So I was told when I was proposing a variation of strategy based on these rules in the tactics section that this circumstance is under debate here still so I wanted to put for my reasoning and hear what counter reasoning there is to this situation.

Now,

1st: Mordrak does not contain the IC special rule, but since when he is apart of a unit of Ghost Knights or by the very fact that he can be apart of them should allow that you can join any IC to him and/or his squad. I similarly join a Tyranid Prime to a unit of Carnifex for a great combined effect.

2nd: The Cambridge Dictionary defines the verb to accompany as, "to go with someone or to be provided or exist at the same time as something" which more than meets the requirements of First into the Fray special rule as Mordrak is mos definately accompanying the storm raven he is embarked on by that definition which must be accepted (especially since it is the British definition) since neither the BRB nor Codex Grey Knights defines the criteria of what it is to accompany in any way that supersedes the definition. There is neither a listing for the word nor a single case use that can be used as an example as the sole definition within the context of the game.

3rd: The only questionable part of this seems to be the fact that in First into the Fray it clearly states that any Unit he accompanies, so the burden would fall to me to define a transport vehicle within the context of the rule-book as unit, except the BRB already does so on page 36 of the BRB "...units that must deploy via deep strike (along with any models embarked upon them)" and based on the wording it would seem that a transport and any embarked unit essentially count as a single unit in a few instances more: If a vehicle is assaulted then the unit embarked can fire over watch just as if you were assaulting it (the embarked unit); you can never assault a unit you didn't shoot at unless is is a unit that was forced to disembark from a vehicle you shot at which again eludes to instances of two separate units being treated as one when dealing with the transition of one phase to the other or (espeically in) dealing with Grey Knight special rules: Coteaz's I've been expecting you allows you to shoot at both a drop pod and the unit embarked once they enter his line of site which means that even thought the squad is disembarking from the vehicle they are still considered to have just entered via deep strike as a part of it.

I think the case is made, I am not sure why it would be in question unless no one has done the reading yet or maybe I was mislead, but I believe this argument has shifted the Burden of Proof to a GW faq or if someone can find an instance of what rule this circumstance would be breaking.

Well technically GW defines being inside of a transport embarked.

Unfortunately there's also this;

6. Dictionary definitions of words are not always a reliable source of information for rules debates, as words in the general English language have broader meanings than those in the rules. This is further compounded by the fact that certain English words have different meanings or connotations in Great Britain (where the rules were written) and in the United States. Unless a poster is using a word incorrectly in a very obvious manner, leave dictionary definitions out.

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:
Well technically GW defines being inside of a transport embarked.

Unfortunately there's also this;

6. Dictionary definitions of words are not always a reliable source of information for rules debates, as words in the general English language have broader meanings than those in the rules. This is further compounded by the fact that certain English words have different meanings or connotations in Great Britain (where the rules were written) and in the United States. Unless a poster is using a word incorrectly in a very obvious manner, leave dictionary definitions out.

Had GW taken the time to define the word "Accompany" as they did in many other instances where the definition of a word may come into question then I would be inclined to agree with you, but since a British Dictionary is the only objective means by which we can discuss the meaning of the word in question (not what synonyms it might have in the context of the game) it must be accepted as defined by it. The basics in debate is finding a concrete premise to build on which I have done with examples from the BRB as well as the Codex and objective third party definitions that meet the criteria. This is the only way one can have a successful debate in hopes to reach any kind of conclusion outside of raw opinion.

So, I'm sorry but unless you can prove that the Cambridge dictionary is irrelevant when discussing the meanings of words when used by the British I must disregard your premise as just an opinion and does not detract from my previous argument.

That being said, generally "accompany" is seen to mean that they're in the same unit. So an independent character could join Mordrak and his Ghost Knights and accompany them, but not the Storm Raven they are embarked upon.

 Ghaz wrote:
That being said, generally "accompany" is seen to mean that they're in the same unit. So an independent character could join Mordrak and his Ghost Knights and accompany them, but not the Storm Raven they are embarked upon.

Okay, I thank you for your opinion, but again: does anyone have any instance of a rule this would be breaking as that is the only argument that can be made against this unless someone has an instance of where the BRB defines accompany or limits its wording in any way; because I looked, and I can't find one in either the BRB, any FAQ or Codex Grey Knights.

I defined the word exactly as it is in the dictionary, a British dictionary, what the word generally means doesn't effect this rule.

Except as has been pointed out, your interpretation requires a very narrow rules definition of the word "accompany" that has no support. Please provide one instance of the rules stating that an embarked unit is "accompanying" the vehicle, otherwise there is nothing to suppor your leap of logic. You embark on a vehicle, you don't accompany it.

 Sorginak wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:
That being said, generally "accompany" is seen to mean that they're in the same unit. So an independent character could join Mordrak and his Ghost Knights and accompany them, but not the Storm Raven they are embarked upon.

Okay, I thank you for your opinion, but again: does anyone have any instance of a rule this would be breaking as that is the only argument that can be made against this unless someone has an instance of where the BRB defines accompany or limits its wording in any way; because I looked, and I can't find one in either the BRB, any FAQ or Codex Grey Knights.

I defined the word exactly as it is in the dictionary, a British dictionary, what the word generally means doesn't effect this rule.

As Ghaz and I have said/hinted upon. Show me in the rules where accompany ='s embarked.

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:

 Sorginak wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:
That being said, generally "accompany" is seen to mean that they're in the same unit. So an independent character could join Mordrak and his Ghost Knights and accompany them, but not the Storm Raven they are embarked upon.

Okay, I thank you for your opinion, but again: does anyone have any instance of a rule this would be breaking as that is the only argument that can be made against this unless someone has an instance of where the BRB defines accompany or limits its wording in any way; because I looked, and I can't find one in either the BRB, any FAQ or Codex Grey Knights.

I defined the word exactly as it is in the dictionary, a British dictionary, what the word generally means doesn't effect this rule.

As Ghaz and I have said/hinted upon. Show me in the rules where accompany ='s embarked.

See, this is why I hate arguing on the internet: no one understands the fundamentals of debate or the concept of the burden of proof. This isn't some "Validity of the History of the world as noted by your religion" debate where you can just I know you are but what am I your way out of this.

I can't show you where in the BRB it states, "A unit embarking in a vehicle shall henceforth be known as accompanying it" just like you can't show me a single instance where the BRB limits the meaning of the word or uses it in a clear definition as, it refers to Characters and Independent Characters as "Joining" units and in no way refers to them as accompanying them on either page 63 or 39 where both of those are defined, nor does it limit it in the definition of a unit on page 3 which actually solidifies part of my argument by defining a Unit to encompass vehicles. So by your own logic, his rule invalidates itself as he can never accompany a unit per the rules of 40k.

