Deepstrike LR

[Excidium]

Hi guys,

 

Sorry if this topic was already discussed. Can DA deeps strike land riders with the new dex? I cant seem to find a conclusive answer. Some say that if it's forced into DS reserve it has to DS. Some say that rules say all units in this formation automatically arrive by DS. Some say LR has to go to normal reserve empty. Some challenge the fact that drop pods can DS even if they don't have special rule for it. Can some one clarify once and for all? :)

 

Thanks!

[Quixus]

Only GW can clarify it once and for all, but unfortunately they have been silent on all rules issues for quite some time.

 

You are right, by RAW drop pods shouldn't be able to arrive at all since they don't have the DS rule and are placed in DS reserve.

 

That should also happen when the Land Raiders are placed in DS reserve. They do not have the DS rule, but are in DS reserve so they cannot get out of there. The detachment rules only change the way of determining when the units arrive, not how. So the requirement to have the DS rule is not removed.

 

The Deathwing Redemption Force has an additional problem. Several units can purchase LRs as dedicated transports (no restriction removing that ability from the units), but those units are not part of the formation (a formation is a specific grouping of units). So any dedicated transport would make the army unbound.

 

That is obviously not how the rules are intended to work, but how they are supposed to work needs to be agreed upon by your gaming group until GW issues errata. One can only hope that it comes soon, practically all formations that contain units that are allowed to purchase other uinits have that problem.

[Isiah]

Nice reply Quixus.

 

On the LR issue the answer is no. Overall it's a combination of formation rules not dovetailing at all well with unit rules. 40K has become a complex beast - not everything is going to sit together nicely.

 

And just because the Drop Pod has a rules glitch, it doesn't mean you can consider its (faulty) game behaviour a precedent for another unit. No matter how tempting that might be :)

 

Cheers

I

[Chaplain Lucifer]

No rules shenanigans can make a LR deepstrike. ;)

[Quixus]

No rules shenanigans can make a LR deepstrike.

Except using the old BA codex.

Drop pods and other deep striking vehicles that end up on the ground (not sure if such exist at the moment) should have a rule similar to the mawloc. A 5th Ed BA LR or a Caestus Assault Ram disintegrating on the nose of a single grot is just ridiculous.

[aura_enchanted]

Only GW can clarify it once and for all, but unfortunately they have been silent on all rules issues for quite some time.

 

You are right, by RAW drop pods shouldn't be able to arrive at all since they don't have the DS rule and are placed in DS reserve.

 

That should also happen when the Land Raiders are placed in DS reserve. They do not have the DS rule, but are in DS reserve so they cannot get out of there. The detachment rules only change the way of determining when the units arrive, not how. So the requirement to have the DS rule is not removed.

 

The Deathwing Redemption Force has an additional problem. Several units can purchase LRs as dedicated transports (no restriction removing that ability from the units), but those units are not part of the formation (a formation is a specific grouping of units). So any dedicated transport would make the army unbound.

 

That is obviously not how the rules are intended to work, but how they are supposed to work needs to be agreed upon by your gaming group until GW issues errata. One can only hope that it comes soon, practically all formations that contain units that are allowed to purchase other uinits have that problem.

i think that games workshop should start doing their own in-house battle reports using the rules. we could then use them as a baseline for rules issues. it lets them grow the successful youtube page, we get to see more of smexy duncan and we get to deal with rules conflcts like this using their interpretations of the rules

[Bryan Blaire]

we get to deal with rules conflcts like this using their interpretations of the rules

Or you simply use the official rule that GW already wrote for you on Page 10. Since they have already spoken on how to resolve rules issues when two players don't agree and all...

[Quixus]

 

we get to deal with rules conflcts like this using their interpretations of the rules

Or you simply use the official rule that GW already wrote for you on Page 10. Since they have already spoken on how to resolve rules issues when two players don't agree and all...

 

Would you want to roll off on whether your land raiders arrive at all or if they make your seemingly battle-forged army unbound?

 

No, GW should write consistent fair and legible rules.

[Bryan Blaire]

Would you want to roll off on whether your land raiders arrive at all or if they make your seemingly battle-forged army unbound?

 

No, GW should write consistent fair and legible rules.

If you can't come to an agreement and still want to game, why wouldn't you use the official rule already there, especially knowing that further clarification isn't going to magically appear at the time you arrange your game? Then again, if it is that hard to arrange the game with the person that you have to resort to that rule, perhaps they are better just not to play against. It is a game for enjoyment after all, not a dice size measuring event. If you can't enjoy it, then it isn't worth playing. If you can only enjoy it by winning, then it probably isn't worth playing either.

 

You have to pick what you really want to struggle with in life. The rules for a wargame ain't one of them for me, especially when I don't have any say in what's written...

[aura_enchanted]

 

Would you want to roll off on whether your land raiders arrive at all or if they make your seemingly battle-forged army unbound?

 

No, GW should write consistent fair and legible rules.

