|
Post by Jackal-0311 on Jul 21, 2012 19:59:46 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. Damn...you you just opened a can of whoopass with this idea!
|
|
|
Post by Deathkorpsman on Jul 22, 2012 8:59:56 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 is by far the best response I've received of a different interpretation of the RAW than what I've been thinking about. It still leaves many parts of the rule unresolved, as I pointed out. In fact, it brings up some new ones I hadn't originally been considering because I was only looking at the first sentence in the rule (which incidentally was replaced in all other FAQ's regarding units with similar rules, such as the Stormraven, having any reference to Flat Out removed). Grav Chute Insertion actually specifically says the unit is disembarking and deploys "as if" deep striking. The unit doesn't have to have the deep strike rule and doesn't have to roll for reserves to use it. For the Valk/Ven (as opposed to the new FAQ for the Stormraven), it doesn't even have to occur in the Movement Phase. So the only part of Deep Striking that is actually used in the rule is resolving where the unit ends up on the board. I don't have a problem with this. I think it works fine. Anyone with a few grains of common sense can see what this part of the rule is trying to do. Since the unit is still disembarking (according to the rule itself), in a turn other than the movement phase, I am left wondering how to resolve all the other inconsistencies with it. So by RAW, it isn't simple at all. Do we get 60" (36" move and then 24" Flat Out) Zooming Valkyries coming onto and leaving the board in the same turn while dropping Storm Troopers off next to Skyfire capable units to kill them so the Valkyrie can come in from ongoing reserves next turn and wreak havoc? This doesn't seem like what the rule was written to do, or was intended to do. I'm not trying to be obtuse or a rules lawyer (from the response, I could be failing). I plan on playing it how the rule was originally intended. I wouldn't dream of wasting time at a game trying to sort this out. But I do think rules that have had basic core aspects changed by the new rules edition should be discussed if lacking guidance from the game writers. Disembarking is a basic core rule that has changed. Flat Out has changed. Flyers have been added. Lots of core principles that the special rule doesn't tell us how to resolve have changed. I'm not going to tell anyone how they should play it in their games. I brought up the topic to see if people were getting the same impression of the rule (that it is outdated and basically needs to be houseruled until an FAQ comes along) as I did, so that how the rule technically works in 6th edition (RAW) can be established and logical interpretations (RAI) could be figured out. I don't think a reference of "as if it were deep striking" satisfies all those other issues.
|
|
|
Post by Ymmot (M.I.A) on Jul 22, 2012 13:08:43 GMT -5
Do we get 60" (36" move and then 24" Flat Out) Zooming Valkyries coming onto and leaving the board in the same turn while dropping Storm Troopers off next to Skyfire capable units to kill them so the Valkyrie can come in from ongoing reserves next turn and wreak havoc? This doesn't seem like what the rule was written to do, or was intended to do. Yes, because the special rule says you can disembark units via deepstrike after the vehicle has moved flat out. If you're following the rule as written that is the only thing you need to concern yourself over. maybe an FAQ will change it..but the codex overrides the rule book...even when it goes against typical turn procedure. For example the necrons have a unit with a special rule that allows to deepstrike on an opponent's turn. I hadn't seen the BA FAQ yet but after looking at it just now, that does make sense that perhaps this is what they meant the special rule to do...so playing it that way is likely the most reasonable.
