Leonaides Posted April 6, 2011 Share Posted April 6, 2011 I come down on the side of no - the SR will still scatter. Same as for BA's and Dante's Tactical Precision, or DoA, as per the already quoted FAQ. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gentlemanloser Posted April 6, 2011 Author Share Posted April 6, 2011 Again, they *require* Jump Packs. Mordrak's rule has no stipulation on how he Deep Strikes, just that he Deep Strikes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gentlemanloser Posted April 6, 2011 Author Share Posted April 6, 2011 It seems you REALLY want this to go a peculiar way. What does your gaming group say? Go with that But since I have to contribute to the discussion: SR is not a dedicated transport LoL! I miss Drop Pods. :) My group? We'll probably try it once, for a laugh, but it's not something I see myself using consistently. I just tohught it was a neat and novel colaboration of the rules. B) As for it being a dedicated transport or not, what does that matter? Would it make a difference if Mordrak could take a Stormraven as a Dedicated Transport? Would it effect his rule in any way? WOuld the Raven suddenly 'accompany' him? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grey Mage Posted April 6, 2011 Share Posted April 6, 2011 As for it being a dedicated transport or not, what does that matter? Would it make a difference if Mordrak could take a Stormraven as a Dedicated Transport? Would it effect his rule in any way? WOuld the Raven suddenly 'accompany' him? There are a couple rules that are added to a dedicated transport if the unit it carries has them- most notably scout, and the associated outflank ability. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leonaides Posted April 6, 2011 Share Posted April 6, 2011 Again, they *require* Jump Packs. Mordrak's rule has no stipulation on how he Deep Strikes, just that he Deep Strikes. And an assault squad with jump packs in a SR *have* jump packs. And the rule itself only requires that the unit using DoA posesses the special rule DoA when it attempts to Deep Strike - not that it must deep strike 'using' those jump packs. So a unit with JP's (thus posessing DoA), Deep Striking in a Storm Raven, still fulfils the RAW criteria to allow them to use DoA. Or at least, according to your interpretation for Mordrak... (not according to the BA FAQ though) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gentlemanloser Posted April 6, 2011 Author Share Posted April 6, 2011 And an assault squad with jump packs in a SR *have* jump packs. And the rule itself only requires that the unit using DoA posesses the special rule DoA when it attempts to Deep Strike - not that it must deep strike 'using' those jump packs. Apologies! I thought DoA stipulated you had to DS by JP. Not that you only needed JPs! Edit: Still DoA doesn't mention it works with any 'accompanying' units, unlike First to the Fray. DoA only works on units with JPs, the Raven doesn't have JPs. ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grey Mage Posted April 7, 2011 Share Posted April 7, 2011 For those who haven't already commented on this in the OI forum. <_< Can Mordrak use his 'Frist to the Fray' rule when embarked in a Storm Raven to allow it to Deep Strike first turn, without scatter? Mordrak can use First to the Fray when he is deployed by Deep Strike and it effects any unit he 'accompanies'. The recent Main Rule Book FAQ states that units embarked in transports that Deep Strike count as Deep Striking themselves, so the first part of Mordraks rule seems to be satisfied. As for the seocnd, 'accompany' isn't defined anywhere. It's not 'joining' or 'attaching' to another unit, nor 'embarking' in a transport. So, does Mordrak accompany the Storm Raven he's embarked upon? Mordrak accompanies a unit of ghost knights because he is not attached to them- hes an upgrade character. Thus, he, and his ghost knights, deepstrike turn 1 etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gentlemanloser Posted April 7, 2011 Author Share Posted April 7, 2011 Does he 'accompany' other ICs attached to the Ghost Knights? Or can he not use First to the Fray if you (for example only) attach a GK Libby to the squad? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grey Mage Posted April 7, 2011 Share Posted April 7, 2011 Well if an IC is attached to a squad they count as one unit for the purposes of deepstriking and reserves- so I dont see why he couldnt if an IC was attached. More the the point all the other times when an IC cant be used with similar rules state so- like heroic intervention. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gentlemanloser Posted April 7, 2011 Author Share Posted April 7, 2011 If you're embarked on a transport you count as one unit for Deep Strike and reserves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leonaides Posted April 7, 2011 Share Posted April 7, 2011 gentlemanloser- still doesnt explain why DoA is not allowed to be used by a unit inside a sr. If they count as a single unit, for reserves and deep strike purposes, then it should apply. But it doesnt. So neither should his rule. Especially, as yo point out, a sr doesnt have that rule. Having and eating cake... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grey Mage Posted April 7, 2011 Share Posted April 7, 2011 Unit+Transport are not one unit- theyre rolled for together, wich is different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gentlemanloser Posted April 7, 2011 Author Share Posted April 7, 2011 gentlemanloser- still doesnt explain why DoA is not allowed to be used by a unit inside a sr. If they count as a single unit, for reserves and deep strike purposes, then it should apply. But it doesnt. So neither should his rule. Especially, as yo point out, a sr doesnt have that rule. Having and eating cake... Becuase the SR itself doesn't have Jump Packs, which DoA requires for use. Unit+Transport are not one unit- theyre rolled for together, wich is different. IIRC the reserves rules mention to treat the unit and transports as one unit for reserve rolls and deployment. What's the different distinction here? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leonaides Posted April 7, 2011 Share Posted April 7, 2011 jump packs are the means of accessing the rule, but you dont need to use jump packs to use the rule by raw. If jp troops in a sr deep strike, then going by exactly the same reasoning as your interpretation of mordrak, they can use doa. If they are in the transport, then it is the transport doing the deep-striking, not them. They still count as deep striking- so no charging, but they themselves did not deep strike. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gentlemanloser Posted April 7, 2011 Author Share Posted April 7, 2011 They can use DoA. But the SR can't. As it doesn't have JP, nor is included in the units DoA rule. Unlike First to the Fray, which incdules any accompanied units, which would include the GK Stormraven, if it accompanies Mordrak. That's the difference, and I hope it helps explain the situation! :tu: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Race Bannon Posted April 7, 2011 Share Posted April 7, 2011 It seems you REALLY want this to go a peculiar way. What does your gaming group say? Go with that But since I have to contribute to the discussion: SR is not a dedicated transport LoL! I miss Drop Pods. ;) My group? We'll probably try it once, for a laugh, but it's not something I see myself using consistently. I just tohught it was a neat and novel colaboration of the rules. ;) As for it being a dedicated transport or not, what does that matter? Would it make a difference if Mordrak could take a Stormraven as a Dedicated Transport? Would it effect his rule in any way? WOuld the Raven suddenly 'accompany' him? My point was this, and maybe I'm wrong, but you are the only one defending the idea that Mordrak can Deep Strike in a Stormraven in this thread. Could it be that your the only one here that has such an opinion? I'm sure others are watching to see what the outcome is because let's face it: if Mordrak + SR = Deep Strike, then that's awesome ;) ... the counter-responses are not swaying your judgment and that's fine because everyone else could be wrong. So, what the motivation? To help others find an advantage that really doesn't exist? To determine if any advantage actually exists? To ferret out what the heck GW is letting the players do? Threads like this make me wonder why they exist. On the one hand there are questions asking for clarification. On the other the question serves to justify a way of thinking. I think this thread is about the latter. That's not meant to read negatively upon anyone, but at some point the discussion hits a wall that does not appear to be circumvented or penetrated by ... anything. But I get your point: he is in the SR, so he "accompanies" the SR in reserve - It can Deep Strike - He Deep Strikes with it - FttF activates because he is Deep Striking with the SR - so the SR can use FttF. I get that thinking and I would agree with that only when the *transport* is dedicated to Mordrak. The distinction, to me, is the *transport* is not just another unit he simply accompanies. Done deal to me, but not to you - and that's fine ... for you. :tu: To answer your question above - to me - is DOES matter that the Stormraven is not a dedicated transport to him. If he could take a SR as a dedicated transport then the OP question is moot. But since he can't, then question can even be conjured into asking ... and by my way of thinking, if you have to ask, then the answer is "no" ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leonaides Posted April 7, 2011 Share Posted April 7, 2011 but he's not actually deep-striking if he's inside a sr. The sr is doing the deep-striking. So his rules have no bearing. Exactly the same as doa and sr's... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gentlemanloser Posted April 7, 2011 Author Share Posted April 7, 2011 My point was this, and maybe I'm wrong, but you are the only one defending the idea that Mordrak can Deep Strike in a Stormraven in this thread. Could it be that your the only one here that has such an opinion? I'm sure others are watching to see what the outcome is because let's face it: if Mordrak + SR = Deep Strike, then that's awesome ... the counter-responses are not swaying your judgment and that's fine because everyone else could be wrong. So, what the motivation? To help others find an advantage that really doesn't exist? To determine if any advantage actually exists? To ferret out what the heck GW is letting the players do? They might just be quiet. :P I tihnk I lke discussing this as I like these little, intelligent outside the box rule colaborations. And it would be awesome, wouldn't it! (Which is why it would most likely be FAQed to a no! ^_^) There are a shed load of issues like this in the Codex, and working these thorugh is part to ferret out what the heck GW is letting us do, and part to figure out why the heck they don't learn form the past! If this does work, I'll probably use it once, becuase it would be awesome. But it's nothing something I plan to build lists around. Well, not