|
Post by WestRider on Jul 14, 2012 18:17:41 GMT -5
I've always liked Storm Troopers, but they seemed too expensive in 5th for more than niche use. I've been poking at them for a bit now, trying to see if anything in 6th would make them more useful. Just spitballing so far, let me know if you've come up with anything else, or I'm way off base with something.
- Hot-shot Lasguns: AP3 got a bit of a boost with the general reduction in Cover Saves. They've got options that can get them around a lot of the Units that are going to be playing WA tricks with an IC with 2+ Armour out in front, too.
Still only racks up about 3 dead MEqs in the open while Rapid Firing with a full Squad, tho. Adding a pair of Plasmaguns takes that up to about 5, which is OK, but we're shelling out almost 200 Points for that Unit, and its still pretty fragile.
18" Range kind of sucks, too, especially since it cuts the Rapid Fire Range down to 9" now.
- Reconnaissance: Scout and Move Through Cover is a pretty useful combo in a couple of situations. It can let you place Fortifications out ahead of your lines and still occupy them on Turn 1, with a good BS for Emplaced Weapons and some good Weapons to take advantage of any Firing Points. Also lets you Outflank, which can get Storm Troopers up near Units that they actually have a chance of taking on, like Devastator Squads and Long Fangs. With the nerf to Outflanking, shooty Outflankers are definitely the way to go.
- Behind Enemy Lines: Similar to Reconnaissance in terms of options, but Infiltrate makes it even easier to occupy advanced Fortifications, and if your Opponent gets really sloppy, might even let you steal one of theirs. Probably an even better option for a Storm Trooper Squad that you want to Outflank, because of the Pinning ability.
- In either case, you can clearly bring a Chimera along now if you bought one for them. Not sure how best to take advantage of that, but there's got to be something cool you can do there. Looks like it lets them make a 12" Scout redeployment if they're mounted up, and they can Tank Shock their way onto the Board while Outflanking if they need to.
- Airborne Assault: This one, I think might be a Game Winner in some circumstances. Almost nothing that's fast is a Denial Unit, and nothing that's mounted up is a Denial Unit, and you can't usually disembark from Vehicles that have moved very far.
This means that most Armies need to have their late-Game Objective Contesting planned out well in advance, but Airborne Assault Storm Troopers can pull a Grav-Chute Insertion out of a Zooming Vendetta that went 36" and still land pretty safely and accurately. Certainly excellent odds of surviving for a Turn or two against the sort of token Backfield Objective Holder Unit that a lot of people seem to be talking about with the Nerfs to Outflanking. They can also pretty easily pick you up the Linebreaker VP against any Enemy that doesn't have a solid backfield presence.
- Builds: I'm thinking full Squads with Plasmaguns are going to be pretty good for most Builds. If you're mostly planning on just getting them in a forward Bastion or something, 5 with Plasmaguns is probably sufficient, and is likely what I'd go with for an Airborne Assault as well.
Minimum Squads for Melta Delivery are probably still feasible, too, but feel to me like they're not really getting the most out of the Unit. Grenade Launchers call for a totally different Target Profile than the Hot-Shots, and Flamers waste their BS on top of that.
So what ideas do y'all have about our Glory Boys in this new era?
|
|
|
Post by iggy666 on Jul 14, 2012 23:12:24 GMT -5
I agree, plasma and melta are the only options worth it for Storm Troopers. I don't think Storm Troopers are any better now than they were before. They are very expensive and are situational at best I think. I love them though, so if anyone finds a really good use I'll be excited to hear it too.