Sorry if I am being a dick about this, but I don't care much for opinion when rules come into question. I am a Communications Major with an emphasis on Psychology and Epistemology, digging to the root truth of a matter is what I do and while I hate sounding so arrogant as to state that my logic is flawless, I cannot find fault with it and I put my argument here to see if it is solid and based on logic and the definition and mechanics of the game, all which have stood up. This is clearly an example of where they purposefully left a definition broad to encompass many things like they did in many a codex just before 6th edition (like "Power Weapon") which unless clarified in a FAQ must stand as read.

 Sorginak wrote:


except the BRB already does so on page 36 of the BRB "...units that must deploy via deep strike (along with any models embarked upon them)" and based on the wording it would seem that a transport and any embarked unit essentially count as a single unit in a few instances more

I think the case is made, I am not sure why it would be in question unless no one has done the reading yet or maybe I was mislead, but I believe this argument has shifted the Burden of Proof to a GW faq or if someone can find an instance of what rule this circumstance would be breaking.

First it be breaking the flyer rules, as they must start in reserves. Second, an SR nor Mordak are units that MUST deepstrike so the above does nothing. Last, if you can not sure us the rule then the rule does not exist and has no baring over the game. This rule set is a premisive one or in other terms it doesn't saw I can't does not mean I can.

The fault I find in your logic is with accompany. A unit inside a transport does not go with the transport. The unit is not going anywhere. They do not accompany a transport in a normal sense as you claim, nor do they exist with the transport at the same time.

Instead a transported unit is removed from the table and is not moving at all. They give the transported unit very different and unique rules to define what its movement and shooting count as, and these rules do not accompany the vehicle rules, they stand apart from how the vehicle fires weapons and moves. In addition the units never exist together at the same time. For the transported models to exist on the tabletop they must disembark. You can not target the transport and have 'accompanying' models take hits as they units do not exist together and are not accompanying each other as a unit made of models in coherency as part of a squad do.

Are they two separate units? Why yes, they are.Does Mordrak have permission to bring in TWO units? No, he doesn't. Fundamentals of debate, you got nothing to stand on. Deal with it.

This is seriously being debated?
I mean....come on. There's RAW, and then there's rules lawerying.
Worse still, this is a no brainer.
"If he deploys via deepstrike, mordrk and any unit he accompanies will automatically arrive in your first turn and will not scatter." Page 40, Grey Knights.
So the idea is, as i understand it, you take mordrak, his ghost knights and a stormraven deep strike turn one.
Your argument is assuming that a unit embarked upon a vehcle is actually accompanied by the GK.
So let me ask you this: do you accompany a buss?

 Sorginak wrote:
2nd: The Cambridge Dictionary defines the verb to accompany as, "to go with someone or to be provided or exist at the same time as something" which more than meets the requirements of First into the Fray special rule as Mordrak is mos definately accompanying the storm raven he is embarked on by that definition which must be accepted (especially since it is the British definition) since neither the BRB nor Codex Grey Knights defines the criteria of what it is to accompany in any way that supersedes the definition. There is neither a listing for the word nor a single case use that can be used as an example as the sole definition within the context of the game.

BRB Page 39 wrote:An Independent Character can begin the game already with a unit, ...

BRB Page 39 wrote:An Independent Character can leave a unit during the Movement phase by moving out of unit coherency with it.

BRB Page 39 wrote:Special rules that are conferred to the unit only apply for as long as the Independent Character is with them.

There's more - so we can guarantee that "with" == "joined to" as far as the BRB is concerned.
Accompany, per your definition, means to go with someone. We know that to go with must mean to be joined to. Therefore Mordrak cannot accompany a Storm Raven as he's specifically forbidden from joining it.

 Sorginak wrote:

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:

 Sorginak wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:
That being said, generally "accompany" is seen to mean that they're in the same unit. So an independent character could join Mordrak and his Ghost Knights and accompany them, but not the Storm Raven they are embarked upon.

Okay, I thank you for your opinion, but again: does anyone have any instance of a rule this would be breaking as that is the only argument that can be made against this unless someone has an instance of where the BRB defines accompany or limits its wording in any way; because I looked, and I can't find one in either the BRB, any FAQ or Codex Grey Knights.

I defined the word exactly as it is in the dictionary, a British dictionary, what the word generally means doesn't effect this rule.

As Ghaz and I have said/hinted upon. Show me in the rules where accompany ='s embarked.

See, this is why I hate arguing on the internet: no one understands the fundamentals of debate or the concept of the burden of proof. This isn't some "Validity of the History of the world as noted by your religion" debate where you can just I know you are but what am I your way out of this.

I can't show you where in the BRB it states, "A unit embarking in a vehicle shall henceforth be known as accompanying it" just like you can't show me a single instance where the BRB limits the meaning of the word or uses it in a clear definition as, it refers to Characters and Independent Characters as "Joining" units and in no way refers to them as accompanying them on either page 63 or 39 where both of those are defined, nor does it limit it in the definition of a unit on page 3 which actually solidifies part of my argument by defining a Unit to encompass vehicles. So by your own logic, his rule invalidates itself as he can never accompany a unit per the rules of 40k.

Sorry if I am being a dick about this, but I don't care much for opinion when rules come into question. I am a Communications Major with an emphasis on Psychology and Epistemology, digging to the root truth of a matter is what I do and while I hate sounding so arrogant as to state that my logic is flawless, I cannot find fault with it and I put my argument here to see if it is solid and based on logic and the definition and mechanics of the game, all which have stood up. This is clearly an example of where they purposefully left a definition broad to encompass many things like they did in many a codex just before 6th edition (like "Power Weapon") which unless clarified in a FAQ must stand as read.

you're entirely too hung up on the definition. It's not really a debate when you're going neener neener I don't like your opinion so I'm obviously right.

For the record it doesn't matter what you are, Psyc, epist, savant, pope, your logic is not flawless, you're just a tid full of yourself (perhaps)

Well, he's wrong even using the definition - as I proved.

As a small addition to this argument, I believe the only time a unit and a transport vehicle are considered as a single entity is with dedicated transports (e.g. drop pods, rhino's, etc.).

As defined in the rulebook, Mordrak has to declare his deployment before units are placed on the board. I.E. he has to declare if he is deepstriking using his special rule or declare he is boarding the transport. Dedicated transports are different in this respect, since the unit starts the game inside the transport before it is even placed on the board (though you do have the option, as explicitly outlined in the rules, to have the units disembark before they deploy).

Even dedicated transports and their units are never considered a single entity. They are grouped for certain specified purposes, but they're still always separate units.

Nothing forces units to embark in their dedicated transports, either, unless they're Outflanking with them.

As for the original question, rigel2 and jdjamesdean have it covered.

The 40k rules in this context are clearly referring to a character accompanying/joined to a squad, and vice-versa. No such state ever exists between a character and a vehicle in 40k.

jdjamesdean in his first post quoted the Tenets of You Make Da Call, which explain why dictionary definitions are not to be relied upon in rules discussion as a matter of general usage.

Since I see no one is willing to actually find any examples of the use of the word accompany in relevance to the BRB I found the only three entries in which the word is used (unless I missed one or two):

Pg. 138 "...and its missionaries who often accompany Imperial exploratory vessels."

