DW Assault a ruling.

[[TA]Typher]

I didn't buy the codexx til after a month of it's release. By then some of you have already argued until you were blue in the face whether you could OR could not DWA your whole list.

 

After spending all day reading forum after forums and argument after argument I've come to my own conclusion (that I won't bore you with here)

 

I did however find a tournament ruling from a local event that occurred recently.

 

Now this is in no way a official GW ruling, just a regional tourney.

 

http://www.frontlinegaming.org/2013/02/22/bao-tournament-faq-v-1-2/

 

 

 

"Dark Angels

 

• Dark Angels units using the Deathwing Assault special rule are ignored for the purposes of calculating the number of units that may be held in Reserves. [pg. 44, C:DA]"

 

There are some order of operation reasoning at the bottom of their page if you want to read it.

 

 

It's been a few months now and I was curious if anyone else has feedback from tournaments?

[Nemo vas Varya]

To me, in short the order of operation argument is complete bull. There are no set in stone -sub phases.- It was a convenient excuse that holds no water.

[Lysere]

First off reading some of those rulings I see a few that are ridiculous, such as a drop suffering a hull point automatically.

 

If your codex says they are ignored when using that rule then they are ignored. Any issues that arise are ruled in favor of the codex. Always.

[[TA]Typher]

 

 

 

Not trying to start a 90 page argument here just trying to bring additional information to light.

[BigGumbo]

First off reading some of those rulings I see a few that are ridiculous, such as a drop suffering a hull point automatically.

 

If your codex says they are ignored when using that rule then they are ignored. Any issues that arise are ruled in favor of the codex. Always.

The issue only arises because the Codex doesn't say that they are ignored. The DWA rule says that they can choose to make a DWA, so they aren't forced to, and that they arrive via Deep Strike, which per the BGB requires them to start the game in reserve. It seems pretty obvious to me that, by these two premisses, the conclusion is that they are in reserve and that they do count for the 50% rule, whatever some local house rules might say to the contrary.

[elphilo]

AdeptiCon said the same thing in its FAQ.

 

 

 

To me, in short the order of operation argument is complete bull. There are no set in stone -sub phases.- It was a convenient excuse that holds no water.

 

I only did a quick reading of their explanation and saw nothing mentioned about sub phases. Their reasoning seems solid to me. Those units get put into reserves before reserves actually happen, so therefore cannot be used to calculate the 50%. Because at that point they have to arrive from reserves. So they don't count.

 

Now personally until an official GW FAQ comes out, I play on the safe side that they do count towards the 50% limit. I actually believe they don't, but I don't feel like arguing something I never really plan on doing. Regardless, we can argue this back and forth for days and all in all this thread will be locked. Its probably best to leave this thing alone since both sides will refuse to budge. Like the last thread that this happened in :P

[EPK]

Throne of Skull is an official GW tourney, right? Is there others? If they make the same ruling even without saying it in an FAQ, it would be for intents and purposes, official?

[Bryan Blaire]

Based on some of the rules in the Alter of War: Dark Angels pack, it specifies times when units in DWA are not impacted by the 50% Reserves rule. Based on that and my agreeing with BigGumbo's reasoning, I only play that they are impacted by the 50% Reserves rule until otherwise stated by GW. Since everyone I personally play with agrees with this, there haven't been any issues.

[[TA]Typher]

Based on some of the rules in the Alter of War: Dark Angels pack, it specifies times when units in DWA are not impacted by the 50% Reserves rule. Based on that and my agreeing with BigGumbo's reasoning, I only play that they are impacted by the 50% Reserves rule until otherwise stated by GW. Since everyone I personally play with agrees with this, there haven't been any issues.

 

I don't own a Ipad (I'm not cool enough :( ) but if this book says that a full DW army can DWA shouldn't it be official? It's a GW book. I would say that it's rock solid and closes the arguement.

 

Can you quote the ruling or example if this is the case?

[Onisuzume]

Or it could be a mission special rule, in which case it'd apply only to that mission.

Besides, if its iSmeg-exclusive, then its a bad place to put an official ruling that applies to non-iSmeg-exclusive products.