|
|
|
Post by Deathkorpsman on Jul 15, 2012 0:49:47 GMT -5
I've also always had a soft spot for Storm Troopers and with the exception of price they are a totally neat unit. The points are what bother me about them, more than what they can or can't do. Deep Striking melta/plasma squads and Outflanking squads in Chimeras still seem like they are going to be the best uses for this unit. Objective contesting is possible, but Storm Troopers are only barely more durable than a regular infantry squad except for standing out in the open and even then AP4 is not exactly rare. Objectives won't always be in cover though, so that might be a good niche for them. - Airborne Assault: This one, I think might be a Game Winner in some circumstances. Almost nothing that's fast is a Denial Unit, and nothing that's mounted up is a Denial Unit, and you can't usually disembark from Vehicles that have moved very far. This means that most Armies need to have their late-Game Objective Contesting planned out well in advance, but Airborne Assault Storm Troopers can pull a Grav-Chute Insertion out of a Zooming Vendetta that went 36" and still land pretty safely and accurately. Certainly excellent odds of surviving for a Turn or two against the sort of token Backfield Objective Holder Unit that a lot of people seem to be talking about with the Nerfs to Outflanking. They can also pretty easily pick you up the Linebreaker VP against any Enemy that doesn't have a solid backfield presence. According to the IG FAQ, we don't actually have the capability to do this yet. Grav Chute Insertion hasn't been meaningfully updated the way the Storm Raven Skies of Blood was (bastards) to reflect the new terms in the rules. Our rule currently states that you can disembark if moving Flat Out, but that is now done in the shooting phase. Our rule also hasn't removed the 6" move and disembark restriction. It also doesn't have an allowance for disembarking while Zooming. So I'm not sure the rule really even does anything anymore. Totally lame on all counts. I plan on using the Storm Raven's rule change for the Valk/Ven as a houserule until our FAQ is properly updated. Even that doesn't let you Zoom and disembark though, which is also lame.
|
|
|
Post by Jackal-0311 on Jul 15, 2012 11:10:21 GMT -5
So...are you saying that technically we can't Grav Chute?
|
|
|
Post by WestRider on Jul 15, 2012 11:56:24 GMT -5
Yep, that's how it fails to work now. I had figured that, because part of it was addressed in the FAQ, the rest of it must have been worded so that it still worked in the original text.
In general, as Objective Contesters, I don't rate them very well, but I had figured that for last minute grabs like this, where they were likely only going to be taking fire for maybe a Turn or two from remnants of the opposing Army (with decent chances of Night Fight bonuses, too), they'd do alright.
But they can't do it at all. That's pretty weak sauce.
Looks like mine are either Outflanking in a Chimera or Infiltrating into a Bastion now.
|
|
|
Post by Jackal-0311 on Jul 15, 2012 13:42:36 GMT -5
I still think STs have a place to fill. I know most guys don't like them but if played correctly I feel they an sway the battle.
|
|
|
Post by Deathkorpsman on Jul 15, 2012 15:27:01 GMT -5
Doing a straight Deep Strike with them late game isn't a horrible option either. Especially since they can shoot a bit further away now so you aren't tempted to risk dropping right up next to someone in order to get some shooting in. Mishaps are slightly more forgiving now as well, which makes the option more positive than it once was. I think plasma guns are a good choice for them in this role, since it is looking more and more like heavy expensive armored units are going to be less common than in 5th. Plasma does great against mid-armor targets and MEQ types that might be squatting near objectives. Their higher armor makes them more resilient to Gets Hot! as well.
So aside from Deep Strike/Outflank contesting in the late game, what else can these guys do for us that other units can't do better for the points? It would have been kinda cool if 6th had opened up some new options for them like getting special rules in the FAQ to make their cost more justifiable.
|
|
|
Post by WestRider on Jul 15, 2012 19:46:35 GMT -5
Unfortunately, it's really hard to Deep Strike late in the Game. Even with a Comms Relay for Re-Rolls, it's hard to keep them from coming in by Turn 3, and Turn 4 is automatic. Late Game Objective Deniers need to be making their move on Turn 5.