Pg. 159 "A Missionary is a particularly fervent individual who finds hlmself at the forefront of Imperial expansion. Sent to rediscovered worlds or to accompany a crusading army, it is his task to bring the Emperor's light to lost civilisations."

Pg. 232 "A BETRAYAL OF BODY
Accompanying the cultist down the path to ruination is the mutant."

Then there is the question of whether a unit and transport are ever considered a single entity for the purposes of deep strike and special rules:

Pg 124, "First, he must specify to the opponent if any of his Independent Characters left in reserve are joining a unit, in which case they will arrive together. Similarly, the player must specify if any units in reserve are embarked upon any Transport vehicles in reserve, in which case they will arrive together."

It doesn't get much more clear than that with the 1.1 FAQ that clearly states, "If Mordrak arrives via deep strike...and any unit he accompanies".

See, this is why I asked for examples out of the book. Opinions are one thing, the truth when backed by evidence is another. Clearly, GW uses accompany the way I use it, in the broad sense of the term to encompass many different scenarios which all mean the same thing: To accompany = to go with. When a unit arrives via reserves or deep strike they are arriving with the transport they are embarked on. When I embark on a bus I am not directly accompanying that bus, but I am accompanying it down the street.

And yes jdjamesdean@mail.com, I am full of myself. (Obviously, I play Inquisition and Dark Eldar). I always assume I am right until someone proves me wrong and the only judgement I accept is objective truth. This has made me very good at compiling arguments and defending ideas because unless you are willing to completely devote yourself to playing devil's advocate you will never be the one to break new ground or have the gall to stand up to and entire group of people to prove a point. I listed my credentials not as a means of tooting my own horn but as a challenge to anyone who thinks I am wrong letting them know that this isn't going to devolve into some troll fest nor have I violated any of the tenants of YMDC though the same can't be said for those who attack me instead of my argument (thanks for trying though). I'm hung up on a definition because the entire meaning of a special rule rests on it.

Are there any other examples anyone would like to bring up or can we put this to rest now?

Did you ignore my post completely?

 Sorginak wrote:
Since I see no one is willing to actually find any examples of the use of the word accompany in relevance to the BRB I found the only three entries in which the word is used (unless I missed one or two):

Then there is the question of whether a unit and transport are ever considered a single entity for the purposes of deep strike and special rules:

Pg 124, "First, he must specify to the opponent if any of his Independent Characters left in reserve are joining a unit, in which case they will arrive together. Similarly, the player must specify if any units in reserve are embarked upon any Transport vehicles in reserve, in which case they will arrive together."

It doesn't get much more clear than that with the 1.1 FAQ that clearly states, "If Mordrak arrives via deep strike...and any unit he accompanies"

A character and a squad can accompany one another by the IC joining the unit, per the IC rules. As the IC rules detail, when joined to a unit the IC functions as part of the unit.

 Sorginak wrote:
Since I see no one is willing to actually find any examples of the use of the word accompany in relevance to the BRB I found the only three entries in which the word is used (unless I missed one or two):

Pg. 138 "...and its missionaries who often accompany Imperial exploratory vessels."

Pg. 159 "A Missionary is a particularly fervent individual who finds hlmself at the forefront of Imperial expansion. Sent to rediscovered worlds or to accompany a crusading army, it is his task to bring the Emperor's light to lost civilisations."

Pg. 232 "A BETRAYAL OF BODY
Accompanying the cultist down the path to ruination is the mutant."

None of which are rules and none of which support your position.

rigeld2 wrote:
Did you ignore my post completely?

Sorry, I wasn't going to address everyone's post individually. but no, I addressed your comments in my post with examples of what GW means when they use the word "Accompany" directly from the BRB. It took me hours of reading to get that rebuttal, I'm actually insulted that you think I didn't read everyone's answers before posting that last bit.

 Mannahnin wrote:
A character and a squad can accompany one another by the IC joining the unit, per the IC rules. As the IC rules detail, when joined to a unit the IC functions as part of the unit.

I was about to thank you for providing an argument from the book, but what you just said isn't how it is worded in the BRB... at all. No where on that entire page does it use the word Accompany.

If you people want me to accept your narrow version of the word Accompany, you're going to have to find it somewhere in written form from GW in some manner that states a limitation of it because according to them a Missionary can accompany a vessel and when an IC joins a unit or embarks upon a transport they arrive together. I can see how you would mean in the paragraph about Special Rules, but his special rule clearly states "if he arrives via deep strike". You can arrive via deep strike in a couple of different ways, one of which is embarked upon a transport with the deep strike special rule.

I mean, what part of the broad use of this word is being lost. Why would they change the phrase from deploys via deep strike to arrives via deep strike for 6th if not to ensure that it matches the criteria laid down in the reserves special rule for a unit arriving via deep strike (either in a transport or no, joined by IC or no) they all arrive together which is to say, granted by the definition utilized by GW in the BRB, they accompany each other to the battle field.

 Sorginak wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Did you ignore my post completely?

Sorry, I wasn't going to address everyone's post individually. but no, I addressed your comments in my post with examples of what GW means when they use the word "Accompany" directly from the BRB. It took me hours of reading to get that rebuttal, I'm actually insulted that you think I didn't read everyone's answers before posting that last bit.

Considering I used the definition you provided to prove you wrong and your post did nothing to address my argument, I felt you didn't read my post at all.

If you people want me to accept your narrow version of the word Accompany, you're going to have to find it somewhere in written form from GW in some manner that states a limitation of it because according to them a Missionary can accompany a vessel and when an IC joins a unit or embarks upon a transport they arrive together. I can see how you would mean in the paragraph about Special Rules, but his special rule clearly states "when he arrives via deep strike". You can arrive via deep strike in a couple of different ways, one of which is embarked upon a transport with the deep strike special rule.

You can't use fluff to support a rules argument.

I mean, what part of the broad use of this word is being lost. Is this just all GK haters here or people who just want me to be wrong? Why would they change the phrase from deploys via deep strike to arrives via deep strike for 6th if not to ensure that it matches the criteria laid down in the reserves special rule for a unit arriving via deep strike (either in a transport or no, joined by IC or no) they all arrive together.

Yeah, that's the right way to debate. Just call everyone on the opposing side biased and ignore their statements. Great plan.
His method of arrival is irrelevant. He does not arrive "with" the Raven or Dread.


Edit: To accompany == To go with. The IC rules demonstrate that, according to GW, "to go with" means joined to the unit. There's no wiggle room.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Sorginak wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Did you ignore my post completely?

Sorry, I wasn't going to address everyone's post individually. but no, I addressed your comments in my post with examples of what GW means when they use the word "Accompany" directly from the BRB. It took me hours of reading to get that rebuttal, I'm actually insulted that you think I didn't read everyone's answers before posting that last bit.

Considering I used the definition you provided to prove you wrong and your post did nothing to address my argument, I felt you didn't read my post at all.

