Escort question

With escorts wording being updated to say “cohort models beginning their activations in the spellcaster’s control range gain +2 SPD when advancing as part of their normal movement.” Does that mean that it now applies to enemy cohort models as well as cohort models on junior warcasters/warlocks? It previously was wajacks in the spellcasters battlegroup but since this change rules as written, it applies to all cohort models in the casters control range

1 Like

As written it would apply to any cohorts models on jrs or jack marshals, yea. I believe there are some other rules that used to be “battlegroup” that now work this way but I’m not 100% sure.

FYI I added the ‘rules’ tag to your post so we can see about getting an official answer and to make things more searchable in the future.

No. See the last sentence under “Game Terms.”

“Unless specified otherwise, when a model’s rules reference another model by name, the model referenced is assumed to be a friendly model.”

No. See the last sentence under “Game Terms.”
“Unless specified otherwise, when a model’s rules reference another model by name, the model referenced is assumed to be a friendly model.”

well that doesn’t apply here as it does not reference a model by name

1 Like

It does. :slightly_smiling_face: The section used to be under a callout titled “By any other name”, as I recall. I’ll post later once I can quote properly. Read the rest of the “game terms” section; it’s in there somewhere. The gist of it is that “Cohort model” is good enough as the name. It doesn’t have to say, like, “Bob the warjack.” :stuck_out_tongue:

1 Like

Now with rules quotes.

Straightforward. (Also, this sentence or others like it appear in about three more places. So, really, this is completely irrefutable.)

So, warjacks are Cohorts, and following the above logic, it’s irrefutable that a model with the Cohort rule is a Cohort model.

Which leads us to:

Putting it all together:

The Escort rule references “Cohort models.” Warjacks are Cohort models, and it’s perfectly valid to refer to a warjack as either “warjack” or “Cohort model”.

As we see, unless the rule says otherwise, when the rule references another model by name – in this case, calling a warjack a “Cohort model” – the reference implicitly means “friendly ”. So, Escort must be read as “friendly Cohort model.”

The only potential quirk about any of this is that Escort states “Battlegroup Cohort models”, not “Cohort models in this model’s battlegroup”, meaning that in a theoretical multi-caster game (which does not exist as a legal format in MK IV as of this writing), battlegroup models in another caster’s battlegroup would benefit.

But…that’s a long, long walk, and I think we can safely ignore that. :slight_smile:

escort just says cohort models. nothing about a battlegroup and thats the problem

1 Like

One of us needs to update their app, and I don’t think it’s me. :stuck_out_tongue: (I just updated a couple hours ago and this “Battlegroup” wording appeared. )

And, regardless of the word “battlegroup” being present: I don’t think you’ve thought this argument through, or you didn’t read my previous reply.

There is, unambiguously, an implicit “friendly” before that “Cohort model” due to the “Game Terms” rules I quoted in my above posts.

Please go back and read my previous post where I explain the rationale. Does it make sense to you? If not, can you please explain where you think the logic is flawed?


“Cohort” is a model quality, but not in the way that can be substituted for a model’s name as referenced in the “a model called by its name is assumed to be friendly” clause.

I can refer to “large based models” instead of saying “models with 50mm bases,” but a rule that refers to “large based models” is not referring, by default, only to friendly ones. If that were the case, think whay would happen to rules like trampling, collateral damage, and even LOS.

A model’s name is exactly that, the name given at the top of its stat card:

I was waiting for somebody to bring this one up. :slight_smile:

Let’s play out this line of thinking, though:

If a warjack cannot be referred to as a Cohort model, what, specifically, does Escort do?

“Cohort” refers to a certain subgroup of models.

“Cohort” does not refer to any particular model by name.

“Raptor models” refers to all models that have “Raptor” in the model name or tagline, but in order for Anyssa Ryvaal’s Veteran Leader abilty to work properly, it refers specifically to “friendly Raptor models.”

Thagrosh2’s feat refers to “each warbeast in Thagrosh’s control range.” Thagrosh is a model name, and therefore only refers to a friendly Thagrosh.

1 Like

Cohort is a model descriptor and type, not a named model. The Friendly rules quotes specifically call out name, not type.

1 Like

For full text reference.

1 Like

the battlegroup word appeared at some point today as I copied the text directly from escort on hazaroth and the word battlegroup was not there. Also, I have thought the argument through and it appears that you don’t understand how the referencing rule works as pointed out by leonard and malkav.

1 Like

It should refer to battlegroup cohort models

1 Like

It should also reference Friendly too though, as the intent is not to effect enemy models as well, correct?

More so it should state “models in this spellcaster’s Battlegroup”

1 Like

Should it also clarify Friendly, as it’s current wording applies to enemy models as well.

If it’s reworded to “models in this spellcaster’s battlegroup” as elswickchuck said than it won’t require “friendly”

1 Like

I wanted to come back to this, but I’m going to bow out after this post because this seems to be spiraling into rules interpretations that I find completely nonsensical.

So, right now, the “against” camp seems to be claiming the following key points:

  1. “Cohort model” is insufficient as the model’s name, because it’s not on the stat bar.
  2. “Cohort” isn’t a rule, so you can’t reference a model by that name.

I might not have phrased that perfectly, and you’ll have to pardon me. I’m having tremendous difficulty even trying to process this line of argument. I legitimately can’t hold this conversation.

Both of those claims lead to utterly nonsensical rules interpretations. Dozens of rules cease to work if “Cohort model” is insufficient as a model name.