[[TA]Typher]

 

Or it could be a mission special rule, in which case it'd apply only to that mission.

Besides, if its iSmeg-exclusive, then its a bad place to put an official ruling that applies to non-iSmeg-exclusive products.

I agree. Sadly, GW doesn't have a forum that they answer this. Instead, like the bible they leave things vague and let people argue over them for years.

[BigGumbo]

"Times when units in DWA are not impacted by the 50% reserve rule" does sound like mission special rule rather than unversal practice to me. After all, it rather implies that there are also times when they ARE impacted. Anyway, I've said my bit and will bow out now...

[[TA]Typher]

"Times when units in DWA are not impacted by the 50% reserve rule" does sound like mission special rule rather than unversal practice to me. After all, it rather implies that there are also times when they ARE impacted. Anyway, I've said my bit and will bow out now...

 

I agree it could be, but it's not crystal clear. IF you read the rules like a computer would the order of operations make it clear that you can. People don't usually play like that, instead playing in a more lax, jumbled way.

 

ANYWAY.. my point is that unlike the myriad of other rules this one leaves grey area all the way around. If you ask my the procedure to move, shoot or charge it's clear to anyone. Having a rule that a reasonable people can't read and agree with (like the other rules) is something they really need to work on.

[Bryan Blaire]

The rules are built specifically into the scenarios in a way that modifies the Reserves rules directly. No, it doesn't specifically state any rulings on the DWA itself, but rather times when in the scenarios that Reserves work normally, or Deathwing are deployed using Deep Strike as a whole regardless of how many you have, etc. (I don't have my iPad right now to quote). It does however state that these are modifications of the standard Eternal War missions and I'm not arguing that they should apply to Eternal War missions directly, simply that the scenarios can modify how rules like Reserves work. After all, there is also one mission where if you DON'T bring in your Reserves, you get extra VP. As I said, I read the DWA like BigGumbo does, I was just saying that the Altar of War missions do show adjustments to how the Reserves rulings can work.

 

I guess the reason this gives some weight in my mind is that they specifically wrote a (it might be more than one that says this, I can't remember at this time) scenario stating that all Deathwing in the mission are specifically placed in reserve and come down at a specific time. That they had to state that all of them are placed in Reserves regardless of the standard Eternal War rules seems to indicate that this is not the normal state. It seems to me that if DWA was intended to work this way (every DW unit can be in Reserves automatically), then they just would have stated that all Deathwing units must DWA.

 

All in all though, this is all a modification of the Eternal War scenarios and so could be read that they were simply overwriting all rules by using special scenario rules, and that would also be true. It just lends more weight to how I read it (which is my rules interpretation, not GW's) and I will admit that it could simply be my mind seeking additional reinforcement for how I interpret the rules. YMMV

 

Edit: I also apologize for my earlier poor and confusing wording.

 

Edit 2: Upon further perusal, it actually appears that all but one of the six scenarios in the Altar of War: Dark Angels actually states "In Eternal War missions, a maximum of half of the units in an army may be placed in reserve. This limit does not apply to Altar of War missions. Instead the mission will state how many units can (or must) be placed in reserve."

 

Please ignore my above statements.

 

Everything still hinges on whether you believe that DWA, by stating that it arrives via Deep Strike in the DA book rules, follows the rules for Deep Strike in the BGB (on page 36), which says "In order for a unit to be able to Deep Strike ... the unit must start the game in reserve." Also, the rules for reserves on page 124 actually states "Models arriving by Deep Strike ... deploy using their special rules (see pages 36 and 40)." Models arriving by Deep Strike and units arriving via Deep Strike certainly sound like the same thing, so why wouldn't they follow the same rules found on page 36?

 

So, from both the BGB and the Altar of War:DA, it says the Eternal War missions (those in the BGB) have a maximum of half the units in an army in reserve.

 

Regardless of the timing of the choices, Eternal War missions have a 1/2 unit reserve maximum and for a unit to Deep Strike, it must start the game in reserve.

[march10k]

Or it could be a mission special rule, in which case it'd apply only to that mission.