If you people want me to accept your narrow version of the word Accompany, you're going to have to find it somewhere in written form from GW in some manner that states a limitation of it because according to them a Missionary can accompany a vessel and when an IC joins a unit or embarks upon a transport they arrive together. I can see how you would mean in the paragraph about Special Rules, but his special rule clearly states "when he arrives via deep strike". You can arrive via deep strike in a couple of different ways, one of which is embarked upon a transport with the deep strike special rule.

You can't use fluff to support a rules argument.

I mean, what part of the broad use of this word is being lost. Is this just all GK haters here or people who just want me to be wrong? Why would they change the phrase from deploys via deep strike to arrives via deep strike for 6th if not to ensure that it matches the criteria laid down in the reserves special rule for a unit arriving via deep strike (either in a transport or no, joined by IC or no) they all arrive together.

Yeah, that's the right way to debate. Just call everyone on the opposing side biased and ignore their statements. Great plan.
His method of arrival is irrelevant. He does not arrive "with" the Raven or Dread.


Edit: To accompany == To go with. The IC rules demonstrate that, according to GW, "to go with" means joined to the unit. There's no wiggle room.

Uhh... No? You cut part of the definition, not my definition, of accompany and used some half supported examples that do, yes, prove that your version of the word accompany does in fact meet the requirements, but it doesn't discredit mine.

I mean, this is just getting ridiculous. You won't accept the dictionary definition of a word, you wont accept it in context when used by the people who wrote the rules we are debating. What exactly is your leg to stand on? I'm not calling everyone on the opposing side biased and ignore their statements. That's what you did, that is what you are doing when you state the same argument without any facts or examples to back it up for a reason I cannot comprehend which is why I can only assume you just want me to be wrong; which is fine with me, I will not mind being wrong if you can find a single example to support your argument that holds up to scrutiny.

You people say I can't use an actual example of the word when taken from the BRB because it is fluff when it is used no where else within it. Can you even find me an example of where a contemporary codex or the BRB even uses the word Accompany outside of the ones I have listed? If no, then don't tell me you are right because I am wrong nor that I don't know how to argue rules.

I've accepted that we must use the dictionary definition that you've provided since the BRB doesn't define the word. The only definition that makes sense in the sentence is "To go with".

I've cited 3 examples from the IC rules that show when GW says "with" they mean joined to (or leaving).

I'm not the person who accused everyone else of being GK haters who just want me to be wrong. That's accusing people of a bias, and its unwarranted.

There is no rule defining "accompany". There is a way defined in the rules by which a character may join a unit, thereby accompanying them and vice versa.

Sorginak, since you are professing a strong intellect and debating ability, I think it is necessary that you review some of the more common logical fallacies. Here is a short list of the ones I have noticed you make:

http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/tu-quoque
http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/special-pleading
http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/loaded-question
http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof
http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ambiguity
http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-authority
http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/genetic
http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/the-fallacy-fallacy

If you're going to claim to be on such a high, philosophical, and linguistic horse, you really need to be able to back it up without committing such elementary errors in argumentation.

Remember, a good debater does NOT use these fallacies to 'win' his argument. He actually avoids them at all cost and still proves his point.

Respectfully,

DoW

I particularly like the 'fallacy-fallacy' one. Just because he may have used a logical fallacy or two in his arguments, does not perforce make them wrong. (just ill-argued)

In this case though i have to agree with the majority concensus: Mordraks' 'First into the Fray' ability cannot be used on a vehicle in which he and his squad are embarked.

So we all love to get into forum debates on here to try and convince others to share our interpretations of ambiguous rules. Many claim their view is so cut crystal clear as day based on the RAW, being the very words on the pages. And yet so many others have conflicting ideas based on those same printed words. This is why we have judges in tournaments, they determine the RAI, which will always be the actual way people play, because most of the time, these issues are already settled in friendly games.....in none of which I've ever played would permit an IC, much less his bodyguard unit, to join a flyer just so it could come in turn 1, when they can already deepstrike and not scatter in turn 1. If you're worried about them getting all shot up, put them behind cover, or even better put your Aegis Line way up in your table half and deepstrike them behind that.

Or a King Solomon way to settle this: split Mordrak/Ghost Knights and the StormRaven into 2 units, and whichever Quad Gun loves them the most gets to shoot first.

 don_mondo wrote:
Are they two separate units? Why yes, they are.Does Mordrak have permission to bring in TWO units? No, he doesn't. Fundamentals of debate, you got nothing to stand on. Deal with it.

I don't understand how his didn't end the thread.

The OP, as far as I have understood, is claiming that Mordrak is "accompanying" both a unit and another vehicle.

My reasoning would be, in response to this:

The entry for Mordrak specifies "...the unit he accompanies" singular.

As don_mondo has pointed out, they are in fact two units. So how then, can Mordrak's rule affect two, separate, units?

Neronoxx wrote:
This is seriously being debated?
"If he deploys via deepstrike, Mordrak and any unit he accompanies will automatically arrive in your first turn and will not scatter." Page 40, Grey Knights.

Yep. Mordrak may "accompany" one unit.
Hey, you know what that sounds like? It sounds like..."joining a unit!"

Oh, and Sorginak, can you please point out the page that gives you permission to "accompany a unit?" I can't find that rule in my book, is it in yours?

Dakka-daka has gone down hill as a source of good rule debating. This is not the first thread peeps on this forum have gone decidedly against a legal combination (as based on rule as written).

Mordark embarked on a transport is in fact "accompanying" the transport. Rules-wise, the two models are co-located. If the transport had firing ports, Mordrak could legally shoot his Stormbolter from that firing port. If Mordrak was not accompanying the transport, then he would not be able to legally fire his weapon from the port.

If a Strike Squad is embarked on a transport, we measure their Warp Quake from the hull of the vehicle. If the Strike Squad was not legally accompanying the transport, we would not be able to use Warp Quake at all while embarked.

These are to examples of units accompanying a transport. As such, if we follow Mordrak's First to the Frey special rule, all the is required is for Morkrak and every unit he is accompanying to be designated as deep striking. That's it. Mordrak in a Stormraven that are designated as deep striking will, by the rules as written, arrive on turn 1 without scatter. This is legal because the rules make it legal.

Debating what the word "accompany" means is a debating technique to disregard an argument by focuing on a word rather than the actual issue.

SJ

Cite sources please. I've cited what GW means when they say "with" and we've defined "accompany" as "with".

Your assertion is incorrect, and has no rules support.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:


Debating what the word "accompany" means is a debating technique to disregard an argument by focuing on a word rather than the actual issue.

SJ

The definition of the word "accompany" is the center of the debate because it's the only justification of the combination working.... it's far from a distraction.

It's also a silly tactic considering it doesn't really do all that much for you. Getting a flyer on turn one makes you vunerable to other fliers that have to come in after the SR, your opponent will always get first crack at your SR untill it goes back into reserves. At best you get a dread and a unit in the backfield (if you make it there). There are other cheaper ways to do that.

