Gate and Planetstrike

[avatar8481]

Without reopening every single argument about Gate of Infinity, is there a consensus opinion about whether or not Gating will allow you to assault directly from the Gate (I don't have my codex in front of me but I assume it follows the general DS rules wherein you can't assault from DS)? If so, it seems brokenly overpowered, but then, Planetstrike is so broken already it might not make a difference.

 

For instance, Librarian with GKT allies and a thunderhammer on the Brother Captain in an army with a lot of locator beacons gets to move around the table with impunity (more or less) and assault a new target each turn as they 'arrive via deep-strike'.

 

Thoughts?

[Souchan]

I would be entirely opposed to it. RAW opposes almost any and all units from deep striking and assaulting with shock tactics(unit needs the Deepstrike USR in its unit entry), but I RAI to allow any unit usually capable of deep strike by itself to do so. This one, I would not let fly though.

[Cypher 102]

From everything I've read around the net on the planetstrike deep strike rules the book says that you can only assault if the deep striking unit has the deep strike ability. So a librarian gateing around with a tactical squad cannot assault.

 

As for jump pack or terminator equipped librarian rolling with an assault squad or terminator squad that's going to be up to the planetstrike rule wording. The distinction will be if the rule specifies if they can assault after deep striking from reserve or just any old deep strike.

[Souchan]

From everything I've read around the net on the planetstrike deep strike rules the book says that you can only assault if the deep striking unit has the deep strike ability. So a librarian gateing around with a tactical squad cannot assault.

 

As for jump pack or terminator equipped librarian rolling with an assault squad or terminator squad that's going to be up to the planetstrike rule wording. The distinction will be if the rule specifies if they can assault after deep striking from reserve or just any old deep strike.

 

Well Shock Tactics indeed uses the wording "May assault the turn they enter play", so also gameover on that account.

[avatar8481]

I agree you wouldn't probably get away with it in a game, but doesn't Gate technically remove the squad to reserve and then they enter play that turn (namely each turn they use Gate).

 

GW just needs to write clearer rules...

[Seahawk]

I don't remember: does GoI count as leaving play? It doesn't say one way or the other. If it does count as re-entering play, then yes they can assault. If not, then no, as they were already in play and are merely deep-striking again.

[Grimtooth]

Not sure how GoI works, but with Gate for Space Wolves 13th Co it tells you to use remove the Rune Priest and a unit within 6" from the table and then place them using the Deepstrike rules. Deepstrike rules in the BRB say you can't assault after deepstriking.

 

Now if Planetstrike changes the rules for deepstriking, you would use those rules when using Gate or GoI.

[DarkGuard]

I don't remember: does GoI count as leaving play? It doesn't say one way or the other. If it does count as re-entering play, then yes they can assault. If not, then no, as they were already in play and are merely deep-striking again.

 

Page 57 Codex Space Marines:

 

The Librarian, and any unit he is with, are removed from the tabletop and immediately placed back together anywhere within 24" using the deep strike rules.

 

Hope this doesn't break copyright.

 

It seems to me that through the wording the Librarian is removed from play. Even though he is immediately re-entered into play, he still leaves it.

 

Of course if he is a power armoured Librarian with no jump pack I'd say he can't assault when he uses it, even if he is with Terminators or an Assault Squad, as he hasn't got the deep strike rule. However, if he is equipped with a jump pack or Terminator armour, and is with a Terminator Squad or Assault Squad (who still have their jump packs on), I'd say it is acceptable to assault on that turn.

 

Just imagine the hurt that would come with TH/SS Terminators and a gating TDA Libby in a Vulkan army.

[nighthawks]

I say no dice - the unit might have deep strike, but gating is, at best, RE-entering play (while technically never having been removed unless the delayed mishap occurs) removed from table and immediate replaced does not equal removed from play, to me, as they were already "in play".

 

if the unit has deep strike "in their unit entry", they "may assault the turn they enter play." gate some termies around all you want; they are not entering play, so they may not assault.

[avatar8481]

Fair enough, but without comprehensive definitions of "in play", "on the table" etc (see God of War arguments for this too) it strikes me as a grey-ish area (even granted it's so cheesy nobody would try to do it in a real match).

 

Of course, you'd already be into RAI not RAW territory in allowing the terminators to assault from DS anyway, so why not bend the rules further ;-)

[Isiah]

Well the key issue is having deep strike as your units/characters special rule. Gate isn't 'deep strike' special rule per se – it's a psychic power that uses deep strike as a method of entering play.

 

BTW.

 

Can someone please clear up the issue of termies assaulting after DSing. I don't have planetstrike, but someone elsewhere in the DA forum said you need 'deep strike' as a special rule in your unit entry to enable assaulting on landing. Termies don't have that. They have termy armour that allows deep strike but that by RAW is different.

 

Just need confirmation of what the implication is either way.

