Upon Wings of fire discussion

[Kappel]

Hello all

 

I am taking the freedom to discuss this stratagem, in a separat thread, than the big 'FAQ spring thread', because I think that this stratagem could be absolutely pivotal, to the effectiveness of our army. And maybe it deserves its own thread.

 

I have read the argument for and against us being able to use this turn 1. I'm still in doubt... There are strong arguments for and strong arguments against. 

 

I have then read the examples of stratagem GW says that you can use turn 1. I will argue here that if you allow Alpha Legion to use Forward Operatives to make turn 1 charges, you should also be able to use UWOF. Both stratagems refer to that the unit is 'set-up'.  

 

But...I am still in doubt. 

[roodie]

I have no doubts unfortunately. The main rulebook FAQ says:

 

 

Q: If a unit uses a rule that removes them from the battlefield and then sets them up again, such as the Teleport Homer ability or the Gate of Infinity psychic power, does that unit count as having moved for the purposes of moving and firing Heavy weapons?

A: Yes. Treat such units as if they are arriving on the battlefield as reinforcements.

 

 

And that's it. Upon wings of fire is exactly the same type of rule, so they count as reinforcements arriving.

[Deathwalker]

I have no doubts unfortunately. The main rulebook FAQ says:

 

 

Q: If a unit uses a rule that removes them from the battlefield and then sets them up again, such as the Teleport Homer ability or the Gate of Infinity psychic power, does that unit count as having moved for the purposes of moving and firing Heavy weapons?

A: Yes. Treat such units as if they are arriving on the battlefield as reinforcements.

 

 

And that's it. Upon wings of fire is exactly the same type of rule, so they count as reinforcements arriving.

It's a prime example of GW using poor wording for the "purpose" of simplification and ignoring the question in doing so. The ruling only required a yes or no, yet it has a host of unforeseen consequences because of it..

[Palwatch]

Here is the piece that I am taking as meaning our strat is ok to use.

 

"Stratagems employed by armies such as Raven guard.... deploying en-masse is a central part of their...".

 

If GW are going to be that vague -armies such as- then I will use the vaguery to my advantage. Blood Angels are an army such as Raven Guard and out whole deal is deep striking.

 

Really, if GW wanted a rule play tested then the least they could have done was define its boundaries correctly

[Deathwalker]

Here is the piece that I am taking as meaning our strat is ok to use.

 

"Stratagems employed by armies such as Raven guard.... deploying en-masse is a central part of their...".

 

If GW are going to be that vague -armies such as- then I will use the vaguery to my advantage. Blood Angels are an army such as Raven Guard and out whole deal is deep striking.

 

Really, if GW wanted a rule play tested then the least they could have done was define its boundaries correctly

We can't deploy "en masse" we have a specific relocation strategy usable once per turn. Strike is pre game cost, one that just got a whole lot more attractive.

[Palwatch]

Raven Guard cant deploy en masse either. I'm just reading what was written by GW. Again it's very vague

[Deathwalker]

Raven Guard cant deploy en masse either. I'm just reading what was written by GW. Again it's very vague

Unless D4chan is wrong, it indicates that you can use from the shadows multiple times pre-game, Wings is -in game-, which would be more tactically flexible, but got nerfed by them being treated as re-enforcements.

I'd be happy to be wrong here.

[Panzer]

It definitely refers to Strike from the Shadows which is an entirely different thing than Upon Wings of Fire.

[Deathwalker]

It definitely refers to Strike from the Shadows which is an entirely different thing than Upon Wings of Fire.

Agreed.

Forward operatives has the same text template as strike from the shadows, OWOF is different. 

[Kappel]

Good arguments, all of them, I think.

 

It must be hard being GW right now, this new FAQ just creates a massive amount of new questions! 

 

I think it would almost require a new wording on the upon wings of fire, where it describes that you can't use this stratagem turn one, unless you redeploy in your own deployment zone. 

 

I hope really that GW takes their time and answers some of these questions. I have written to them about UWOF.

[neonmole]

Check the actual rulebook FAQ, separate document on the website.

 

It elaborates on this point, and references whether powers like gate of infinity (same as WoF) can be used turn one to deploy outside your DZ. The answer is no unfortunately.

