Stormraven Question?

[fussellg]

As I was reading threw the new Blood angel codex I noticed an issue with the wording on the Stormraven. On the land raider it says that on the turn the land raider deep strikes troops cannot assault out of it, no issue there. On the Stormraven it says something completely different, It says, "Assault Vehicle: Models disembarking from a stormraven can launch an assault on the turn they do so (providing the Stormraven did not deep strike)" To me this reads that if the stormraven deep strikes on turn 2 for example, and you want to assault out of it on turn 3, you cannot since the wording specifically says "providing the Stormraven did not deep strike". I believe this to be correct, however the Blood Angels Players down at my LGS are saying in twisting the words around to make it say what i want it to say.

 

FYI, the quote about the assault vehicle above is taken directly from the new Blood Angels Codex.

[Hellios]

As I was reading threw the new Blood angel codex I noticed an issue with the wording on the Stormraven. On the land raider it says that on the turn the land raider deep strikes troops cannot assault out of it, no issue there. On the Stormraven it says something completely different, It says, "Assault Vehicle: Models disembarking from a stormraven can launch an assault on the turn they do so (providing the Stormraven did not deep strike)" To me this reads that if the stormraven deep strikes on turn 2 for example, and you want to assault out of it on turn 3, you cannot since the wording specifically says "providing the Stormraven did not deep strike". I believe this to be correct, however the Blood Angels Players down at my LGS are saying in twisting the words around to make it say what i want it to say.

 

FYI, the quote about the assault vehicle above is taken directly from the new Blood Angels Codex.

 

 

I'm pretty sure it's meant to be this "if it has deep-struck this turn" rather than a full on ban.

[Justicar Valius]

it os meant to be like that but by RAW its never.

[Vash113]

Wait what? "Providing the Stormraven did not Deep Strike" just means they can't assault out of it the turn it Deep Strikes. Otherwise they can assault just fine. There shouldn't be an issue there if I'm reading what you're saying correctly.

[Korraz]

Wait what? "Providing the Stormraven did not Deep Strike" just means they can't assault out of it the turn it Deep Strikes. Otherwise they can assault just fine. There shouldn't be an issue there if I'm reading what you're saying correctly.

 

I read it exactly the same way. But english is not my native language, so I might be missing something.

[Phal Brannon]

Wait what? "Providing the Stormraven did not Deep Strike" just means they can't assault out of it the turn it Deep Strikes. Otherwise they can assault just fine. There shouldn't be an issue there if I'm reading what you're saying correctly.

 

I agree with the above, anyone who believes that by deep striking the stormraven you lose the ability to assault after disembarking for the whole game is not someone I'd ever play, if they state RAW then ignore them and play someone who's not trying to gain any advantage to cover their inadequacies.

[Verythrax Draconis]

"Assault Vehicle: Models disembarking from a stormraven can launch an assault on the turn they do so (providing the Stormraven did not deep strike)"

 

See the bold text. Here lies the interpretation key, forget the parenthesis. The bold part is the important stuff, the parenthesis just complement that. That statement only tells us what happens on THAT specific turn, not the whole game.

 

So, did the stormraven deep-struck in the same turn you want to disembar?

 

Yes - so you can't assault THAT turn

No - you'll need to wait next turn to assault, then - like it's common on the DP rules.

[Grey Mage]

While thats not the most conservative way of reading it, I certainly agree that this is a good way to show it as a RAW standpoint.

[Donkeycow]

it could be written more clearly, but when read without looking for loop holes or anything it is VERY clear that you can assault out of it except for the turn it came in via deep strike.

[Lokied]

"Assault Vehicle: Models disembarking from a stormraven can launch an assault on the turn they do so (providing the Stormraven did not deep strike)"

 

See the bold text. Here lies the interpretation key, forget the parenthesis. The bold part is the important stuff, the parenthesis just complement that. That statement only tells us what happens on THAT specific turn, not the whole game.