Its odd that you post that jeffersonian000, when it was ORIGINALLY the man trumpeting this tactic that pressed such heavy importance on the word "accompany."
But then, your wrong on a couple of things.
First off, models embarked in a transport are NOT actually in the transport. You only measure to and from the vehicles for other purposes. Go ahead and actually read the rules on pages 78-79. Nowhere does it state that these models "co-exist."

And the strike squad can use warp quake in a vehicle just fine, without "accompanying" it. Page 78 tells us how to perform range checks while a model or unit is embarked. "Accompanying" it is not a requirement, nor is it actually a rule term either. RAW MORDRAK'S RULE DOES NOTHING.
What we are actually arguing here is the RAI, which i have no further interest in.
The FAQ says nothing about Mordrak's rule, other than to clarify the requirement.
If you want to continue this debate, show to me and the dakkadakka community where you have Explicit permission to have Grand Master Mordrak accompany a unit. As it stands, he only has permission to join a unit, as stated such under the rules for independant characters.
Oh, and sorginak? Pg 124 of the BRB does not use the words "accompany." It uses the terms "joining a unit" and "embarked upon."
Neither of these are "accompanying."
Cite your sources.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Dakka-daka has gone down hill as a source of good rule debating. This is not the first thread peeps on this forum have gone decidedly against a legal combination (as based on rule as written).

Mordark embarked on a transport is in fact "accompanying" the transport. Rules-wise, the two models are co-located. If the transport had firing ports, Mordrak could legally shoot his Stormbolter from that firing port. If Mordrak was not accompanying the transport, then he would not be able to legally fire his weapon from the port.

If a Strike Squad is embarked on a transport, we measure their Warp Quake from the hull of the vehicle. If the Strike Squad was not legally accompanying the transport, we would not be able to use Warp Quake at all while embarked.

These are to examples of units accompanying a transport. As such, if we follow Mordrak's First to the Frey special rule, all the is required is for Morkrak and every unit he is accompanying to be designated as deep striking. That's it. Mordrak in a Stormraven that are designated as deep striking will, by the rules as written, arrive on turn 1 without scatter. This is legal because the rules make it legal.

Debating what the word "accompany" means is a debating technique to disregard an argument by focuing on a word rather than the actual issue.

SJ

"the unit". The SR is anotehr unit. Point proven without going anywhere near "accompany"

rigeld2 wrote:
Cite sources please. I've cited what GW means when they say "with" and we've defined "accompany" as "with".

Your assertion is incorrect, and has no rules support.

Pages 78, BRB, under “Transports”, there are several references to transports "carrying" units (1st paragraph, 3rd paragraph, as well as the 2nd paragraph under Dedicated Transports), units being "aboard" (last paragraph), and units shooting from inside (the entire Fire Point entry).

I ask you, how is a unit that is "inside", being "carried", and "aboard" a transport not accompanying that transport? An embarked unit is, per GW, considered to be physically present inside the transport, and even becomes Fearless while inside.

Then we have on page 80 rules detailing how passengers are affected by vehicle damage. How are passengers not accompanying the transport if they can be affected by damage the transport receives?

On page 40 of the GK codex, "First to the Frey" specifies that any unit accompanied by Mordrak is affected by that special rule. People on this thread are arguing over what "accompany" means. Common usage of "accompany" is:

Verb
1. Go somewhere with (someone) as a companion or escort.
2. Be present or occur at the same time as (something else).

Embarked, per GW's usage, means: to board a ship, aircraft, or other vehicle, as for a journey.

So, we have Mordrak embarked on a Stormraven. Wherever the Stormraven goes, Mordrak goes too, because he is accompanying the Stormraven that is carrying him inside, Stormravens have the ability to deep strike (pg. 37, GK codex). Page 32 of the BRB tells us that special rules in a codex override general rules in the BRB. If, at the start of the game, you inform you opponent that the Stormraven with Mordrak on board will be deep striking (pg. 36 BRB), all criteria for "First to the Frey" has been met. On turn 1, Mordrak as well as the Stormraven his is embarked on will arrive without scatter per the deep strike rules.

SJ

Using you definitions of accompany:
Definition 1 is relevant. Definition 2 makes no sense and is therefore irrelevant.

So lets looks at the rules and find out what GW means when they say "go somewhere with".
Oh, look - the IC rules say that an IC joins a unit by saying he's with the unit.
Therefore accompany means anyone in Mordrak's unit. Is the Stormraven or Dread in Mordrak's unit?

That's ignoring the fact that FttF refers to a single unit, and therefore could never apply to a transport as it would be an additional unit.

By your wording i could easily twist the word "accompany" and argue that my ARMY IS BEING ACCOMPANIED BY MORDRAK.

Of course you still haven't cited a BRB page giving you permission to accompany, or how mordrak is capable of bringing multiple units.
So, can i bring my ENTIRE ARMY INTO PLAY TURN 1 WITH FIRST TO THE FRAY?

By your definition, yes. Which is why we use rule number 6.

My army is going to fight a battle on the board. Mordrak is going to fight a battle on the board. Therefore my army must be accompanying Mordrak and can therefore use his rule. YAY... I love these rules twists.......

 jeffersonian000 wrote:



If a Strike Squad is embarked on a transport, we measure their Warp Quake from the hull of the vehicle. If the Strike Squad was not legally accompanying the transport, we would not be able to use Warp Quake at all while embarked.


SJ

Actually the rules tell us how to use powers like warp quake for embarked passengers. It has nothing to do with them "accompanying" the vehicle.

It seems like kind of a bad idea anyway. Mordrak won't be able to disembark first turn, leaving him vulnerable to crash and burn. The only benefit you get is a having a storm raven shooting first turn. Kind of a meager thing to attempt to bypass numerous restrictions for.

 Fafnir13 wrote:
It seems like kind of a bad idea anyway. Mordrak won't be able to disembark first turn, leaving him vulnerable to crash and burn. The only benefit you get is a having a storm raven shooting first turn. Kind of a meager thing to attempt to bypass numerous restrictions for.

Just because a option is legal does not mean the option is a good idea. The reverse is true, as just because an option is a bad idea, it doesn't make its illegal. There is nothing in the BRB nor in this thread that would disallow FttF from working with a Stormraven. People can get hung up over the meaning of "accompany" and throw around exagerations to discredit arguments they don't like. But in the end, GW has not FAQ'd FttF to not work with vehicles, plain English does allow FttF to work with any unit accompanying Mordrak not limited to those units attached to him. Arguments against are not supported in the rules as written. Rules as Written favors this combo. Even if its a bad idea.

SJ

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

 Fafnir13 wrote:
It seems like kind of a bad idea anyway. Mordrak won't be able to disembark first turn, leaving him vulnerable to crash and burn. The only benefit you get is a having a storm raven shooting first turn. Kind of a meager thing to attempt to bypass numerous restrictions for.