|
|
|
Post by frakhead on Jul 22, 2012 14:15:28 GMT -5
Grav Chute Insertion actually specifically says the unit is disembarking and deploys "as if" deep striking. The unit doesn't have to have the deep strike rule and doesn't have to roll for reserves to use it. For the Valk/Ven (as opposed to the new FAQ for the Stormraven), it doesn't even have to occur in the Movement Phase. So the only part of Deep Striking that is actually used in the rule is resolving where the unit ends up on the board. I don't have a problem with this. I think it works fine. Anyone with a few grains of common sense can see what this part of the rule is trying to do. Since the unit is still disembarking (according to the rule itself), in a turn other than the movement phase, I am left wondering how to resolve all the other inconsistencies with it. So by RAW, it isn't simple at all. Do we get 60" (36" move and then 24" Flat Out) Zooming Valkyries coming onto and leaving the board in the same turn while dropping Storm Troopers off next to Skyfire capable units to kill them so the Valkyrie can come in from ongoing reserves next turn and wreak havoc? This doesn't seem like what the rule was written to do, or was intended to do. You are trying to apply a mindset belonging to 5th edition to 6th edition. As things stand, it works as written, and only causes a few raised eyebrows. It is a nifty rule that makes the Valkyrie different to all the others. As for RAI, Glory Boys and/or Veterans dropping behind enemy lines to take out defences is part of what they do, and you have just explained how they are said to do such things. Going by the Valkyries background, it is as much a gunship as a transport, meant for rapid insertion (quit the girlie giggling at the back) so the rule still fits. It is very cinematic! The rule isn't risk free, but it is high reward for the daring... I like it as is, and it works as is. It may get a rewrite, but I personally do not see the need.
|
|
|
Post by treadiculous on Jul 22, 2012 17:32:35 GMT -5
- Deathkorpsman : I like what you are doing here, well done and thank you for you consistently clear and polite responses, this is definetly an area which can cause discussion / arguement around a table if it isn't raised and an agreement made before-hand.
|
|
|
Post by Deathkorpsman on Jul 22, 2012 23:03:53 GMT -5
Yes, because the special rule says you can disembark units via deepstrike after the vehicle has moved flat out. If you're following the rule as written that is the only thing you need to concern yourself over.maybe an FAQ will change it..but the codex overrides the rule book...even when it goes against typical turn procedure. For example the necrons have a unit with a special rule that allows to deepstrike on an opponent's turn. I hadn't seen the BA FAQ yet but after looking at it just now, that does make sense that perhaps this is what they meant the special rule to do...so playing it that way is likely the most reasonable. The part of your response that I highlighted above is the main part I don't agree with. Yes, you follow a codex's special rule to the letter and, where there is a direct contradiction with the BRB, the codex trumps. But where there isn't a direct contradiction, i.e. you can reconcile BRB rules that are used to perform the codex special rule, then you are supposed to. Grav Chute Insertion (GCI) saying "has moved flat out" does not, in my opinion, constitute carte blanche to ignore every other rule for disembarking troops covered in the core rules. Neither does "deploy as if it were deep striking" actually mean the unit used Deep Strike to enter the game. It is telling us the method of placement and nothing more (note you can't even have Deep Strike Mishaps doing this anymore, which is circumstantial evidence that it only wants us to use part of the rule as an aid, rather than the rule in total). Assuming it means actual deep striking is giving the wording too much meaning. GCI can be resolved, as written, only violating one restriction for disembarking troops and work if my revised interpretation of the rule is employed. Otherwise at least four core rules are being ignored. Based on that, remaining stationary and using Flat Out while in skimmer mode seems to be the best reconciliation between the special rule and the BRB as RAW. It is completely useless in that way, but my point was how the rule is written to work, which is - currently - quite badly. In 5th ed. it was fine though, almost foolproof. My houserule is going to be something like: Replace the first sentence of Grav Chute Insertion with: "The Valkyrie or Vendetta can move up to 36" in the Movement Phase and still disembark troops, though troops may not embark and disembark in the same turn. This disembarkation can be performed even if Zooming. The disembarking unit deploys as follows." - Deathkorpsman : I like what you are doing here, well done and thank you for you consistently clear and polite responses, this is definetly an area which can cause discussion / arguement around a table if it isn't raised and an agreement made before-hand. Yay! Positive feedback! Discussion is fun but it's nice to be appreciated. ;D