 

So, did the stormraven deep-struck in the same turn you want to disembar?

 

Yes - so you can't assault THAT turn

No - you'll need to wait next turn to assault, then - like it's common on the DP rules.

 

Thank goodness theres another person with a real grasp of the English language out there (not to mention a sense of fairness). I am in agreement with this.

Anyone supporting the idea of a deep striking Stormraven does not allow its transportees to assault is attempting to cheat (I'm not going to sugar coat this by calling it "rules lawyering"). Its that simple. Since I will not abide by cheaters I am in agreement with others, if anyone ever tried to pull this and continued to press it after being corrected, I would end the game and black list that player.

[Frosty the Pyro]

Assuming the OP quoted corectly, then by RAW if you deepstrike with the vehicle it is no longer an assault vehicle and you may only assault out of it in the cases you could assault out of a rhino or razorback or the like. This is almost assuredly not the intent and simply more of the poor writing GW is famous for. I would likely play it as simply dissalowing assaults on the turn of deepstrike, but in all fairness, thats not what it says.

[Grey Mage]

actually Im sure its based off the same ruling as is in the DA FAQ- if your in a transport that DSs you count as DSing yourself.

[Mr_I_am_Hungry]

The wording is ambiguous. It could be interpreted either way correctly. The issue comes in the lack of correct punctuation and or word order. It would be better said as either

 

"Assault Vehicle: The Stormraven is an assault vehicle and units in the Stormraven may assault on the turn they disembark. The exception to this it the turn in which the Stormraven deep strikes."

 

or

 

"Assault Vehicle: The Stormraven is an assault vehicle and units in the Stormraven may assault on the turn they disembark. The exception to this is if the Stormraven deep strikes it looses this ability.

 

I would guess the attempt is to say the first in less words. GW's mistake, but a very common one. We humans do that a lot.

[ArmouredWing]

Heh heh heh, and so the fun and games begin!!!

 

In fairness I'd say that it's a good catch and one that will cause no end of debate until GW ties up the loose end in their first BA errata which will be out, oooh, lets see... in about 2-3 months time if the SW codex is a good measure to go by.

 

As it is I'm sure the intent is to prevent assault on the turn of DS but some poor wording definitely gives fuel for the RAW debate.

 

I'd allow a BA player to assault in a subsequent turn... but there again I can also see the counter argument

[Grey Mage]

I'd allow a BA player to assault in a subsequent turn... but there again I can also see the counter argument

People wanting to rudely kick the new kid on the block in his shiny flying teeth?

[Lokied]

Fairness huh? Ok lets go over this with a fine tooth comb. Below I will put up both arguments then list the supporting statements for them and at the end we will determine which is the more appropriate ruling.

 

Argument 1: The stormraven assault vehicle DOES allow its transported units to assault after disembarking if it deep strikes.*

 

Argument 2: The stormraven assault vehicle DOES NOT allow its transported units to assault after disembarking if it deep strikes.*

 

Starting off we will consider the stormraven's rules.

 

1. The line in question, "Assault Vehicle: Models disembarking from a stormraven can launch an assault on the turn they do so (providing the Stormraven did not deep strike)"

Supports Argument 1: Whithout the parenthesis the sentence reads, "Assault Vehicle: Models disembarking from a stormraven can launch an assault on the turn they do so." Which is self explanitory. Adding the parenthesis (What is a parenthesis?) "(providing the Stormraven did not deep strike)" does not change the rule, as it is only an explanatory. This means the information in parenthesis is a caveat to the original sentence not the other way around. As the Stormraven is the first Assault Vehicle to be capable of Deep Strike it makes sense a caveat would be included to remind players of the normal rules concerning this special rule.

Supports Argument 2 (though only mildy): This sentence only supports argument 2 if it is read incorrectly. With the parenthesis as the main subject and action while the main sentence is the explanatory or caveat.

 

2. The Stormraven is an Assault vehicle.

Supports Argument 1: The vehicle works according to the rules of assault vehicles.