Just because a option is legal does not mean the option is a good idea. The reverse is true, as just because an option is a bad idea, it doesn't make its illegal. There is nothing in the BRB nor in this thread that would disallow FttF from working with a Stormraven. People can get hung up over the meaning of "accompany" and throw around exagerations to discredit arguments they don't like. But in the end, GW has not FAQ'd FttF to not work with vehicles, plain English does allow FttF to work with any unit accompanying Mordrak not limited to those units attached to him. Arguments against are not supported in the rules as written. Rules as Written favors this combo. Even if its a bad idea.

SJ

You're either purposely ignoring posts or just unable to read.

Plain English defines the word accompany as "to go with". Therefore plain English does not allow FttF to work with anything but his unit, as I've proven. You're also ignoring the Plain English requirement that his ability work on only a single unit.

Please address these 2 points instead of ignoring them.

 Sorginak wrote:

1st: Mordrak does not contain the IC special rule, but since when he is apart of a unit of Ghost Knights or by the very fact that he can be apart of them should allow that you can join any IC to him and/or his squad. I similarly join a Tyranid Prime to a unit of Carnifex for a great combined effect.

You can't join an IC to a unit that consists of a single Carnifex, because if chosen as an individual it will 'always consist of a single model'
Mordrak is a bit hazier, to be true.

 Che-Vito wrote:

 Sorginak wrote:

1st: Mordrak does not contain the IC special rule, but since when he is apart of a unit of Ghost Knights or by the very fact that he can be apart of them should allow that you can join any IC to him and/or his squad. I similarly join a Tyranid Prime to a unit of Carnifex for a great combined effect.

You can't join an IC to a unit that consists of a single Carnifex, because if chosen as an individual it will 'always consist of a single model'
Mordrak is a bit hazier, to be true.

That's actually an incorrect statement. IC's cannot join units that always consist of 1 model. Carnifex Broods (units) do not always consist of 1 model.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

 Fafnir13 wrote:
It seems like kind of a bad idea anyway. Mordrak won't be able to disembark first turn, leaving him vulnerable to crash and burn. The only benefit you get is a having a storm raven shooting first turn. Kind of a meager thing to attempt to bypass numerous restrictions for.

Just because a option is legal does not mean the option is a good idea. The reverse is true, as just because an option is a bad idea, it doesn't make its illegal. There is nothing in the BRB nor in this thread that would disallow FttF from working with a Stormraven. People can get hung up over the meaning of "accompany" and throw around exagerations to discredit arguments they don't like. But in the end, GW has not FAQ'd FttF to not work with vehicles, plain English does allow FttF to work with any unit accompanying Mordrak not limited to those units attached to him. Arguments against are not supported in the rules as written. Rules as Written favors this combo. Even if its a bad idea.

SJ

Seriously?
RAW doesnt support this at all, because there are no rules for accompanying. How can you even confuse this? Once again, find me a section in the BRB that discusses the rules for "accompanying."
Oh yeah, i already asked you this. And you failed to address this, because you actually can't. There are no rules supporting ANY of your claims. Yet thats what you are accusing others of?
Maybe they don't need rules to support their side of the argument because the sheer lack of rules kills your argument? You haven't even addressed the fact that Mordrak's rule only allows him to bring in ONE UNIT!
This is over and you need to acknowledge it. I mean for cryjng out loud, YOU HAVE TO TWIST AND INVENT RULES TO SUPPORT YOUR ARGUMENT!!

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

 Fafnir13 wrote:
It seems like kind of a bad idea anyway. Mordrak won't be able to disembark first turn, leaving him vulnerable to crash and burn. The only benefit you get is a having a storm raven shooting first turn. Kind of a meager thing to attempt to bypass numerous restrictions for.

Just because a option is legal does not mean the option is a good idea. The reverse is true, as just because an option is a bad idea, it doesn't make its illegal. There is nothing in the BRB nor in this thread that would disallow FttF from working with a Stormraven. People can get hung up over the meaning of "accompany" and throw around exagerations to discredit arguments they don't like. But in the end, GW has not FAQ'd FttF to not work with vehicles, plain English does allow FttF to work with any unit accompanying Mordrak not limited to those units attached to him. Arguments against are not supported in the rules as written. Rules as Written favors this combo. Even if its a bad idea.

SJ

Please stop ignoring the posts in the thread proving you wrong, it is irritating.

How many units does FTF allow you to bring along? ONE. How many units are you claiming this allows? TWO. Currently, using accepted axioms, 1 != 2

Last time I checked, "any" does not mean "pick one". "Any unit" that accompanies Mordrak can mean his Ghosts, each attached Independent Character, and/or a deep striking transport + passengers. The rule does not say "attached units", nor does it say "only Mordrak and his Ghost Knights". The rule says "any unit", which means form one up to all from a group. "Any" does not mean "every", yet "all" came be included in "any" just as easily as "one".

I am not ignoring past posts in the thread, I simply disagree with the assertion that First to the Frey disallows transports based on the word "accompany" being defined by people on this thread to exclude the possibility of the vehicle Mordrak is in. GW does not write "tight" rules, and their use of English as a language is quite poor for an English company. Yet until GW publishes an FAQ that specifically disallows First to the Frey from including the Stromraven currently transporting Mordrak, there is not a single set of rules you can point to that disallow this option. And hinging your argument on the meaning of the work "accompany" is not acceptable until you can point out where in the BRB "accompany" is defined is only attached units.

Per Raw, embarked models are considered to be inside the transport. Wherever the transport goes, the models inside go with it. One can even say that the embarked models are "accompanying" the transport since they are, per RAW, consider to be co-located. No new rules were invented, no existing rules were twisted. If Mordrak is placed in reserved and is designated as deep striking, First to the Frey allows him to arrive on the first turn without scatter. If Mordrak has Ghosts, they go with him. If Mordrak was any attacked ICs, they go with him. If Mordrak is inside a Stormraven, the Stormraven goes with him. If there is a Dreadnought grappled to the Stormraven, the Dreadnought goes with him. Because they are all co-located with him, deep striking with him, accompanying him is a single unit for the purpose of reserves. All criteria for First to the Frey are met. And if you think "to go with" does not include every unit he is lumped together with in reserve, which arrive at the same time, in the exact same place, then you need to reexamine your own argument!

SJ

No, they cannot be considered to "accompany" their embarked passengers. We know that because of the definition of the word accompanying. And I didn't define that word - people on your side did, I'm merely using the provided definition to prove you wrong. Would you care to provide another one?

And please find the citation that says units are co-located when embarked. It's irrelevant to the discussion, but I'm curious.

I already asked him to cite where it states that units and vehicles are co-located in the BRB, and he wasn't able to.
He provided a bunch of other rules, but no concrete RAW rule.

And i rest my case, as jeffersonian wasn't able to actually provide any support for his argument other than whats been stated. He cited no pages, no rules and no faqs, yet insists that by RAW it is acceptable. He clearly either doesn't understand RAW, or is simply trolling. He also doesnt understand the argument, insisting that it is those against the combo that are making definitions and such....
Its like he didn't even read the thread.