|
|
|
Post by Ymmot (M.I.A) on Jul 22, 2012 23:31:48 GMT -5
The part of your response that I highlighted above is the main part I don't agree with. Yes, you follow a codex's special rule to the letter and, where there is a direct contradiction with the BRB, the codex trumps. But where there isn't a direct contradiction, i.e. you can reconcile BRB rules that are used to perform the codex special rule, then you are supposed to. There is a direct contradiction. The special rule says you can disembark after you move flat out. Grav Chute Insertion (GCI) saying "has moved flat out" does not, in my opinion, constitute carte blanche to ignore every other rule for disembarking troops covered in the core rules. Neither does "deploy as if it were deep striking" actually mean the unit used Deep Strike to enter the game. It is telling us the method of placement and nothing more (note you can't even have Deep Strike Mishaps doing this anymore, which is circumstantial evidence that it only wants us to use part of the rule as an aid, rather than the rule in total). Why not? and mishaps still work just fine...they still have a potential to scatter after placement. Based on that, remaining stationary and using Flat Out while in skimmer mode seems to be the best reconciliation between the special rule and the BRB as RAW. It is completely useless in that way, but my point was how the rule is written to work, which is - currently - quite badly. In 5th ed. it was fine though, almost foolproof. This makes no sense what so ever...nothing I can see in the rules supports this interpretation
|
|
|
Post by Deathkorpsman on Jul 23, 2012 0:11:34 GMT -5
There is a direct contradiction. The special rule says you can disembark after you move flat out. Exactly! And in my second interpretation, after I'd thought about it a bit more, I corrected for this. Disembarking troops in the Shooting Phase, and at any point during a Flat Out move, are the only restrictions the special rule REQUIRES us to ignore to avoid a direct contradiction. Nothing else in the rule requires further contradictions with the BRB, as written. Why not? and mishaps still work just fine...they still have a potential to scatter after placement. The IG FAQ for GCI takes out the reference to Deep Strike mishaps. Based on that, remaining stationary and using Flat Out while in skimmer mode seems to be the best reconciliation between the special rule and the BRB as RAW. It is completely useless in that way, but my point was how the rule is written to work, which is - currently - quite badly. In 5th ed. it was fine though, almost foolproof. This makes no sense what so ever...nothing I can see in the rules supports this interpretation I've already laid out where the rules support this interpretation in previous posts on this thread. It essentially boils down to this: The above interpretation works with the minimum number of direct contradictions with the BRB. Saying that a Flat Out move allows us to ignore all other restrictions for disembarking troops is not something GCI is telling us to do. We only NEED to ignore two to use the rule, so why would we ignore several when the rule doesn't tell us to? That is my whole point in discussing the RAW of this rule.
|
|
|
Post by Ymmot (M.I.A) on Jul 23, 2012 0:36:26 GMT -5
The IG FAQ for GCI takes out the reference to Deep Strike mishaps. but the rule still says you deploy the units as if it were arriving as a deep strike...mishaps are part of the deep stirke rules. Saying that a Flat Out move allows us to ignore all other restrictions for disembarking troops is not something GCI is telling us to do. Yes it does. It says if you move flat out you can still disembark...but must do so in a certain way, which is to deploy as if arrivng by deep strike. I currently believe the FAQ for BA's Skies of Blood will be the eventual ruling for this...as both rules are worded very similarly and allow basically the same deployment options... but as currenlt worded...it still strikes me as being pretty simple...