 

Cheers

I

[avatar8481]

RAW, they cannot as they don't have the language 'Deep Strike" in their unit entry (Presuming that that language refers to "Deep Strike Special Rule" but see below for more). However, you can make the RAW case that they 'inherit" the rule by virtue of being in terminator armor (where on page 102 of C:SM is describes the rules associated with terminator armor including it's ability to be teleported into battle and arriving 'via the deep strike rules".) Of course, page 102 doesn't refer to the "Deep Strike" rule either, but rather arriving via the rule.

 

If you go the the BRB Deep Strike isn't a USR, it only appears in the description of mission set-up as a "Mission Rule" (not a unit rule) so it's not clear for instance what in fact the language "Deep Strike" in the Land Speeder unit entry refers to because there's no listing for "Deep Strike" as a named rule for units in either the C:SM (it should logically be on page 51 with the descriptions of ATSKNF and where there are references to the BRB USR Infiltrate etc) or on page 73 of the BRB as a USR of the effect "allows units with this rule to deploy using the deep strike mission rule on page 95 regardless of mission". Essentially the Land Speeder entry where it says "Deep Strike" is a null-reference because in neither the C:SM rules or the BRB USR is there a "Deep Strike" rule so named.

 

The reality is there's no such thing as "the Deep Strike Special Rule" mentioned in shock tactics because it doesn't appear in C:SM or the BRB as a named rule for units, only in the BRB as a mission specific deployment method.

 

There's a seperate rules issue related to model's states which is never explicated in the rules material either and which causes an issue here as well as in other places. Namely, the causalness of the nomenclature for: in play; in reserve; on the table; removed from the table; removed from play; etc.

 

It's like nobody at GW has every spoken to an actual lawyer or tried to program anything (which are both essentially like writing rules) because if they had they would catch these fairly rudimentary mistakes of typing, instancing and defining both terms and relationships.

[Seahawk]

If this ended up being true:

 

RAW, they cannot as they don't have the language 'Deep Strike" in their unit entry

There are only a few units in the game that actually can do this, which would be mostly counter to what GW probably intended to write. Too bad GW doesn't know how to write anything anyway...

[Grey Mage]

Jump Infantry, TDA, C:Daemons, Warp Spiders, Swooping Hawks.... my group has interpreted it as all of these *and more* can assault after they deepstrike. Why? Because they all have DS as a legitimate way of entering the battle in a normal 40k game.

 

Drop podding units do not- because their transport DS,s they do not- they deploy. And DPs cant assault anything anyways :devil:.

 

Gate doesnt work- because they dont deploy via deepstrike, they are already deployed when they use it.

[Isiah]

Jump Infantry, TDA, C:Daemons, Warp Spiders, Swooping Hawks.... my group has interpreted it as all of these *and more* can assault after they deepstrike. Why? Because they all have DS as a legitimate way of entering the battle in a normal 40k game.

 

Grey Mage that's exactly how I saw it but from a RAW pov wanted to know for sure the wording used. Thanks for your answer too avatar8481 – cleared up a lot.

 

Edit:

Oh and sorry to hijack the original topic *grins*

/Edit

 

Cheers

I

[Coyote]

I'm new to these forums. Please forgive my manners if I shoot off a toe or finger... ^_^

 

I'm sitting here, looking at the rules for Planetstrike. My vote is that the ability does not confer Deep Strike, therefore the unit does not gain the benefit of the Shock Tactics rule. However, if the Librarian is in a unit begins the game with the Deep Strike ability(Assault Squad or Terminators), this argument begins to hold water. Barely.

 

That said, this seems to be to be an elegant bit of Rules Lawyering. Therefore, I'd fight against it in any game I saw. I doubt I'd even settle for a roll-off, if I was playing. It's game changing and more importantly it's "not Cricket" (meaning it's against the spirit of the game and therefore should not be allowed).

 

As for GW writing clearer rules.... Listen, I'll be happy when general editing gets cleaned up. I view that as a higher priority. It causes many of our rules-based issues. If you're expecting GW to start taking the approach that Wizards of the Coast did with clear and defined terms and tournament rules, don't hold your breath. GW is more focused on producing content than pleasing rules lawyers. And I think that may be the best policy, in the end.

[avatar8481]

Since in my actual life I do elegant lawyering professionally I'll take that as a compliment, but I agree with you that, though you can make the argument, you have to bend the system so far out of whack you might as well play Warmachine.

 

However, I don't think that taking the time to build reasonable and complete rules architecture is time ill-spent since I think it's neither grossly time-consuming (in the grand scheme of things) or even a particularly complex exercise and the returns are very high, both in terms of player satisfaction (from the percentage of players who even care) and in terms of ease of extensibility as they write expansions and new codexi. You're right though that it's not in GW's interest since they probably make more money selling Black Reach boxes to kids who don't care about the rules than they ever will to tournament players.