The fact that putting Plasma on Side Armour hurts most Vehicles a lot more in 6th than 5th makes me think that mounting up and Outflanking not just to Deny Objectives, but to actually put a Firepower Unit on a flank might be worthwhile. The Wound Allocation Rules also encourage people to set up Units with a definite facing, and it looks like Aegis Lines and Ruins are going to result in more Cover that can be bypassed by Units coming from an unexpected angle.
An Astropath makes the Outflanking quite reliable, too, which is a big point in favour for this approach.
I'm kind of thinking about what might be possible with 3 of them. That lets you set up a pretty significant Firebase outside your Deployment Zone, especially with Chimerae. There have to be some possibilities in setting up ~10" of Chimera Wall outside your Deployment Zone, too.
540 Points for 3x5 StormTroopers with Plasmaguns and Chimerae with HKs is a pretty significant chunk of Points, tho, so I'm not going to get a chance to experiment with that anytime soon, since my usual Opponent wants to stick at 1K for a while, until we've got a better handle on 6th.
|
|
|
Post by Deathkorpsman on Jul 15, 2012 23:31:37 GMT -5
I agree that trying to get late-game reserves when you want them, rather than sooner, is a bit tough. An allied Inquisitor with Psychic Communion and the aforementioned Comm Relay would make that better. Also, on the topic of something that makes Storm Troopers better, Trickstick (mad genius) found this: Just spotted a small thing: move through cover makes you auto pass dangerous terrain tests. That means reconnaissance storm troopers can deepstrike into terrain with no chance of injury. Airborne is probably still better though. It doesn't turn Storm Troopers into gold, but it certainly makes them more interesting. Also means they don't necessarily need a Valk/Ven for a decent chance at safe deployment. Still, outflanking in a Chimera may still be their best choice. This rule just makes it less clear-cut.
|
|
|
Post by WestRider on Jul 16, 2012 20:23:44 GMT -5
That is a good catch. I keep forgetting about that aspect of MTC now.
|
|
|
Post by Trickstick on Jul 17, 2012 12:55:06 GMT -5
Mad genius! I'll tell Mr. Flibble you said that. (-:
I just got some more special weapons for my ST squads. Next game I have I am going to try 2x5 man plasma squads deep striking, with Marbo as well. They are going to try to go after those secondary objectives by "sniping" the enemy commander or hiding in their deployment zone. They may go after long range artillery instead, if it seems like a huge threat.
|
|
|
Post by frakhead on Jul 19, 2012 5:13:19 GMT -5
- Airborne Assault: This one, I think might be a Game Winner in some circumstances. Almost nothing that's fast is a Denial Unit, and nothing that's mounted up is a Denial Unit, and you can't usually disembark from Vehicles that have moved very far. This means that most Armies need to have their late-Game Objective Contesting planned out well in advance, but Airborne Assault Storm Troopers can pull a Grav-Chute Insertion out of a Zooming Vendetta that went 36" and still land pretty safely and accurately. Certainly excellent odds of surviving for a Turn or two against the sort of token Backfield Objective Holder Unit that a lot of people seem to be talking about with the Nerfs to Outflanking. They can also pretty easily pick you up the Linebreaker VP against any Enemy that doesn't have a solid backfield presence. According to the IG FAQ, we don't actually have the capability to do this yet. Grav Chute Insertion hasn't been meaningfully updated the way the Storm Raven Skies of Blood was (bastards) to reflect the new terms in the rules. Our rule currently states that you can disembark if moving Flat Out, but that is now done in the shooting phase. Our rule also hasn't removed the 6" move and disembark restriction. It also doesn't have an allowance for disembarking while Zooming. So I'm not sure the rule really even does anything anymore. Totally lame on all counts. I plan on using the Storm Raven's rule change for the Valk/Ven as a houserule until our FAQ is properly updated. Even that doesn't let you Zoom and disembark though, which is also lame. I think you'll find it does still work, codex trumps brb on this one. The codex clearly states that these units can disembark after a 'flat out ' move so no FAQ required.