If you can't come to an agreement and still want to game, why wouldn't you use the official rule already there, especially knowing that further clarification isn't going to magically appear at the time you arrange your game? Then again, if it is that hard to arrange the game with the person that you have to resort to that rule, perhaps they are better just not to play against. It is a game for enjoyment after all, not a dice size measuring event. If you can't enjoy it, then it isn't worth playing. If you can only enjoy it by winning, then it probably isn't worth playing either.

 

You have to pick what you really want to struggle with in life. The rules for a wargame ain't one of them for me, especially when I don't have any say in what's written...

 

saying "you figure it out" is a cop out. its there way of saying "we make all kinds of mistakes writing rules and correcting it is too much work for us; it cuts into out model making time" by your interpretation we could just as easily make up our rules from the ground up and games workshop technically said it was okay. i could even do this at a tournament as long as my opponents agreed to it. and that doesnt sound very sporting now does it someone playing a totally different game from you "because gw said it was okay on page 10". they could write rules and fix rules either with demonstrations via video or by writing it out and making it available to all. that is what makes things better. having to house rule everytime a new error in the book comes out or model rules sheet also doesnt solve things it just means more situational things you need to remember when playing with your friends.

 

if they cant write good rules creating a way to fix them or showing how they should be interpreted somewhere would solve all kinds of headaches

[Quixus]

 

Would you want to roll off on whether your land raiders arrive at all or if they make your seemingly battle-forged army unbound?

 

No, GW should write consistent fair and legible rules.

If you can't come to an agreement and still want to game, why wouldn't you use the official rule already there, especially knowing that further clarification isn't going to magically appear at the time you arrange your game?

 

Because I wouldn't want to practically auto-lose at the roll of a single die. AFAIK form the rules we do have we cannot deduce an obvious intention. Is it intended for the deathwing detchmanets not to have LRs? Are the LRs supposed to be able to deep strike? And that is only one issue that GW does not bother to fix. There are a lot more of those e.g what happens if a model is armed with a specialist and a non-specialist weapon and attacks with the non-specialist weapon? How do the various quasi-deep strike abilities (GoI, Skies of Fury etc.) interact with other abilities that modify deep striking?

 

Then again, if it is that hard to arrange the game with the person that you have to resort to that rule, perhaps they are better just not to play against. It is a game for enjoyment after all, not a dice size measuring event. If you can't enjoy it, then it isn't worth playing. If you can only enjoy it by winning, then it probably isn't worth playing either.

Sure you can houserule or roll of on anything, but once you start that are you still playing 40K or are you shoving miniatures around based on your own rules? A large set of houserules makes it much more difficult finding new players, because they might come with quite different expectations of the rules. 

 

Also I wholeheartedly agree with what aura_enchanted wrote.

[Chaplain Lucifer]

The conversation is side-tracking to something that can be easily disagreeable.

 

So, back to OP's point.

the DWRF says all units must be placed in DS reserve, so this means that either:

- You can't include LR's on the DWRF because they don't have DS or,

- You can include them but they don't DS (not having DS and DWRF doesn't give free DS to units) and they won't see play .

Since it says something specifically about a Dreadnought in a pod we can infer that dreadnought without a pod or other vehicles can't be used.

 

Those are the conditions laid by the rules.

If anyone wishes to deviate from them, then they have to turn to house rules, ITC rules or other tournament rules available.

[JJD]

Just had a look on the ITC FAQ to see which way they went and I couldn't find it. I'm quite surprised it hasn't come up there.

[march10k]

Thunderhawk transporter...boom!  Okay, it's not a deepstriking land raider (and has no bearing on DWRF), but it achieves the desired effect...for a stupid amount of time and points.

[Stormxlr]

The conversation is side-tracking to something that can be easily disagreeable.

 

So, back to OP's point.

the DWRF says all units must be placed in DS reserve, so this means that either:

- You can't include LR's on the DWRF because they don't have DS or,

- You can include them but they don't DS (not having DS and DWRF doesn't give free DS to units) and they won't see play .

Since it says something specifically about a Dreadnought in a pod we can infer that dreadnought without a pod or other vehicles can't be used.

 

Those are the conditions laid by the rules.

If anyone wishes to deviate from them, then they have to turn to house rules, ITC rules or other tournament rules available.

Deathwing Strike Force has the same problem. The rule Summoned to War states everyone must start in Deep Strike.

So the only way for us to field Terminators in land raiders is CAD.

They simply dint think twice about the wording. The same way Ravenwing has 3 HQ slots and Warlord reroll Special rule but cant take any other HQ besides Sammael. Hammer of Caliban special rule is wasted on Predators. There is no logic behind this mistake and no meaning, they just did not proofread.

 

As always is the answer for this type of question, ask your opponent if you can just field your Terminators on the table instead of DS, or mount them in LRs. I never had a problem with that since most people say "oh ye dont worry I also got some dumb mistakes in my codex".