 

Time to give up on this one I’m afraid.

[Kappel]

Check the actual rulebook FAQ, separate document on the website.

 

It elaborates on this point, and references whether powers like gate of infinity (same as WoF) can be used turn one to deploy outside your DZ. The answer is no unfortunately.

 

Time to give up on this one I’m afraid.

Thing is, this was pre the new FAQ. Which complicates things, 'cause then it is difficult to figure out what GW intended. I really hope this gets FAQ'ed!

[Panzer]

 

Check the actual rulebook FAQ, separate document on the website.

It elaborates on this point, and references whether powers like gate of infinity (same as WoF) can be used turn one to deploy outside your DZ. The answer is no unfortunately.

Time to give up on this one I’m afraid.

 

Thing is, this was pre the new FAQ. Which complicates things, 'cause then it is difficult to figure out what GW intended. I really hope this gets FAQ'ed!

Doesn't matter. GW adjusted some old entries (black question, pink answer). If something didn't get rewritten it clearly means it's still valid.

[Kappel]

Ok. Thanks for your insights. 

 

I can tell that one of the bigger tournaments in my country have already said they will use the new beta rules. It's one month away. That's challenging. 

[The Unseen]

Ok. Thanks for your insights.

 

I can tell that one of the bigger tournaments in my country have already said they will use the new beta rules. It's one month away. That's challenging.

Just message them, and say you were planning on attending, but won't because their decision to use sloppily executed knee jerk reaction rules that killed your desire to play your army.

 

At least, that's what I'll be doing if locals decide to adopt the beta rules without thinking them through.

 

Enough people do that, tournament organizers might decide to make their own rules after all.

[masterstrider]

Thanks for raising this thread OP. I use Tide of Traitors and it has a similar wording. I would be keen for GW to decide which rule takes precedent.

 

Do deployed units using a teleport power during their turn count as a reinforcement as per the Rulebook FAQ or not.

 

Does reinforcement mean the same as tactical reserve? Because TacRes says it only affects unit that aren't deployed on the table. So it might be a contradiction.

 

Without that answer, there is no way to rule on this situation effectively.

[Deadnaughty]

Thanks for raising this thread OP. I use Tide of Traitors and it has a similar wording. I would be keen for GW to decide which rule takes precedent.

 

Do deployed units using a teleport power during their turn count as a reinforcement as per the Rulebook FAQ or not.

 

Does reinforcement mean the same as tactical reserve? Because TacRes says it only affects unit that aren't deployed on the table. So it might be a contradiction.

 

Without that answer, there is no way to rule on this situation effectively.

The new rule limiting deepstrikes doesn't mention Tactical reserves so thats not relevant.

[masterstrider]

 

Thanks for raising this thread OP. I use Tide of Traitors and it has a similar wording. I would be keen for GW to decide which rule takes precedent.

 

Do deployed units using a teleport power during their turn count as a reinforcement as per the Rulebook FAQ or not.

 

Does reinforcement mean the same as tactical reserve? Because TacRes says it only affects unit that aren't deployed on the table. So it might be a contradiction.

 

Without that answer, there is no way to rule on this situation effectively.

The new rule limiting deepstrikes doesn't mention Tactical reserves so thats not relevant.

 

 

Well if:

Q: If a unit uses a rule that removes them from the battlefield and then sets them up again, such as the Teleport Homer ability or the Gate of Infinity psychic power, does that unit count as having moved for the purposes of moving and firing Heavy weapons?

A: Yes. Treat such units as if they are arriving on the battlefield as reinforcements.

 

So they count as battlefield reinforcements AFTER they've moved. At which point, they've already used On Wings Of Fire.

[Deadnaughty]

 

 

Thanks for raising this thread OP. I use Tide of Traitors and it has a similar wording. I would be keen for GW to decide which rule takes precedent.

 

Do deployed units using a teleport power during their turn count as a reinforcement as per the Rulebook FAQ or not.

 

Does reinforcement mean the same as tactical reserve? Because TacRes says it only affects unit that aren't deployed on the table. So it might be a contradiction.

 

Without that answer, there is no way to rule on this situation effectively.