Jeffersonian - so, still no rules to back your assertion up?

Good, then its a houserule.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
GW does not write "tight" rules, and their use of English as a language is quite poor for an English company:

...If Mordrak is placed in reserved and is designated as deep striking, First to the Frey allows him to arrive on the first turn without scatter. If Mordrak has Ghosts, they go with him. If Mordrak was any attacked ICs, they go with him...

SJ

Isn't it just the pot calling the kettle black when you use the wrong tense and verb in your own post?

Also, where about in the rulebook does it say that transports and embarked units are "Co-located"? (genuine question).

I love how you guys say I'm ignoring your post, or that I didn't read your posts, when you have failed to read mine. I have posted each page and paragraph for every rule I cited.

And how is pointing on an error in tense supposed to invalidate an example? The "D" is right next to the "S" on a standard QWERTY keyboard. My apologies for fat-fingering a tense related typo.

Co-located is term that means in the same space. The BRB points out in several passages in the transport section that passengers are considered to be inside, being carried, and aboard. So, if you are inside, being carried, and/or aboard, you are sharing the same location, hence my use of the term co-located. My apologies for using a term that the educated masses in this thread are unfamiliar with. I endeavor to avoid further terms such as deconflicted, discommended, and that big doozy interpenetrated.

SJ

How do you reconcile the singular "unit" which is allowed to benefit from FttF? If the Stormraven could also benefit, that would be two units, plural.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
I love how you guys say I'm ignoring your post, or that I didn't read your posts, when you have failed to read mine. I have posted each page and paragraph for every rule I cited.

You've cited 2 page numbers - BRB 78 and GK 40. Neither defines "co-located" or "accompany".

Co-located is term that means in the same space. The BRB points out in several passages in the transport section that passengers are considered to be inside, being carried, and aboard. So, if you are inside, being carried, and/or aboard, you are sharing the same location, hence my use of the term co-located. My apologies for using a term that the educated masses in this thread are unfamiliar with. I endeavor to avoid further terms such as deconflicted, discommended, and that big doozy interpenetrated.

For someone who entered the thread saying that Dakka had lost its debating skills, your continued patronization isn't really helping.
Its not that we don't know the definition, its that when you discuss rules and make rules based assertions, you should be able to back those assertions up with, you know, actual rules.

Do you have any rebuttal to my posts proving that accompany must mean Modrak's unit?

I never said Dakka lost their debating skills, I stated that Dakka has lost their ability to discuss rules in an objective manner. The single minded focus on debate and the debating skills of posters is only an added benefit when the outcome is positive. It becomes a detraction when a rule question turns into an argument over why the poorly written rule set creates loopholes that exclude options printed in other books. It is as if the mind set of this forum is to disprove all possibilities that exist outside of a very narrow point of view.

For example, the OP asked for advice on the legality of using a Special Character's special rule to set up a neat combo. Per the rules as written, the combo is doable. Per some of the posters, the combo is not. This could be a value added debate as to the merits of both arguments for or against, but it isn't. What we have is one side using strict adherence to classic debating model as a method to drive the other point of view out of existence. In a debating class, that is a good thing. In a court of law, it’s a required thing. In a public forum, it generates a negative atmosphere that borders on hostile.

GW does not write rules that can stand up in a court of law. Debating from a position that the rules must adhere to such a strictly legal venue is pointless, especially when GW has gone out of their way in this rule set to point out the need to take a step back and look at the story rather than follow the rules blindly (see "Spirit of the Game" and "Forging a Narrative").

We have one side focused on the words "accompany", "any", and "unit" to mean "only those units attached following the rules for attached units". Yet, nowhere in the current rule set does it state that “accompany", "any", and "unit" strictly means "only those units attached following the rules for attached units". In 6th edition, GW has loosely defined how multiple units can be clustered together and treated as a single unit for specific actions, such as Independent Characters joining other units, how passengers are treated when embarked on transports, and how attached units are treated while in reserve. GW has also printed a rule that states, "special rules in codices override general rules in the main rule book." Taken in a vacuum, a logical argument can be made against First to the Frey working with any models other than Mordrak and his attached Ghost Knights. However, the 6th edition rule set is not a vacuum. There are several loosely defined concepts at work within this body of rules. First to the Frey does not specify which units are affected beyond "Mordrak and any unit he accompanies". From this the Dakka Debating Society reduces the interactions down to Mordrak, his Ghost Knights (if present), and any attached ICs (if present). A broader reading of the rules, which is apparently needed due to the loose nature of the rule set, shows that there are additional units that can be affected, such as transports and other accompanying units such as passengers in that transport. Did GW envision this usage? Who knows other than GW, but I doubt if.

The Stormraven is a unique unit in (non-Apocalypse) 40k in that it can legally carry more than one unit, up to 12 models in the passenger compartment as well as one Dreadnought grappled to its rear. Stormravens also include special rules that make them Flyers with the ability to Deep Strike. This nets us a complex unit that while placed in reserve counts as a single unit when deploying on to the table, despite being upwards to 14 separate units given enough points (up to 12 ICs, 1 Dread, and the ‘Raven).

Now we have Mordrak, a Special Character that is not an Independent Character, who may be treated as an Upgrade Character when accompanied by Ghost Knights. Mordrak also has this pesky special rule that lets him as well as any unit he accompanies to arrive on turn 1 via deep strike, but only if you reserve him with the express purpose of deep striking from reserve.

The OP suggests taking Mordrak, a small unit of Ghosts, and an attached Librarian, and placing them inside a Stormraven that is designated to deep strike when deployed.

Mordrak is in reserve and designated to deep strike. Check!
He is being accompanied by his Ghost Knights. Check!
He is being accompanied by a Librarian. Check!
He is inside a Stromraven. Check!

Per the reserve rules, Mordrak+Ghosts+Libby+Raven are considered a single unit for deployment. First to the Frey is a special rule that overrides the normal sequence of events at deployment. As Mordrak is literally attached, aka accompanying, aka grouped together into a single unit for deployment purposes, the entire group deploys on turn 1 via deep strike without scatter. No rules are broken. No rules are twisted. The logic chain followed started at placing those units together in reserve, designating them for deep strike, First to the Frey kicks in, the combined unit arrives together per the reserve rules, the deep strike rules, and modified by First to the Frey. All criteria are met.

SJ

 jeffersonian000 wrote:


Now we have Mordrak, a Special Character that is not an Independent Character, who may be treated as an Upgrade Character when accompanied by Ghost Knights. Mordrak also has this pesky special rule that lets him as well as any unit he accompanies to arrive on turn 1 via deep strike

SJ

However, Mordrak's rule states that he and the unit that he accompanies. Not "any".

Would this not suggest that he could only ever "accompany" one unit and therefore, could not affect the Stormraven?

Yet again, they are not the same unit. Ever.