|
|
|
Post by Deathkorpsman on Jul 23, 2012 0:58:16 GMT -5
The IG FAQ for GCI takes out the reference to Deep Strike mishaps. but the rule still says you deploy the units as if it were arriving as a deep strike...mishaps are part of the deep stirke rules. Right, it says deploy as if deep striking, but goes on to tell us that if any models can't be placed then the unit is destroyed instead of suffering a mishap. The FAQ clarifies that a little. It doesn't say "instead of" a mishap, but since the unit is outright destroyed it can't suffer a mishap. GCI also doesn't require the unit to start in reserves or deploy in the movement phase, which are also normally required to deep strike. The only part of deep strike that is used is placement on the table (i.e. scatter, formation, effects of terrain/other models). It probably would have been better for the writers to give it a self-contained deployment rule that mirrored deep strike instead of referencing it, as that would minimize conflicts from a rules change, but that isn't what they did. Saying that a Flat Out move allows us to ignore all other restrictions for disembarking troops is not something GCI is telling us to do. Yes it does. It says if you move flat out you can still disembark...but must do so in a certain way, which is to deploy as if arrivng by deep strike. You might be right. I don't think it means us to do that, but the wording isn't clear in this edition. If we ignore every restriction on disembarking, which I've pointed out isn't required to use the rule, then this is what we get: Passengers can embark and disembark in the same turn. Passengers can disembark after the transport moved further than 6". Passengers can disembark in the Shooting Phase. Passengers can disembark while the transport is Zooming. All of these normally prevent a unit from voluntarily disembarking a transport. Using the method I describe, we can satisfy all of these conditions except for disembarking in the shooting phase. Since moving Flat Out is a precondition to using the rule, disembarking in the Shooting Phase is required to use the rule. In this case, the Codex rule trumps because it is a direct contradiction. It also trumps the normal rules for Deep Strike, using only the deployment rules to determine the unit's position on the ground. The rule doesn't NEED to ignore the other restrictions in order to work. It just works very badly. Making a flat out move doesn't allow you to throw every rule out the window from the core book, only the ones you MUST ignore in order to use the rule.
|
|
|
Post by treadiculous on Jul 23, 2012 4:01:45 GMT -5
It didn't get a chance to say this yesterday, but Ymmot is also deserving of praise here.
Both of you are making good arguements for and againts the interpretations, I understand what you both are saying and still can't make my own mind up!
Until a better FAQ comes out I feel this will be one to discuss with opponents.. as I can see it, each codex has a number of rules quibbles like these, where one interpretation is either worse or better than another... therefore it shouldn't be too hard to agre with your opponent to using the more powerful interpretations for both armies, or all using the less powerful.
keep it up guys, you're making great reading!
|
|
|
Post by Laughing Man on Jul 23, 2012 5:13:23 GMT -5
In the event my opponent disagreed i would use the most ancient method of a dreadsock duel to determine who was right...or just roll a dice whichever caused more destruction.
|
|
|
Post by Deathkorpsman on Jul 23, 2012 5:47:31 GMT -5
In the event my opponent disagreed i would use the most ancient method of a dreadsock duel to determine who was right...or just roll a dice whichever caused more destruction. This is occasionally necessary. Some people just don't respect anything short of the dreadsock.
|
|
|
Post by Ymmot (M.I.A) on Jul 23, 2012 10:12:53 GMT -5
The FAQ clarifies that a little. It doesn't say "instead of" a mishap, but since the unit is outright destroyed it can't suffer a mishap. Well yeah, there is that.
|
|
|
Post by Laughing Man on Jul 23, 2012 11:23:11 GMT -5
In the event my opponent disagreed i would use the most ancient method of a dreadsock duel to determine who was right...or just roll a dice whichever caused more destruction. This is occasionally necessary. Some people just don't respect anything short of the dreadsock. We have three punishments at my gaming club, either a suplex from the wrestler who is a member, a dreadsocking or 5 minutes locked in the terrain cupboard.
|
|
|
Post by Ymmot (M.I.A) on Jul 23, 2012 21:11:40 GMT -5
It didn't get a chance to say this yesterday, but Ymmot is also deserving of praise here. Thanks... and for now I think I am just going to forget about this whole mess and house rule it to use the wording provided in the Blood Angels FAQ entry for Skies of Blood, the part of the entry it says to replace is pretty much word for word what it says in the entry for Grav Chute Insertion. (it only replaces Valkyrie/Vendetta with Stromraven.)
|
|
|
Post by Deathkorpsman on Jul 23, 2012 23:11:18 GMT -5
It didn't get a chance to say this yesterday, but Ymmot is also deserving of praise here. Thanks... and for now I think I am just going to forget about this whole mess and house rule it to use the wording provided in the Blood Angels FAQ entry for Skies of Blood, the part of the entry it says to replace is pretty much word for word what it says in the entry for Grav Chute Insertion. (it only replaces Valkyrie/Vendetta with Stromraven.) Alas, I should probably do the same. Derailing this thread has been illuminating though! Cheers all!
|
|