The new rule limiting deepstrikes doesn't mention Tactical reserves so thats not relevant.

 

 

Well if:

Q: If a unit uses a rule that removes them from the battlefield and then sets them up again, such as the Teleport Homer ability or the Gate of Infinity psychic power, does that unit count as having moved for the purposes of moving and firing Heavy weapons?

A: Yes. Treat such units as if they are arriving on the battlefield as reinforcements.

 

So they count as battlefield reinforcements AFTER they've moved. At which point, they've already used On Wings Of Fire.

 

what after?

The unit is arriving on the battlefield as reinforcements. Therefor triggering the beta rules and limited to your deployment zone turn 1.

[BluejayJunior]

Yeah, the tactical reserves rule will be replacing the current reinforcements rule. The two terms are essentially interchangeable when it comes to the Beta Rule. 

I wish it didn't apply to Upon Wings of Fire, but it appears that way. I can't find anyway around it with how the rules are currently worded. I'm not exactly sure if the intent of the rule is to affect things like UWoF or Gate of Infinity, but as everything is written right now, it does. 

 

Here is the piece that I am taking as meaning our strat is ok to use.

"Stratagems employed by armies such as Raven guard.... deploying en-masse is a central part of their...".

If GW are going to be that vague -armies such as- then I will use the vaguery to my advantage. Blood Angels are an army such as Raven Guard and out whole deal is deep striking.

Really, if GW wanted a rule play tested then the least they could have done was define its boundaries correctly

You are reading color text as the actual rule. Only the pre-first turn stratagems are exempt from the rule, not anything that happens during the battle. 

[Kappel]

This is a sum-up, from a discussion on dakkadakka. 

 

The orks and Grey Knights have similar stratagems as UWOF, and therefore, are also very interested in how this pans out.

 

"For those who believe that Gate of Infinity or Upon Wings of Fire etc must adhere to the beta Tactical Reserves rule consider these points; 

1. When embarked in a transport the units are "removed from the battlefield". Does that mean they are destroyed in turn 4 if they haven't disembarked or if they embark? Does it also mean that units can't disembark outside of their deployment zone turn 1? 

2. With regards to certain FAQ answers - please be aware that these responses only relate to their particular question. You cannot and should not infer other meanings from them unless they are explicitly stated. The FAQ response around Auspex Scan for example does not prove that unit's moved by a psychic power are Tactical Reserves, only that they can be shot by Auspex Scan. The same applies to the ruling on Heavy Weapons, this only tells us how firing heavy weapons interacts with such movement and nothing else. 

3. As per another question in the FAQ, if a unit has a psychic power cast on it, it must, by definition, have already arrived on the battlefield (or the power could not be cast). "

 

Posted by a member called An Actual Englishman, here:

 

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/90/754998.page

[Panzer]

This is a sum-up, from a discussion on dakkadakka. 

 

The orks and Grey Knights have similar stratagems as UWOF, and therefore, are also very interested in how this pans out.

 

"For those who believe that Gate of Infinity or Upon Wings of Fire etc must adhere to the beta Tactical Reserves rule consider these points; 

 

1. When embarked in a transport the units are "removed from the battlefield". Does that mean they are destroyed in turn 4 if they haven't disembarked or if they embark? Does it also mean that units can't disembark outside of their deployment zone turn 1? 

2. With regards to certain FAQ answers - please be aware that these responses only relate to their particular question. You cannot and should not infer other meanings from them unless they are explicitly stated. The FAQ response around Auspex Scan for example does not prove that unit's moved by a psychic power are Tactical Reserves, only that they can be shot by Auspex Scan. The same applies to the ruling on Heavy Weapons, this only tells us how firing heavy weapons interacts with such movement and nothing else. 

3. As per another question in the FAQ, if a unit has a psychic power cast on it, it must, by definition, have already arrived on the battlefield (or the power could not be cast). "

 

Posted by a member called An Actual Englishman, here:

 

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/90/754998.page

 

1. RAW, yes they'd be destroyed by turn 4. Never thought about that but the wording is actually clear. The rules for Embarking as well as the rules for Tactical Reserves talk about units on the battlefield.

Tactical Reserves: "Furthermore, in matched play games, any unit that has not arrived on the battlefield by the end of the third battle round counts as having been destroyed."