|
|
|
Post by Deathkorpsman on Jul 19, 2012 5:43:13 GMT -5
I think you'll find it does still work, codex trumps brb on this one. The codex clearly states that these units can disembark after a 'flat out ' move so no FAQ required. Technically you are (mostly) right. It doesn't say anywhere that they disembark "after" a flat out move. I can see an argument for the 'has' meaning immediately after, but there is no reference to time or phase in the rule. Flat out then becomes a precondition for the embarked unit to disembark at any point during the Valk's normal move. So the rule would work as follows: You can move 6" in the Movement Phase and disembark at any point of that move. The Valk/Ven then must move Flat Out in the shooting phase. No contradiction between the core book and the codex. Since you can't voluntarily disembark in the shooting phase and you can't deploy if your transport moves further than 6" (which our codex rule doesn't modify) then this is how you'd have to do it RAW. I think I'll just request to use the Storm Raven version though. It seems to be what they intended for the Valk/Ven in any case.
|
|
|
Post by Rook on Jul 19, 2012 11:18:18 GMT -5
I can't find rules for "Flat Out" in the rule book. I see 'Zoom' but where is flat out?
|
|
|
Post by Deathkorpsman on Jul 19, 2012 11:32:03 GMT -5
Top left of page 72. It just has a little blurb about it. Flyers have an additional entry in their section.
|
|
|
Post by frakhead on Jul 21, 2012 4:42:30 GMT -5
I think you'll find it does still work, codex trumps brb on this one. The codex clearly states that these units can disembark after a 'flat out ' move so no FAQ required. Technically you are (mostly) right. It doesn't say anywhere that they disembark "after" a flat out move. I can see an argument for the 'has' meaning immediately after, but there is no reference to time or phase in the rule. Flat out then becomes a precondition for the embarked unit to disembark at any point during the Valk's normal move. So the rule would work as follows: You can move 6" in the Movement Phase and disembark at any point of that move. The Valk/Ven then must move Flat Out in the shooting phase. No contradiction between the core book and the codex. Since you can't voluntarily disembark in the shooting phase and you can't deploy if your transport moves further than 6" (which our codex rule doesn't modify) then this is how you'd have to do it RAW. I think I'll just request to use the Storm Raven version though. It seems to be what they intended for the Valk/Ven in any case. I am not going to quote the full rules, but it says on page 56. "If a Valkyrie or a Vendetta moves flat out, passengers may still disembark" it then tells you how to do so. So it works as written, no need to FAQ it.
|
|
|
Post by Deathkorpsman on Jul 21, 2012 5:44:29 GMT -5
The problem with that, is the mechanics of 6th edition have changed when it comes to vehicles. Grav Chute Insertion does indeed say that a unit can deploy from the Valk/Ven after a Flat Out move. I have no argument with that. But here is what it doesn't cover:
1) Can the vehicle ignore the 6" move restriction for disembarking troops? 2) Can the unit voluntarily disembark in the shooting phase (since you now normally can't, when Flat Out moves are now made. Remember it was during the movement phase in 5th)? 3) Can the unit deploy if the Valk/Ven is Zooming? 4) Does the Valk/Ven make its Flat Out in the Movement phase?
Since the codex and FAQ are silent on these points and the special rule uses game terms from the core book (flat out, disembark, etc.) we need to reconcile the rule as best we can with what is printed in the current rulebook. If the rule was more self contained, i.e. it spelled everything out rather than reference terms covered in the core book, this would be much easier as the codex would take precedence as you contend. Since it doesn't, then we need to find out what the current version of the rules it references do.
My interpretation of the above points:
1) It doesn't mention this, so the Valk/Ven can't move further than 6" in the turn it deploys troops. Easy enough.
