"I've been expecting you"

[*Furyou Miko]

Eh, I was going on logic and reason and what makes sense, since I haven't read the FAQ. Go me. >>

 

Heaven forbid they let something like "Drops Pods protect their cargo from ground fire" actually risk damaging the overwhelming power of the GKs...

[dswanick]

Eh, I was going on logic and reason and what makes sense, since I haven't read the FAQ. Go me. >>

 

Heaven forbid they let something like "Drops Pods protect their cargo from ground fire" actually risk damaging the overwhelming power of the GKs...

Psh, the real problem with that ruling is Warp Quake. Even if you manage to prove that Warp Quake "juggling" is illegal, if you roll a Misplaced result for the pod the GK player can "mis"-place the pod in a Warp Quake zone forcing you to disembark the transported squad in the WQ zone, thus giving the GK player another bite at the apple by rolling for the disembarking unit.

However, it is consistant with the BRB FAQ v1.5, and necessary in light of Stormravens and Deep Striking Land Raiders.

Q: Does a unit being transported by a vehicle that has arrived by Deep Stike that turn also count as having arrived by Deep Strike? (p95)

A: Yes.

[Jacinda]

Just realized that Mystic can not use his ability while in a vehicle either. Oh well.... :)

I don't see why not. It is not an activated ability but rather an always on thing that does not require LOS. The Beacon is very much like a CSM icon; it should work even if the Mystic is embarked.

 

That is assuming that being in a transport is the same as being "on the table." That's another debate right there :D:\

[Gentlemanloser]

Just going back to Reserves and IBEY.

 

If you resolve IBEY after;

 

1: First mini of a unit has been placed/moved on board

2: First mini of a unit has been placed due to DS and scatter resolved

 

and there's not other minis on the board at the time

 

What happens if you;

 

1: Kill that single mini? For walking on, that shouldn't be a problem. For a DS, there's now now mini to DS around.

2: Score for example 10 wounding hits on the unit. There are no other mini's on board at the time of the attack, so they can't be wounded, right?

 

As for DS, Mishaps and IBEY;

 

If you resolve IBEY after the first mini is placed, then scatter is resolved you could get into the situation where;

 

First mini is placed. Scatters within 12" of IBEY. Unit suffers an IBEY attack. Rest of surviving unit is placed, and by virtue of scatter and placement, is found to mishap. Let's assume that the original mini is just outside a WQ bubble after scatter, but legal placement of the rest of the unit forces at least one mini to enter the WQ bubble...

 

Ouch.

 

Also, If a unit DS's, scatters, mishaps, suffers a misplaced result, and is placed within 12" of Coteaz, as the Misplace is a deplyment without scatter, would it trigger IBEY?

 

If so, can the unit DS, scatter, get hit by IBEY, mishap, misplaced, and be hit by IBEY again?

 

Badly written rules are badly written rules. GW needs to pull thier fingers out.

 

Psh, the real problem with that ruling is Warp Quake. Even if you manage to prove that Warp Quake "juggling" is illegal, if you roll a Misplaced result for the pod the GK player can "mis"-place the pod in a Warp Quake zone forcing you to disembark the transported squad in the WQ zone, thus giving the GK player another bite at the apple by rolling for the disembarking unit.

 

Had never even considered that...

 

What mishaps in that case? Just the disembarked unit? Or both the unit and the pod?

[dswanick]

Psh, the real problem with that ruling is Warp Quake. Even if you manage to prove that Warp Quake "juggling" is illegal, if you roll a Misplaced result for the pod the GK player can "mis"-place the pod in a Warp Quake zone forcing you to disembark the transported squad in the WQ zone, thus giving the GK player another bite at the apple by rolling for the disembarking unit.

 

Had never even considered that...

 

What mishaps in that case? Just the disembarked unit? Or both the unit and the pod?