Embark: "If all models in a unit end their move within 3" of a friendly transport, they can embark within it. Remove the unit from the battlefield and place it to one side – it is now embarked inside the transport."

 

2. He's right that one answer doesn't necessarily apply to another problem, however he talks about Tactical Reserves here which is irrelevant since the Auspex Scan FAQ entry talks about units that get "removed from the battlefield and then set up again". The Auspex Scan itself mentions Reinforcements and not Tactical Reserves, just like the Deep strike beta rule. So the Auspex FAQ entry in fact does help understanding how the Deep strike beta rule and the various re-deploy Stratagems interact with eachother.

[Indefragable]

Though I want to applaud GW for trying to so hard to make a better game, the fact that the FAQ needs a FAQ is--in fact--a FAIL.

 

And I'm generally positive about most of the ideas in there, if not the execution.

 

I.e. the Deep Striking only in your Deployment Zone Turn 1 would be not so bad...if that meant that Turn 2+ the 9" away from enemies restriction gets reduced/lessened to 6" or 3" or such.

[Panzer]

 

I.e. the Deep Striking only in your Deployment Zone Turn 1 would be not so bad...if that meant that Turn 2+ the 9" away from enemies restriction gets reduced/lessened to 6" or 3" or such.

 

Yeah I thought about that as well but it would make turn 2 'alpha' strikes REALLY devastating. Instead of having stuff drop down turn 1, shoot something to death and maybe get a charge off, you'd see stuff drop down turn 2 in melta and flamer range and everything easily getting into melee. That would be worse than before the deep strike change lol

 

Another thing I thought about is removing the "after turn 3 reserves are destroyed" rule so you have more time to actually clear some space to let your reserves arrive. That would mean that tournaments matches would have to actually reach turn 4+ to matter competetively and you'd still be fighting half the game without your full force which has to make back its points in just a few rounds tho ...

 

I really have no perfect solution. Imo weapons in 40k are too strong compared to how durable units are. All weapons should get nerfed. That way the alpha strike problem would solve itself lol

[Indefragable]

 

 

I.e. the Deep Striking only in your Deployment Zone Turn 1 would be not so bad...if that meant that Turn 2+ the 9" away from enemies restriction gets reduced/lessened to 6" or 3" or such.

 

Yeah I thought about that as well but it would make turn 2 'alpha' strikes REALLY devastating. Instead of having stuff drop down turn 1, shoot something to death and maybe get a charge off, you'd see stuff drop down turn 2 in melta and flamer range and everything easily getting into melee. That would be worse than before the deep strike change lol

 

Another thing I thought about is removing the "after turn 3 reserves are destroyed" rule so you have more time to actually clear some space to let your reserves arrive. That would mean that tournaments matches would have to actually reach turn 4+ to matter competetively and you'd still be fighting half the game without your full force which has to make back its points in just a few rounds tho ...

 

I really have no perfect solution. Imo weapons in 40k are too strong compared to how durable units are. All weapons should get nerfed. That way the alpha strike problem would solve itself lol

 

 

Yea, but see...now there are strategic decision to be made: do you extend yourself trying to get a wipe on Turn 1? Or do you hold back and castle up for the inevitable Beta Strike?

 

40k is at it's best when there are options and you, as the player, must decide which to use at what time in what manner. Why ( -ing fluff aside) I am so loathe to use Primaris over True Marines: Intercessors are basically 3 variations of the same flavor while Tacticals can be equipped to do almost anything you want.

 

My meta is giving me because I would rarely actually pop DoA in Turn 1. But then I point out how the threat of it was compelling enough to actively influence their Deployment and Turn 1 movement strategies. Now they'll just unpack their Transports and keep everything 18" apart so that it's virtually impossible to use DoA.

 

But my own personal interests aside, I just feel that alot of the stuff in this latest batch of FAQ's is well intentioned, but ultimately muddies the waters too much.

 

 

Also, in case anyone missed it, the official email to tell them your thoughts is  40kFAQ@gwplc.com

 

KEEP IT CIVIL: as someone who works in a client-facing type role in a corporation, you get far more bees with honey than vinegar.