2) This one is trickier, as it works on the conditional 'has' in the special rule. Based on that, I'd revise my earlier interpretation to be that the Valk/Ven must remain stationary in the movement phase and then flat out up to 6" in the shooting phase and deploy troops as indicated in the rule. This avoids conflict with point 1 and over-rides the core rule that you can't voluntarily disembark in the shooting phase because Grav Chute Insertion (kind of) tells us to. This part in particular makes the rule 'busted' without an FAQ according to RAW.
3) If the Valk/Ven is Zooming, it can't use Grav Chute Insertion whether it moves Flat Out or not. Its minimum move would be more than 6", meaning it can't disembark any troops, on top of Zooming transports not being able to disembark troops in general. There's an argument here that it could over-ride these core rules as easily as point 2 does, though breaking point 2 is required to make the rule work and breaking this point isn't since zooming is optional.
4) Pretty sure this is a 'no' based on the other FAQ's, but I've been wrong before.
Basically all the rules for flying transports are screwy right now, even the Necron Night Scythe which currently has the best FAQ. That FAQ listing says troops can disembark even if the Night Scythe moves up to 36", yet doesn't mention if it can do this while Zooming. That is pretty dumb, because it would have to be Zooming to move that far normally. You could make the assumption that is what it means, but if it doesn't say then it is just an assumption (RAI) vs. what the actual rules say (RAW).
My whole point with discussing this is to iron out what the rule actually says. I don't agree with the claim that it works just like it did in 5th edition, as-is with no changes. The terms have changed enough that it needs to be redefined. I plan on making it work just like it did in 5th, as a houserule, because I think that is what the designers intended it to be able to do. But before I houserule anything, I think knowing what the rule actually does is important. If someone wants to play a game by the RAW, I intend to know what the RAW is so I can deal with it.
|
|
|
Post by frakhead on Jul 21, 2012 7:59:57 GMT -5
The problem with that, is the mechanics of 6th edition have changed when it comes to vehicles. Grav Chute Insertion does indeed say that a unit can deploy from the Valk/Ven after a Flat Out move. I have no argument with that. But here is what it doesn't cover: 1) Can the vehicle ignore the 6" move restriction for disembarking troops? 2) Can the unit voluntarily disembark in the shooting phase (since you now normally can't, when Flat Out moves are now made. Remember it was during the movement phase in 5th)? 3) Can the unit deploy if the Valk/Ven is Zooming? 4) Does the Valk/Ven make its Flat Out in the Movement phase? Since the codex and FAQ are silent on these points and the special rule uses game terms from the core book (flat out, disembark, etc.) we need to reconcile the rule as best we can with what is printed in the current rulebook. If the rule was more self contained, i.e. it spelled everything out rather than reference terms covered in the core book, this would be much easier as the codex would take precedence as you contend. Since it doesn't, then we need to find out what the current version of the rules it references do. My interpretation of the above points: 1) It doesn't mention this, so the Valk/Ven can't move further than 6" in the turn it deploys troops. Easy enough. 2) This one is trickier, as it works on the conditional 'has' in the special rule. Based on that, I'd revise my earlier interpretation to be that the Valk/Ven must remain stationary in the movement phase and then flat out up to 6" in the shooting phase and deploy troops as indicated in the rule. This avoids conflict with point 1 and over-rides the core rule that you can't voluntarily disembark in the shooting phase because Grav Chute Insertion (kind of) tells us to. This part in particular makes the rule 'busted' without an FAQ according to RAW. 3) If the Valk/Ven is Zooming, it can't use Grav Chute Insertion whether it moves Flat Out or not. Its minimum move would be more than 6", meaning it can't disembark any troops, on top of Zooming transports not being able to disembark troops in general. There's an argument here that it could over-ride these core rules as easily as point 2 does, though breaking point 2 is required to make the rule work and breaking this point isn't since zooming is optional. 4) Pretty sure this is a 'no' based on the other FAQ's, but I've been wrong before. Basically all the rules for flying transports are screwy right now, even the Necron Night Scythe which currently has the best FAQ. That FAQ listing says troops can disembark even if the Night Scythe moves up to 36", yet doesn't mention if it can do this while Zooming. That is pretty dumb, because it would have to be Zooming to move that far normally. You could make the assumption that is what it means, but if it doesn't say then it is just an assumption (RAI) vs. what the actual rules say (RAW). My whole point with discussing this is to iron out what the rule actually says. I don't agree with the claim that it works just like it did in 5th edition, as-is with no changes. The terms have changed enough that it needs to be redefined. I plan on making it work just like it did in 5th, as a houserule, because I think that is what the designers intended it to be able to do. But before I houserule anything, I think knowing what the rule actually does is important. If someone wants to play a game by the RAW, I intend to know what the RAW is so I can deal with it. Where I disagree is that the RAW in the codex overrides that of the BRB, so says the BRB. The codex makes the exception with its own rules as written, which is very clearly written at that. It is also worth noting that it has its own rules when using the rule, not the one laid out in the BRB. You are the first person I have met to interpret it any other way then I have.
