Oh most definitely. A lot of us want this fix as it goes against design of certain models
3 Likes
Exactly. That’s how I believe this was interpreted in the previous edition too.
If you have a unit called Trencher Commandos, they are a Trencher unit even though they don’t have a rule called “Trencher”. If you could add an attachment that doesn’t have the Trencher keyword, they’d still be a Trencher unit because the unit is identified by its name.
If you had a unit called “Commandos”, which has a rule saying “this model is a Trencher model”, and you added an attachment without the Trencher rule or tag, then the unit would stop being a Trencher unit.
The part in the rules saying
obviously refers only to the rules on the card, not on the name tags.
The problem is, of course, that we have no way to reference the specific original text of original rulings from previous editions. There have been too many changes to the core rules to rely on vague memory. We have to work with the text in front of us. 
For example: for all we know, every person who sorta-kinda remembers this ruling might be forgetting an Infernal’s huge disclaimer in their post, saying “This ruling only applies to this one Trencher unit specified in this post, and the rationale is ‘Infernal fiat’.”
For all we know, it was a MK II ruling and the specific rules wording nitpick in question has changed 3.7 times since then, rendering the original ruling moot because the particular turn of phrase that the whole ruling relied upon hasn’t existed since MK III launched in 2016.
Bulldog (sorry, habit, I’ve been around for too long 
) Chuck has already provided an answer that indicates this works the way I described above, and that wording on certain abilities will be changed to get around this limitation. It’s hard to argue with an Infernal in this case.
(And, just for fun: provide the rulebook definition for what constitutes a rule. 
)
2 Likes
Yeah, regardless of what we feel like it says, the only way to stay sane is to go with the infernal ruling. Otherwise you’ll just argue forever.
As to your fun question, I don’t think there’s a rulebook definition of a rule? If you know of one I’d be interested. In the absence of a rulebook definition I think it’s reasonable to fall back on the normal definition. The rulebook is literally meaningless if words lose their normal meanings right?
I still have my question as to the name of the soulless blademasters unit when it has the attachment, and it appears its name really is:
First line: (blank)
Second line: Dusk House Kalyss
This’ll be my absolute last word on the topic; I swear. 
I’ve been asking leading questions in the hopes that somebody will reason through the implications, considering Joshobeb got right to the heart of the matter in his first post.
Let’s use Kapoteeni’s Trencher Commandos as an example:
If this part is nothing but “identifiers” (which are not “rules”):
And this part contains the actual rules:
And we hold this to be true:
Then by the logic Kapoteeni provided above, any rule that says “Whatever [Trenchers]” will not work on those models because they do not have the “Trencher” rule.
By this logic, can you attach a Trencher Commando Officer to the Trencher Commandos unit?
No, because the Command Attachment “rule” identifies a unit by a “rule”, and the models in the unit do not have that “rule.”
Does Maxwell Finn’s “Veteran Leader [Trencher]” “rule” work on them?
No, because the Veteran Leader “rule” identifies a unit by a “rule”, and the models in the unit do not have that “rule,” and if you want to refer to a unit by a “rule”, they all have to have the same “rule.” Which they do not. They just have an “identifier.”
And so on, and so forth.
Aster replied a couple seconds ago before I finished my post, but I’m already finished with it anyway and don’t want it to go to waste. Please don’t take this as inflammatory or an attempt to start an argument or anything negative; I am honestly just trying to explain why this line of reasoning breaks an astounding amount of the game.
1 Like
You neglect to take into account the sentence just before the one you highlighted: “Rules in Warmachine can refer to a model by any of these identifiers.”
Rules such as Veteran Leader [Trencher] can refer to identifiers (in the “two lines that describe what a model is called and what type of model it is”) or to a rule that specifically identifies the model as a Trencher.
1 Like
Blockquote
Sorry, im not sure im getting it right.
Does that mean desperate pace from scyr does not work on a unit of soulless guardians with a seeker warden attached to it?
And if so, is this an official ruling?
Thanks for the clarification
Yes, this means the Scyr’s desperate pace does not work on soulless units with an attachment, and yes this is an official ruling as Chuck is an infernal and this is the official forum.
The original poster included a quote from their email inquiry on the same subject, and it sounds like PP is planning to fix this issue sometime soon by changing the wording on the Scyr’s ability.
1 Like
Theres zero reason to play it to not work right now however. Not only is there technically no direct infernal clarification on the scyir interaction, but there’s the additional communication from PP that it should work, along with specific wording theyre going to use to make it more intuitive. It can and really just should be played out like that.
I mean, you can always play a friendly game with whatever rules you like. In fact, I would encourage you to as long as both players think it’s fun. A forum like this is most critical to people playing competitively so that they can know what to expect before they arrive at an event. Getting a surprise nerf from a judge halfway through your turn sucks a lot more than being able to plan around it ahead of time.
3 Likes
As of today’s app update (Feb 7, 2024) both Abadon and the Dreadguard Scyir’s text has been updated to target a single qualifying model in the unit, then the unit gains the effects.
4 Likes