Dunno, but to quote an unnamed source "Badly written rules are badly written rules. GW needs to pull thier fingers out." ;)

 

But let's for a moment imagine this scenario with a Tac Squad entering play from a Drop Pod. The Drop Pod results in a "Misplaced" and per my above post the GK player "Misplaces" it squarely in a WQ bubble. Now the C:SM player Disembarks his Tac Squad (which counts as deploying using Deep Strike, per FAQ) and must now test for Mishap on the Tac Squad. If you conclude that the Tac Squad is seperate from the Drop Pod (not unreasonable given the BRB position on Units and Dedicated Transports), and the Tac Squad rolls "Delayed", it is now placed into Reserves awaiting deployment by Deep Strike (which can not be changed after having been declared at the beginning of the game during Deployment) with no way to accomplish this.

 

"Badly written rules are badly written rules. GW needs to pull thier fingers out." :devil:

[Gentlemanloser]

But let's for a moment imagine this scenario with a Tac Squad entering play from a Drop Pod. The Drop Pod results in a "Misplaced" and per my above post the GK player "Misplaces" it squarely in a WQ bubble. Now the C:SM player Disembarks his Tac Squad (which counts as deploying using Deep Strike, per FAQ) and must now test for Mishap on the Tac Squad. If you conclude that the Tac Squad is seperate from the Drop Pod (not unreasonable given the BRB position on Units and Dedicated Transports), and the Tac Squad rolls "Delayed", it is now placed into Reserves awaiting deployment by Deep Strike (which can not be changed after having been declared at the beginning of the game during Deployment) with no way to accomplish this.

 

/salute!

 

Bad GW! This deserves a /facepalm

 

Dunno, but to quote an unnamed source "Badly written rules are badly written rules. GW needs to pull thier fingers out."

 

LoL! ^_^

[Zealadin]

Q: Does a unit being transported by a vehicle that has arrived by Deep Stike that turn also count as having arrived by Deep Strike? (p95)

A: Yes.

 

The deepstrike ruling in regards to assault vehicles is about ASSAULTING after deep striking.

It prevents people deep striking a land raider in and destroying someone's army, because people started claiming that only the vehicle deep struck, not the contents as well.

The ruling on drop pods is poor, but makes some sense since the DP's only function is as a 'safe' DS method, but wouldn't apply to vehicles arriving from deepstrike/reserve in the same manner. Ie you don't get extra shots at disembarking units.

 

As has been stated if you fire when the single model can been placed then only one model can be targeted, which is fine. Knock him over and the rest of the unit land around his dead body.

Severely nerfs the ability so I can't see many GK players agreeing.

 

Common sense owns RAI/RAW.

In fact most of the FAQ answers which cause more problems than they solve are only needed when there is a total lack of common sense available.

As stated even by GWS, the FAQ is their house rules. There isn't any attempt at balance or logic.

[Gentlemanloser]

Knock him over and the rest of the unit land around his dead body.

 

No you don't.

 

Once this is done, the units remianing models are placed around the first one. Models must be placed in base contact with the original model in a circle around it.

 

So, by RAW, if Coteaz kills the first, original DSer of the unit, the rest *cannot* land.

 

That's if you play that Coteaz shoots the moment you resolve scatter for the first model DSing.

[adamv6]

So, by RAW, if Coteaz kills the first, original DSer of the unit, the rest *cannot* land.

 

That's if you play that Coteaz shoots the moment you resolve scatter for the first model DSing.

 

We always play that the unit shoots after all the models on are the battlefield, post scatter. I would sooner kill 2-5 units in a squad than kill the first and putting them back into reserve. Although, I am sure there are times when that would come in rather useful.

 

I must admit, joining Coteaz to my purg squad has had some wonderful results with IBEY. ;)

[dswanick]

Q: Does a unit being transported by a vehicle that has arrived by Deep Stike that turn also count as having arrived by Deep Strike? (p95)

A: Yes.

 

The deepstrike ruling in regards to assault vehicles is about ASSAULTING after deep striking.

Sorry, but where in that FAQ question does it say anything about [n]assault or assaulting[/b]/? You quoted the general BRB FAQ question from the "Organizing a Battle" section of the FAQ, which references the rules on page 95 of the BRB which contains all the rules on Deep Striking. There is nothing there which limits the FAQ in the way you think it does.

 

A unit disembarking from a transport which deployed by Deep Strike also counts as deploying by Deep Strike, for all purposes - and therefore, triggers an IBEY shot.