|
|
|
Post by Deathkorpsman on Jul 21, 2012 8:38:10 GMT -5
Where I disagree is that the RAW in the codex overrides that of the BRB, so says the BRB. The codex makes the exception with its own rules as written, which is very clearly written at that. It is also worth noting that it has its own rules when using the rule, not the one laid out in the BRB. You are the first person I have met to interpret it any other way then I have. I completely respect your view and I wholeheartedly agree that codex rules over-ride BRB rules when they directly contradict each other. My concern is when the codex references rules that aren't in the codex, but in the BRB itself, which cause problems with the rule's function. In 5th edition, Grav Chute Insertion worked perfectly. I don't think it had any flaws in the wording with any but the pickiest of rules-lawyers. However, 6th edition has changed that IMO. Without a rule revision this rule doesn't function as it did in 5th. If we ignore all the restrictions I painstakingly laid out above, then things just get whacky. You would be able to make a 60" move and deep strike troops anywhere along that line, while jinking. This could let you come in from reserves from your deployment zone, drop troops off anywhere between your board edge and the opponents, and leave combat airspace all in the same move since a normal table is only 48" wide. That doesn't sound like RAI to me. Those are extreme examples, but they would be totally legal if there are no restrictions other than what it says in the special rule. Grav Chute Insertion only has one restriction/condition for being able to disembark troops, which is that it must move Flat Out. The special rule doesn't tell us what Flat Out or Disembarking are, because those are covered in the BRB. So using those rules is not over-ridden by the codex. Lacking an effective FAQ, we are forced to reconcile the BRB rules with our special rule to find the RAW. All the people I've talked to out here eventually agree that the rule is basically unusable in its current form and needs to be houseruled, which I'm sure pretty much everyone is doing right now whether they know it or not. Otherwise the rule is a hindrance, as written.
