain in the first place. So you still have to assign future wounds to that model just as you do to any other model that has had a wound assigned to it. It is simply not right to say that you can choose to assign a future wound to an unwounded model instead of the model that CotS brought back. You also wouldn't count the model as slain for any other purpose that occurs after CotS - it doesn't count as slain for purposes of morale, the new Stormcast hero wouldn't heal himself to full if the only model he killed was the one that CotS brought back, etc etc. 

Edited September 30, 2021 by yukishiro1

[Gaz Taylor]

+++ Mod Hat On +++
Just a reminder as this seems to be going around and around, please email aosfaq@gwplc.com. You can articulate your thoughts in the email with the detail you have been discussing here. 😉

[Nezzhil]

On 9/28/2021 at 5:50 PM, PJetski said:

It is a contradiction

1. You can't allocate wounds to a slain model

2. Slain models are removed after all wounds are allocated

3. Damage is negated when the unit is destroyed

4. A unit is destroyed when all models are removed

All of these statements cannot be true at the same time.

In order to remove a model you have to allocate all the wounds first, but you can't finish allocating wounds because you haven't removed all the models. It's a paradox.

If you assume that all the wounds must be allocated before removing models, then you can't remove any model if the wounds are more than the unit wound total, because the rest of the wounds are negated only when the unit is destroyed and a unit is destroyed when the last model is removed from the game. For example: If a unit of 10 Clanrats suffers 11 wounds, the last wound can't be allocated and the Allocating Wounds sequence can't be finished. 

When the rule is talking about all the wounds is talking about all possible wounds that can be assigned to slain all the models of the unit as maximum, but the rest of the wounds are not tracked in that sequence and they can be negated or be assigned in a new Allocating Wounds sequence.

 

 

[EMMachine]

 In addition to the Cycle of the storm stormcast battletome Thread where I already posted this, FAQ is released:

https://www.warhammer-community.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/eC2wlUtZJDX0ByXi.pdf

Quote

Q: If I use the Lord-Arcanum’s Cycle of the Storm to heal a wound on a model instead of it being slain, what happens to any wounds that remain to be allocated?

A: Continue to allocate them as normal. Cycle of the Storm will not always stop a model from being slain, but it will require an extra wound to be caused in order to do so

 

[Nezzhil]

 

The App rewrote the rule. I'm expecting a new update of the PDF including the new text soon.

[yukishiro1]

The new FAQ is up. Don't think it should really be a surprise to anyone that no, they didn't actually mean to make this ability much more powerful just like no, they didn't actually mean to let you move after translocate, just like no, they didn't actually mean to make Celestine immune to damage 1 weapons, just like no, they didn't actually mean to make Reavers 10 points instead of 20, etc etc. But I'm sure next time they release a new tome and it has something like this in it, people will still be arguing that this is the time that they meant to do it! 

[Marcvs]

2 hours ago, yukishiro1 said:

The new FAQ is up. Don't think it should really be a surprise to anyone that no, they didn't actually mean to make this ability much more powerful just like no, they didn't actually mean to let you move after translocate, just like no, they didn't actually mean to make Celestine immune to damage 1 weapons, just like no, they didn't actually mean to make Reavers 10 points instead of 20, etc etc. But I'm sure next time they release a new tome and it has something like this in it, people will still be arguing that this is the time that they meant to do it! 

Well you could probably find examples to the contrary, like how they actually meant for the foxes to move in the opponent's shooting phase as well, so I would try to find a bit more understanding if not empathy for the fellow hobbyists who thought that a rule published twice online and printed in books worldwide would actually mean what it said

Edited October 20, 2021 by Marcvs

[Jaskier]

6 hours ago, yukishiro1 said:

The new FAQ is up. Don't think it should really be a surprise to anyone that no, they didn't actually mean to make this ability much more powerful just like no, they didn't actually mean to let you move after translocate, just like no, they didn't actually mean to make Celestine immune to damage 1 weapons, just like no, they didn't actually mean to make Reavers 10 points instead of 20, etc etc. But I'm sure next time they release a new tome and it has something like this in it, people will still be arguing that this is the time that they meant to do it! 

Don't forget triple duplicate mount traits on the same model, or Evocators casting two spells 🤭 The best one ever had to be nuclear Biovores, though I can't recall if that ever actually got fixed! 

Sometimes it can be difficult to discern intent behind some rules, but yeah, in the cases you mention (particularly the ones forming the basis of this thread) it was always quite clear they would get addressed. I'm glad it's all sorted though as these are not the types of arguments we'd want happening at tournaments. 

[yukishiro1]

7 hours ago, Marcvs said:

Well you could probably find examples to the contrary, like how they actually meant for the foxes to move in the opponent's shooting phase as well, so I would try to find a bit more understanding if not empathy for the fellow hobbyists who thought that a rule published twice online and printed in books worldwide would actually mean what it said

Oh, I have empathy, don't get me wrong. You should be able to trust that a rule means what it says. But this is GW. History shows you unfortunately absolutely cannot trust that a rule they publish means what it says.

You're right re: foxes being able to move in the opponent's shooting phase (though that's slightly different in that it's not like we had a established rule where people can move in their shooting phase, but not the opponent's and then foxes came out and failed to have that limiting wording - the thing that made translocate so obviously not intended was it didn't include the common limiting language that every other similar ability does). Sometimes GW really does (apparently) mean what it says, even if it appears ridiculous. But 9 times out of 10 when you see something where it looks like they just left off the limiting language that every other ability of that type has by mistake....yeah, that's what happened, they just left off the limiting language that every other ability of that type has by mistake. 

Edited October 21, 2021 by yukishiro1