[Zealadin]

So I take it your agreeing with me that shooting at the single model before the rest land is a pathetic attempt to totally miscomprehend the rules?

Yay common sense is an amazing thing.

Also the GK codex says the UNIT must be on the table as several people have pointed out, and codex always comes before BRB.

 

Also when you disembark from a vehicle that deepstrikes you are not entering the game from reserves. Only the vehicle itself enters the game from reserves, protecting the unit inside since they can't be targetted due to no LoS. Both DS. Both count as DSing, only one is placed on the table when they both arrive from reserves and therefore only one can be effected by IBEY. Both have to obey the DS rules (All of them).

The unit (and vehicle) only enter the game from reserves once.

 

Trying to double dip using the "I've been expecting you" is the kind of cheating I have come to expect from the people who seem to need FAQs for the most obvious of rules.

Myetic spores and Drop pods are both identified in the GK FAQ because in both cases the unit is forced to disembark upon it entering the game.

Otherwise why specify these two delivery systems instead of just 'Any transport vehicle'.

There isn't even a ",etc" after these two specific examples to suggest that the FAQ ruling counts for anything else. Very specific, no room for making incorrect assumptions or trying to make the ruling apply beyond its scope.

Arguably a well worded FAQ, even if it is a very poor decision.

 

The deep strike rule was also clarified after the addition of deep striking transport vehicles, because yet again people wanted to cheat and assault out of a deepstruck vehicle the turn it arrived. Drop pods already had specific rules which created the same limitations anyway.

 

This is why I don't particularly like rules arguments, too many people who will argue something that is both blatantly wrong, and add meaning to rules which doesn't exist just so they can cheat.

Then when proven wrong they normally fall back on the rules wording being bad as some kind of excuse as to why they can't be wrong or an excuse for being blatantly and wilfully obtuse.

At the end of the day people can play however they like though, lots of people will argue certain rulings, but when it comes to trying to force it upon another player or friend their honest opinion is what comes out.

[Gentlemanloser]

So I take it your agreeing with me that shooting at the single model before the rest land is a pathetic attempt to totally miscomprehend the rules?

 

No. I'll agree the rules are horribly broken regarding DS, IBEY and WQ though.

 

Also when you disembark from a vehicle that deepstrikes you are not entering the game from reserves. Only the vehicle itself enters the game from reserves

 

No, the FAQ answers that clearly.

 

Trying to double dip using the "I've been expecting you" is the kind of cheating I have come to expect from the people who seem to need FAQs for the most obvious of rules.

 

You know what assuming makes... I discuss RAW here, not how I'd play, not how you'd play, now how I assume GW plays, or thinks we play.

 

Just the RAW. It's the only solid common ground we all share.

 

Following the RAW *cannot* be defined as cheating.

 

The deep strike rule was also clarified after the addition of deep striking transport vehicles, because yet again people wanted to cheat and assault out of a deepstruck vehicle the turn it arrived. Drop pods already had specific rules which created the same limitations anyway.

 

Again with cheating... Unless you work for GW and know what they *actually* try to type, instead of following what they do type (which is more often then not, ambiguous, if not horribly wrong...) you have not ground to call following the RAW 'cheating'.

 

Until it was FAQed, you could disembark form a DSing LR and Assault. As it was an Assault vehicle, and the embarked troops were only disembarking, not deploying.

 

The FAQ cleared that little loophole (as GW hadn't considered DS Assault Transports past DP/Spores before...) up.

 

This is why I don't particularly like rules arguments, too many people who will argue something that is both blatantly wrong, and add meaning to rules which doesn't exist just so they can cheat.

 

Follow the RAW and you won't have this issue. Start to use your own interpretations, and you open a can of worms regarding cheating, OP and 'intended'.

 

Then when proven wrong they normally fall back on the rules wording being bad as some kind of excuse as to why they can't be wrong or an excuse for being blatantly and wilfully obtuse.

 

The rule wording *is* bad... /sigh

[dswanick]

So I take it your agreeing with me that shooting at the single model before the rest land is a pathetic attempt to totally miscomprehend the rules?

No, but that is a seperate argument.