|
|
|
Post by frakhead on Jul 21, 2012 9:26:35 GMT -5
Where I disagree is that the RAW in the codex overrides that of the BRB, so says the BRB. The codex makes the exception with its own rules as written, which is very clearly written at that. It is also worth noting that it has its own rules when using the rule, not the one laid out in the BRB. You are the first person I have met to interpret it any other way then I have. I completely respect your view and I wholeheartedly agree that codex rules over-ride BRB rules when they directly contradict each other. My concern is when the codex references rules that aren't in the codex, but in the BRB itself, which cause problems with the rule's function. In 5th edition, Grav Chute Insertion worked perfectly. I don't think it had any flaws in the wording with any but the pickiest of rules-lawyers. However, 6th edition has changed that IMO. Without a rule revision this rule doesn't function as it did in 5th. If we ignore all the restrictions I painstakingly laid out above, then things just get whacky. You would be able to make a 60" move and deep strike troops anywhere along that line, while jinking. This could let you come in from reserves from your deployment zone, drop troops off anywhere between your board edge and the opponents, and leave combat airspace all in the same move since a normal table is only 48" wide. That doesn't sound like RAI to me. Those are extreme examples, but they would be totally legal if there are no restrictions other than what it says in the special rule. Grav Chute Insertion only has one restriction/condition for being able to disembark troops, which is that it must move Flat Out. The special rule doesn't tell us what Flat Out or Disembarking are, because those are covered in the BRB. So using those rules is not over-ridden by the codex. Lacking an effective FAQ, we are forced to reconcile the BRB rules with our special rule to find the RAW. All the people I've talked to out here eventually agree that the rule is basically unusable in its current form and needs to be houseruled, which I'm sure pretty much everyone is doing right now whether they know it or not. Otherwise the rule is a hindrance, as written. The point being that it can only be done in the flat out move is the only restriction, then it is rules as written. Grav Chute Insertion is its own special rule, BRB tells you what Flat Out is, the Codex tell you how the special rule works, and that description overrules the rule book as it does not follow the normal rules in its function having its own set. I personally cannot see the contradiction, it works fine as is. I think you are over complicating it by trying to enforce the deployment rules over the special rule for the unit.
|
|
|
Post by Jackal-0311 on Jul 21, 2012 15:30:15 GMT -5
So this is how I see it...GW has stated, from day one, that the codex supper seeds the BRN. There are examples,in all armies, of: charters, elites, vehicles and even troops that have special rules that contradict the BRN. Every army has broken rules...if you use discretion you'll be ok. If your oponet dosent like it then they don't have to play you.
|
|
|
Post by Deathkorpsman on Jul 21, 2012 17:53:52 GMT -5
I completely respect your view and I wholeheartedly agree that codex rules over-ride BRB rules when they directly contradict each other. My concern is when the codex references rules that aren't in the codex, but in the BRB itself, which cause problems with the rule's function. In 5th edition, Grav Chute Insertion worked perfectly. I don't think it had any flaws in the wording with any but the pickiest of rules-lawyers. However, 6th edition has changed that IMO. Without a rule revision this rule doesn't function as it did in 5th. If we ignore all the restrictions I painstakingly laid out above, then things just get whacky. You would be able to make a 60" move and deep strike troops anywhere along that line, while jinking. This could let you come in from reserves from your deployment zone, drop troops off anywhere between your board edge and the opponents, and leave combat airspace all in the same move since a normal table is only 48" wide. That doesn't sound like RAI to me. Those are extreme examples, but they would be totally legal if there are no restrictions other than what it says in the special rule. Grav Chute Insertion only has one restriction/condition for being able to disembark troops, which is that it must move Flat Out. The special rule doesn't tell us what Flat Out or Disembarking are, because those are covered in the BRB. So using those rules is not over-ridden by the codex. Lacking an effective FAQ, we are forced to reconcile the BRB rules with our special rule to find the RAW. All the people I've talked to out here eventually agree that the rule is basically unusable in its current form and needs to be houseruled, which I'm sure pretty much everyone is doing right now whether they know it or not. Otherwise the rule is a hindrance, as written. The point being that it can only be done in the flat out move is the only restriction, then it is rules as written. Grav Chute Insertion is its own special rule, BRB tells you what Flat Out is, the Codex tell you how the special rule works, and that description overrules the rule book as it does not follow the normal rules in its function having its own set. I personally cannot see the contradiction, it works fine as is. I think you are over complicating it by trying to enforce the deployment rules over the special rule for the unit. Well we agree on a few things, based on my highlighted text above and your response, mainly that Grav Chute Insertion only has one restriction/condition for its use and that the codex supersedes the BRB when they directly contradict. What I was trying to point out is that the special rule doesn't tell you how to make a flat out move or how disembarking works, so we need to reference the BRB (this can't be a contradiction as it is the only way to find the rules). My second interpretation of the rule is the least contradictory application of both the special rule and BRB rules as written. The problem with Grav Chute Insertion is entirely in the first sentence. It worked fine in 5th edition because Flat Out was part of the Movement Phase, there were no Zooming rules, and disembarking from transports didn't have a 6" movement restriction. The entire rest of the rule is not part of my discussion because it doesn't directly contradict any other rules. When a special rule says to do something, especially when it says to do something that is defined in the BRB instead of the codex, then we don't get to arbitrarily decide what that means and how to use it. We HAVE to use the rules as written in the BRB. I disagree that this is over-analyzing, it is just plain old healthy analysis. So this is how I see it...GW has stated, from day one, that the codex supper seeds the BRN. There are examples,in all armies, of: charters, elites, vehicles and even troops that have special rules that contradict the BRN. Every army has broken rules...if you use discretion you'll be ok. If your oponet dosent like it then they don't have to play you. You are correct and I've been stating this from the start. Where there is a direct contradiction the codex wins and I plan on houseruling Grav Chute Insertion so that it works in my games. If I plan on using the rule and someone insists on using the badly flawed RAW, then I will either use a different list/strat or not play them.
