Eeps Posted August 10, 2012 Share Posted August 10, 2012 Out of interest, I wonder how many people did frequently employ a zero-deployment, full DS strategy for their DW in 5th Ed.? I've only ever seen it as a viable option in kill point games and even then my poor-to-awful scatter/dangerous terrain rolling made it an unnecessarily risky venture. I can think of a few Blood Angels players who might be a bit upset that their Descent of Angels builds won't work any more, for this reason... I did it a few times in lower point games. Its very entertaining, but like you say I really high risk strategy, especially with the old DS rules. First time I did it it worked amazingly well, second time I deepstriked 420 points of Belial and chums to their deaths. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harleqvin Posted August 10, 2012 Share Posted August 10, 2012 No other army in 6th Edition of 40K can be placed entirely in reserve. The only reason this rule is in effect is so no player stands around for 1-2 turns waiting for his opponent to show up on the table to play. The argument allowing Deathwing to break this basic rule is a fuzzy, grey interpretation of a rule written in 4th Edition for a 5th Edition rules set. :) This is 6th Edition; don't be That Guy. Who? The guy that plays Daemons? Or a dedicated Drop Pod army? Both of them MUST start 100% in reserve. Oh, and both C:SM and C:BA termies 'may always start the game in reserve'. So out the window with the '4th Edition for a 5th Edition rules set'. I would actually like to know where in C:SM and C:BA it says Termies can always be kept in reserve. As I have both those in addition to my DA codex and it doesn't say that in my copies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigGumbo Posted August 10, 2012 Share Posted August 10, 2012 It occurs to me that the ambiguity is also there in the TDA entry. From memory, the wording says "may always be kept in reserve, even in scenarios where the reserves rule is not being used". This would suggest that the intention was that "terminators can always use the reserves rule", not "all terminators can be put in reserve". In this case, the 50% rule in the BGB would not be overridden by the TDA wording because the latter is about when you can apply the reserves rule as written, not how you apply it. That said, it is still clearly a grey area so discussion with your opponent is probably the best way forward... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IndigoJack Posted August 10, 2012 Share Posted August 10, 2012 Out of interest, I wonder how many people did frequently employ a zero-deployment, full DS strategy for their DW in 5th Ed.? I've only ever seen it as a viable option in kill point games and even then my poor-to-awful scatter/dangerous terrain rolling made it an unnecessarily risky venture. I can think of a few Blood Angels players who might be a bit upset that their Descent of Angels builds won't work any more, for this reason... I did it frequently in 1000 pt games. It worked great as a turn 1 disruption. I've only ever had 3 deepstrike mishaps. Of course the last one was during a tournament and of course I rolled a 2 on the mishap table... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brother Landrain Posted August 10, 2012 Share Posted August 10, 2012 And here is another instance of GW rules not being thought all the way thru. bah just ignore me today.... too many days in the hospital, and too many pain meds.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Master Sheol Posted August 10, 2012 Share Posted August 10, 2012 There is no grey area in the DWA issue. The rulebook states that the 50% rule about reserves apply when a unit can choose to be deployed in the reserves or on the field... Only the units that must be in the reserves can overcome this limitation. DW is a unit that can choose or not to be in reserve so the 50% rule apply to them. Drop Pods that must start from the reserves are not affected. So considering DA dont have the Drop pod assault rule and that DW terminators cannot buy drop pods this is another HUGE nerf to DA... GW hates us, we must face it... Our only hope is FW now... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aleax Posted August 10, 2012 Share Posted August 10, 2012 GW hates us, we must face it... Our only hope is FW now... :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HJL Posted August 11, 2012 Author Share Posted August 11, 2012 Well it all worked out in the end. My opponent took long fang spam and couldnt do any meaningfull damage to my terminators even with 2 squads deploying on the field. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Venemox Posted August 11, 2012 Share Posted August 11, 2012 No other army in 6th Edition of 40K can be placed entirely in reserve. The only reason this rule is in effect is so no player stands around for 1-2 turns waiting for his opponent to show up on the table to play. The argument allowing Deathwing to break this basic rule is a fuzzy, grey interpretation of a rule written in 4th Edition for a 5th Edition rules set. ;) This is 6th Edition; don't be That Guy. Who? The guy that plays Daemons? Or a dedicated Drop Pod army? Both of them MUST start 100% in reserve. Oh, and both C:SM and C:BA termies 'may always start the game in reserve'. So out the window with the '4th Edition for a 5th Edition rules set'. I would actually like to know where in C:SM and C:BA it says Termies can always be kept in reserve. As I have both those in addition to my DA codex and it doesn't say that in my copies. Here, in C:SM it's on page 102, next to last paragraph on the right hand column. In C:BA it's on page 61 , last paragraph on the right hand column. I'm not saying that interpretation is 'correct', just that the 5th Ed codices had the same wording as the 4th Ed C:DA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.