Also when you disembark from a vehicle that deepstrikes you are not entering the game from reserves. Only the vehicle itself enters the game from reserves, protecting the unit inside since they can't be targetted due to no LoS. Both DS. Both count as DSing, only one is placed on the table when they both arrive from reserves and therefore only one can be effected by IBEY. Both have to obey the DS rules (All of them).

The unit (and vehicle) only enter the game from reserves once.

 

Trying to double dip using the "I've been expecting you" is the kind of cheating I have come to expect from the people who seem to need FAQs for the most obvious of rules.

Myetic spores and Drop pods are both identified in the GK FAQ because in both cases the unit is forced to disembark upon it entering the game.

Otherwise why specify these two delivery systems instead of just 'Any transport vehicle'.

There isn't even a ",etc" after these two specific examples to suggest that the FAQ ruling counts for anything else. Very specific, no room for making incorrect assumptions or trying to make the ruling apply beyond its scope.

Arguably a well worded FAQ, even if it is a very poor decision.

And, again, you're wrong. The FAQ is very clear - I suggest you re-read it before calling people who play by the rules "cheaters".

The deep strike rule was also clarified after the addition of deep striking transport vehicles, because yet again people wanted to cheat and assault out of a deepstruck vehicle the turn it arrived. Drop pods already had specific rules which created the same limitations anyway.

 

This is why I don't particularly like rules arguments, too many people who will argue something that is both blatantly wrong, and add meaning to rules which doesn't exist just so they can cheat.

Actually, you're the one adding words that aren't there - so by your logic you're the one "cheating".

Then when proven wrong they normally fall back on the rules wording being bad as some kind of excuse as to why they can't be wrong or an excuse for being blatantly and wilfully obtuse.

At the end of the day people can play however they like though, lots of people will argue certain rulings, but when it comes to trying to force it upon another player or friend their honest opinion is what comes out.

Agreed, there are many ways to play Warhammer 40,000 - with opponent's consent. But there is only one way to play Warhammer 40,000 by RAW - and what you're promoting ain't it.

[The Holy Heretic]

Have any of you guys read the disclaimer that says FAQs are just house rules of the studio. FAQs as such cannot be interpreted as RAW, and for all rules lawyering purposes they are non-existant.

 

"They're not actual rules, more like guidelines."

 

Erratas on the other hand are actual rules changes that can be discussed and lawyered.

-

 

On an offnote, anyone trying to pull some warp quake mumbo jumbo loop hole like that on mé, would see himself win the game, but lose an opponent ;)

[Gentlemanloser]

Have any of you guys read the disclaimer that says FAQs are just house rules of the studio. FAQs as such cannot be interpreted as RAW, and for all rules lawyering purposes they are non-existant.

 

Indeed. And for coherent rule design, that's a much of a cop out as 'the golden rule'.

 

Here's our game system, the rules suck ;), but don't worry about that! Play it however you want, make any rules up you need to to make the system you *paid* us for work, and wave away any complaints with somethng about a Golden Rule.

 

We'll go back to watching re-runs of Friends and drinking Fosters. Hey guys, have you noticed, Rachael has hard ;) at some point every episode! You want an Errata about what now?

 

*cough*

 

Back on topic, there's lot's of discussion and weight put behind RAI. And 'that's' the way 40k should be played. Well, you can't get more of an idea behind the designers *intention*, or how they think the game should be played, than "house rules of the studio", can you?

 

Really, aren't house rules of the game developer actual games rules in essence?

 

Hi guys again. We know our rules suck, that's why here, at the studio, we don't actually play them that way! We use these amendments to our own rules, to make our own game actually work. But you guys, you can do whatever you want! Remember the 'golden rule above'.

 

So much cop out...

 

On an offnote, anyone trying to pull some warp quake mumbo jumbo loop hole like that on mé, would see himself win the game, but lose an opponent

 

Doesn't quite work that way in Tournaments though. ;)

[The Holy Heretic]

Sure its a copout. 40K is a lousy game, it makes no sense as either battle simulation, and its feel is 'gamey' in a way that doesn't really satisfy the fluff - I prefer RT :) but play 5th out of necessity.

 

- and things do work like that in tournaments, I'm just too old to waste my time on playing a game, I don't enjoy, so I'd rather take a dive - only ever happened once though :)