|
|
|
Post by frakhead on Jul 21, 2012 18:29:47 GMT -5
The point being that it can only be done in the flat out move is the only restriction, then it is rules as written. Grav Chute Insertion is its own special rule, BRB tells you what Flat Out is, the Codex tell you how the special rule works, and that description overrules the rule book as it does not follow the normal rules in its function having its own set. I personally cannot see the contradiction, it works fine as is. I think you are over complicating it by trying to enforce the deployment rules over the special rule for the unit. Well we agree on a few things, based on my highlighted text above and your response, mainly that Grav Chute Insertion only has one restriction/condition for its use and that the codex supersedes the BRB when they directly contradict. What I was trying to point out is that the special rule doesn't tell you how to make a flat out move or how disembarking works, so we need to reference the BRB (this can't be a contradiction as it is the only way to find the rules). My second interpretation of the rule is the least contradictory application of both the special rule and BRB rules as written. The problem with Grav Chute Insertion is entirely in the first sentence. It worked fine in 5th edition because Flat Out was part of the Movement Phase, there were no Zooming rules, and disembarking from transports didn't have a 6" movement restriction. The entire rest of the rule is not part of my discussion because it doesn't directly contradict any other rules. When a special rule says to do something, especially when it says to do something that is defined in the BRB instead of the codex, then we don't get to arbitrarily decide what that means and how to use it. We HAVE to use the rules as written in the BRB. I disagree that this is over-analyzing, it is just plain old healthy analysis. So this is how I see it...GW has stated, from day one, that the codex supper seeds the BRN. There are examples,in all armies, of: charters, elites, vehicles and even troops that have special rules that contradict the BRN. Every army has broken rules...if you use discretion you'll be ok. If your oponet dosent like it then they don't have to play you. You are correct and I've been stating this from the start. Where there is a direct contradiction the codex wins and I plan on houseruling Grav Chute Insertion so that it works in my games. If I plan on using the rule and someone insists on using the badly flawed RAW, then I will either use a different list/strat or not play them. The codex is very clear that it can only happen when you go flatout it does not mention the movement phase at all... So you either go 6 or you go 12-24 flat out.
|
|
|
Post by Ymmot (M.I.A) on Jul 21, 2012 19:20:35 GMT -5
RAW says you can deepstrike out of a valk at any point it has moved over when it goes Flat Out.
Deepstrike, by the way...does not follow the rules for disembarking from a transport vehicle.
It really is that simple.
|
|
|
Post by Rook on Jul 21, 2012 19:35:48 GMT -5
RAW says you can deepstrike out of a valk at any point it has moved over when it goes Flat Out. Deepstrike, by the way...does not follow the rules for disembarking from a transport vehicle. It really is that simple. This!
|
|