Besides, if its iSmeg-exclusive, then its a bad place to put an official ruling that applies to non-iSmeg-exclusive products.

Jealous much?

 

Anyway, in the absence of an official ruling from GW, I'd say that the Adepticon ruling is the one holding the most (and not much) weight, for now.  Most Americans, at least, if they question whether or not DWAing Deathwing count towards the 50%, would shrug and say "well, in the absence of anything firm from GW, Adepticon's FAQ is good enough for me."  NOVA's pretty much the only bigger indie...

[Onisuzume]

 

 

Or it could be a mission special rule, in which case it'd apply only to that mission.

Besides, if its iSmeg-exclusive, then its a bad place to put an official ruling that applies to non-iSmeg-exclusive products.

Jealous much?

 

 

No, just bitter.

Requiring people to fork over at least €300 just to be able to use a €6 ebooklet just rubs me the wrong way.

[march10k]

Ah.  I have the iPad, but not one single digital product from GW ;)

[Nemo vas Varya]

 

Or it could be a mission special rule, in which case it'd apply only to that mission.

Besides, if its iSmeg-exclusive, then its a bad place to put an official ruling that applies to non-iSmeg-exclusive products.

Jealous much?

 

Anyway, in the absence of an official ruling from GW, I'd say that the Adepticon ruling is the one holding the most (and not much) weight, for now.  Most Americans, at least, if they question whether or not DWAing Deathwing count towards the 50%, would shrug and say "well, in the absence of anything firm from GW, Adepticon's FAQ is good enough for me."  NOVA's pretty much the only bigger indie...

This is utter horse crap. In my local area, of the 50 plus gamers I interact with routinely, none of us give a damn about Adepticon's or NOVA's rulings. Your local area may be different, but please do not speak for all regions.

 

And here is why.

 

New player A having done research and read stuff here, walks into store with his new DWA army. We are playing. He flashes the Adeptican ruling, and we don't care. He was lead to believe we would care and is now confused, believing that in the United States these 3rd party rulings are official. It also encourages individuals to play the game wrong, based on a contrived argument to muddy the waters of a rule which is actually pretty clear.

 

Nothing explicitly states that the Termies held in researve for DWA do not count against the reserve total, while their are rules that state all units, except for a select few with very specific conditions to meet*, always count towards the reserve total.

 

*(Point to must ALWAYS, IE they never had a choice, DWA does, and DWA is not the same as riding in a transport, do not even go there.)

[dswanick]

Most Americans, at least, if they question whether or not DWAing Deathwing count towards the 50%, would shrug and say "well, in the absence of anything firm from GW, Adepticon's FAQ is good enough for me."  NOVA's pretty much the only bigger indie...

Speak for yourself. "Most Americans" I know put Adepticon, NOVA, GW store employee's, GW's call line, and "that guy who said that thing on the internet" all on the same level of reliability.

[Brother Immolator]

I would say that the adepticon FAQ can be counted as official till an actuall one hits.

 

After all it adresses a lot of issues logically. Well belials telehommer thingie is not so but anyways.

 

I have no opinion on the above, who is organising?

[elphilo]

Nothing explicitly states that the Termies held in researve for DWA do not count against the reserve total, while their are rules that state all units, except for a select few with very specific conditions to meet*, always count towards the reserve total.

*(Point to must ALWAYS, IE they never had a choice, DWA does, and DWA is not the same as riding in a transport, do not even go there.)

I guess all I can say to that is, nothing said in the BRB that units that deployed in Vendettas didn't count towards the 50% until the FAQ came out. They had the choice to not deploy in it, so they should count right? But they don't.

Like I said before, this is a hot button issue that will just go back and forth till an official GW FAQ comes out. Until then its up to you and your opponent to decide how to play it. If that new person comes in and thinks he can do it and you disagree, well you have two choices. Not play him or roll off. Other than that not much else you can do. You're not going to be able to change anyone's mind really on this matter and its probably best if we all just drop it.

Hmm after reading this with some sleep you said not to go to the transport thing. Oops! But w/e I still think its a valid argument because the troops inside don't have to ride in it, just like the Deathwing don't have to DWA.