Contradicts Argument 2: The normal assault vehicle rules do not support argument 2 in any way. They do allow assaulting after disembarking within the rules.

 

3. The stormraven can deep strike.

Supports Argument 1: The vehicle deep strikes per normal rules, which are listed later.

Contradicts Argument 2: Deep strike rules do not support argument 2. In fact, since units are only limited from assaulting the turn they deep strike the rule actually hurts Argument 2.

 

Now we will look at the official rules.

 

4. Assault vehicle [sM Dex pg.81, SW Dex pg.93]

Supports Argument 1: The rules on assault vehicles allow units to assault when they disembark.

Condradicts Argument 2: There are no rules or caveats attached to any instance of "Assault Vehicle" which provides an effect that forces the vehicle to lose this rule. Stormraven rules notwithstanding, as it has been detailed above.

 

5. Deep Striking [bBB pg.95]

Supports Argument 1: Deep strike rules prevent a unit from assaulting when they deep strike, but do not prevent the unit from disembark from a deep striking vehicle. Thus according to the normal rules, an assault vehicle's rules for a unit assaulting does not overide the normal rules disallowing units from assaulting after a deep strike.

Contradicts Argument 2: Deep strike rules prevent an assault only on the turn the unit actualy does the deep striking.

 

6. There exists no special rule, fluff, or explanation on why the Stormraven would dissallow assaults after deep striking.

Supports Argument 1: The lack of special rule, fluff, or explanations infer the stormraven does not have any limiting functions.

Contradicts Argument 2: If the Stormraven were to function completely diferently than any other vehicle it would have a special rule (e.g. batten down the hatches) to the effect. At the very least there would be a fluff reference as to why this would occur. Instead, the only statements in support of argument 2 is an incorrect read of an explanatory statement which reminds players of the normal rules.

 

Now we consider the precedence supporting these Arguments.

 

7. There has never been another vehicle rule set down which dissalows any kind of normal actions for an entire game if a deep strike occured.

Supports Argument 1: The interpretation of the sentence inquestion does not fit within the established game.

Contradicts Argument 2: There is no precedence set to support argument 2's interpretation.

 

8. No other deep striking assault vehicle follows this pattern.

Supports Argument 1: No examples or supporting rules can be found to contradict argument 1.

Contradicts Argument 2: Again no set precedence supporting argument 2.

 

End annalysis:

Argument 1

8 Supporting

 

Argument 2

1 Supporting

7 Contradictions

 

It appears as if Argument 2 has been thouroghly debunked. The only thing supporting it is the one line in parenthesis, and that is dubious in itself. All other points of argument either do not support or contradict Argument 2. In most cases this would be a cut and dry end to the whole shebang but... I know many of you will not see reason and continue to argue, so go on if you must. I would very much like to see any other type of supportive arguments you come up with that aren't "the sentance says so".

 

Edit:

*Quick clarification: Argument 1 means assaulting after disembarking on the turn following the turn the vehicle deep strikes. Vice versa Argument 2 means being unable to assault after disembarking on a turn following the turn the vehicle deep strikes. Just a little clarification in case anyone got a little confused.

[Koremu]

The amount of beard involved in denying the thing its Assault Vehicle capability for the whole game is enough to warrant the return of the Squats.

[Grey Mage]

Then maybe we should keep arguing?

 

Very good write-up lokied ;).

[ArmouredWing]

I'd allow a BA player to assault in a subsequent turn... but there again I can also see the counter argument

People wanting to rudely kick the new kid on the block in his shiny flying teeth?

Heh heh heh, or a swift kick in the assault ramp!!!

[Bryan01]

Im not sure if im missing the point here but RAI seem to state that when the thing deep strikes people can't launch an assault from it, but any other turn is fine. Although i think its the same idea with the deep striking land raider. What about the rules for the lucius pattern dread drop pod? it specifically says its an exception to the rules, so unless the rules say "this is an exception to normal rules" then probably just go with normal rules.