at the moment anyway! Threads like this make me wonder why they exist. On the one hand there are questions asking for clarification. On the other the question serves to justify a way of thinking. I think this thread is about the latter. That's not meant to read negatively upon anyone, but at some point the discussion hits a wall that does not appear to be circumvented or penetrated by ... anything. Oh no, don't get me worng, I'm not immovable and will change my mind, but not if my position isn't really challenged. But I get your point: he is in the SR, so he "accompanies" the SR in reserve - It can Deep Strike - He Deep Strikes with it - FttF activates because he is Deep Striking with the SR - so the SR can use FttF. I get that thinking and I would agree with that only when the *transport* is dedicated to Mordrak. The distinction, to me, is the *transport* is not just another unit he simply accompanies. Done deal to me, but not to you - and that's fine ... for you. Yeah, I don't see the dedicated status having any bearing here, but others do. I'm just keen to see why. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dswanick Posted April 7, 2011 Share Posted April 7, 2011 Yeah, I don't see the dedicated status having any bearing here, but others do. I'm just keen to see why. I think the "why" is because Scout sets the precedent that a special rule can be carried over from a unit to its dedicated transport - so if the SR were dedicated you could have an argument(athough Scout is very explicit that it is allowed to carry over). No special rule carries over to non-dedicated transports, so there is no reason to imagine that this special rule would. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dizzy-xc Posted April 8, 2011 Share Posted April 8, 2011 OK, so what's the RAW definition of "accompanying" if it's not "joining"? There isnt one, the rule is currently unusable. To you. Nice opinion. Would you rule that Mordrak doesn't 'accompany' a Transport he is embarked upon? Correct. A transport vehicle is its own unit. Mordrak may not join a vehicle unit(both due to lacking IC rules and ICs may not join vehicle units). Transports(independant or dedicated) and units(transported or not) are still two seperate units for all purposes. Embarked =/= accompanying. I find your opinion puzzling, dswanick. The way you describe 'accompany', being not equal to embarked, is precisely correct. But you stopped there. You should have gone on to question why did GW use the curious word accompanies for apparently the 1st time? What does accompanies mean? ac·com·pa·ny, verb, -nied, -ny·ing. 1. to go along or in company with; join in action: to accompany a friend on a walk. Seems pretty simple to me. I dont see how anyone can argue with the RAI that allow Mordrak and any unit he accompanies to arrive turn one in a SR without scatter. I can see how you can argue with the RAW because there is no established precedent for it and in general how we as rule lawyers take each rule and over-complicate it. But reading it simply as it is tells me all I need to know. I don't see why GW would need to FaQ this other than to state the obvious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grey Mage Posted April 8, 2011 Share Posted April 8, 2011 Because the RAI could just as easily be its him and his ghost knights only. RAI doesnt cut it, even if it is useful at times. After all I dont accompany a helicopter into battle, I ride in it, or I pilot it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan VK Posted April 8, 2011 Share Posted April 8, 2011 OK, so what's the RAW definition of "accompanying" if it's not "joining"? There isnt one, the rule is currently unusable. To you. Nice opinion. The rule is unusable without a House Rule. You may obviously play the game however you choose when you are at home, but anyone playing at a store or in a tournament must abide by the fickle whims of store owners and TOs first and RAW second. GW releases errata/FAQ articles for this reason. [Edit: I should post the messages I type instead of walking away for an hour because otherwise Grey Mage will post before me.] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Race Bannon Posted April 8, 2011 Share Posted April 8, 2011 Ok cool. If it comes to me I'll type it out. Interesting conversation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dizzy-xc Posted April 8, 2011 Share Posted April 8, 2011 OK, so what's the RAW definition of "accompanying" if it's not "joining"? There isnt one, the rule is currently unusable. To you. Nice opinion. The rule is unusable without a House Rule. I don't understand why you need a house rule. Grey Mage may ride in a transport or pilot it but either way he is 'joining it in action'... which is the definition of 'accompanies'. I mean, we are speaking English, are we not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan VK Posted April 8, 2011 Share Posted April 8, 2011 I don't understand why you need a house rule. Grey Mage may ride in a transport or pilot it but either way he is 'joining it in action'... which is the definition of 'accompanies'. I mean, we are speaking English, are we not? 'Accompanies' may mean "joining it in action" in a dictionary but it is not used in the BRB or explained in a codex. It is not 'join' or 'embark', which have specific meanings in game terms. If the dictionary is used as a basis for how rules in codices should be interpreted it is reasonable for First to the Fray to apply to all models in C:GK because Mordrak is accompanying the strike force. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.