You are allowed a single unit with Mordrak, you are trying to bring two. That is cheating. Not RAW, no matter how many times you claim so, your continued inability to actualy post ANY rules as written shows the problem with your argument

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
As Mordrak is literally attached, aka accompanying, aka grouped together into a single unit for deployment purposes, the entire group deploys on turn 1 via deep strike without scatter. No rules are broken. No rules are twisted. The logic chain followed started at placing those units together in reserve, designating them for deep strike, First to the Frey kicks in, the combined unit arrives together per the reserve rules, the deep strike rules, and modified by First to the Frey. All criteria are met.

Absolutely and demonstrably false.
You're ignoring the absolute fact that GW has defined what "to go with" means.
GW doesn't define all words, so we have to look at the English language definition of "accompany".

What you're trying to do is analyze the rules for Intent - which is fine. But that's not Rules as they are Written. Mordrak is not - in the context of GW rules - accompanying the vehicle he's embarked in. You've refused to cite any rules supporting that assertion, and I've cited multiple rules demonstrating that "to go with" means to be joined to a unit in the context of GW rules.

If a Stormraven deepstrikes, it doesn't count as zooming, and would therefore be able to be shot at full ballistic skill yes? If so, you couldn't drop it anywhere within shooting range anyway or you'll be blown out of the sky the following turn.

 Homeskillet wrote:
If a Stormraven deepstrikes, it doesn't count as zooming, and would therefore be able to be shot at full ballistic skill yes? If so, you couldn't drop it anywhere within shooting range anyway or you'll be blown out of the sky the following turn.

It does/can count as Zooming.

 Heartless wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:


Now we have Mordrak, a Special Character that is not an Independent Character, who may be treated as an Upgrade Character when accompanied by Ghost Knights. Mordrak also has this pesky special rule that lets him as well as any unit he accompanies to arrive on turn 1 via deep strike

SJ

However, Mordrak's rule states that he and the unit that he accompanies. Not "any".

Would this not suggest that he could only ever "accompany" one unit and therefore, could not affect the Stormraven?

GK Codex, page 40, Under "First to the Frey": "If he deploys via Deep Strike, Mordrak and any unit he accompanies ..."

I'd suggest reading the actual entry rather reading into the entry what you want to see.

SJ

Answer Rigelds posts proving you wrong, as you have been incapable of doing that so far

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
GK Codex, page 40, Under "First to the Frey": "If he deploys via Deep Strike, Mordrak and any unit he accompanies ..."

I'd suggest reading the actual entry rather reading into the entry what you want to see.

Any unit. Singular.
Does not say "any units"

 grendel083 wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
GK Codex, page 40, Under "First to the Frey": "If he deploys via Deep Strike, Mordrak and any unit he accompanies ..."

I'd suggest reading the actual entry rather reading into the entry what you want to see.

Any unit. Singular.
Does not say "any units"

This is basic friggin english....
Unit-1
Units-1+

The only post by Rigeld2 I have not answered is his one on Stormravens zooming, which I find to be self-evident and have no issues with.

As to the any = singular, the word "any" is an adjective used to refer to one or some of a thing or number of things, no matter how much or many. "Any" does not mean "one". In a sentence stating "any unit", the choice is amongst the available units in the group. If there is only one available unit in the group, "any" would apply to that singular unit. However, if there are several units in the group, then "any" would apply to as few or as many of the available units in that group.

If you wish go all "English Major" on me, please at least be correct.

SJ

At this point, this thread has fallen to the trolls.

Fragile wrote:
At this point, this thread has fallen to the trolls.

Any chance you got a magic Acorn?

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
The only post by Rigeld2 I have not answered is his one on Stormravens zooming, which I find to be self-evident and have no issues with.

Do me a favor then, because I must've missed it.

Which post of yours answers the issues I brought up here:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/495665.page#5095806

it specifically says in the BRB that if a unit is embarked upon a transport when coming from reserves then the transport comes with

is mordrak in a transport (SR)?
yes
is he arriving from reserves?
yes
do units embarked within a transport arrive from reserves with the transport?
yes
would he arrive from reserves with the SR since he is in the SR which is a transport?
yes
does GW use inconsistent wording when making their rules?
yes
should all you ninny's quit arguing and face facts that GK just got more op?
yes

 A GumyBear wrote:

does GW use inconsistent wording when making their rules?
yes

Sometimes, not all the time.

However any unit Mordrak accompanies... Which can only be the unit he is joined to, as IC are not allowed to join more than one unit. (Not that he could ever join the SR anyway since it is always a unit that consists of a single model).

First off term "any unit" doesnt mean mean multiple units. It means whatever unit mordrak is a part of.
Mordrak has permission to join some units. Stormravens are not a unit that Mordrak can join.
The issue gummybear is that Mordrak CANT bring his stormraven with him, as his rules do not give him permission to do so. Mordrak may bring any unit with him on turn 1 - flyers can't arrive until turn 2.

If we were to believe whaf jeffersonian said then Mordrak could bring in all your reserves on turn 1. Obviously he is wrong, and his own conclusion supports this.

J - nope, you havent actually answered the points by using any actual rules. Try again.

"Any unit" allows it to be any single unit, but not restricted to any one unit in particular. Try again on your parsing of that sentence.

rigeld2 wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
The only post by Rigeld2 I have not answered is his one on Stormravens zooming, which I find to be self-evident and have no issues with.

Do me a favor then, because I must've missed it.

Which post of yours answers the issues I brought up here:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/495665.page#5095806

That would be my 2nd post on this thread, on page 2, when I quoted you followed by referencing page 78 of the BRB. My first post on this thread, which is on the same page, was not directly in response to any post you made (see what I did there?).

Neronoxx wrote:
First off term "any unit" doesnt mean mean multiple units. It means whatever unit mordrak is a part of.
Mordrak has permission to join some units. Stormravens are not a unit that Mordrak can join.
The issue gummybear is that Mordrak CANT bring his stormraven with him, as his rules do not give him permission to do so. Mordrak may bring any unit with him on turn 1 - flyers can't arrive until turn 2.

If we were to believe whaf jeffersonian said then Mordrak could bring in all your reserves on turn 1. Obviously he is wrong, and his own conclusion supports this.

Are you stating that Mordrak may not embark upon a Stormraven? Where is that printed? last I checked, any TDA model can embark any transport with the exception of Rhinos and Razorbacks.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
J - nope, you havent actually answered the points by using any actual rules. Try again.

"Any unit" allows it to be any single unit, but not restricted to any one unit in particular. Try again on your parsing of that sentence.

I'm sorry for you lack of English comprehension? "Any" has never meant "just one", as I posted above.

SJ

(and sorry for the multiple edits, just wanted to get all three responses in one post)

"Mordrak has permission to join some units. Stormravens are not a unit that Mordrak can join. "

"Are you stating that Mordrak may not embark upon a Stormraven? Where is that printed? last I checked, any TDA model can embark any transport with the exception of Rhinos and Razorbacks.
"

Not sure how youget that from the first quote

You are trying to say "any unit" == "any (number of) unit(s)". Sorry for your inability to parse basic English, but it is limited to a single unit, just not any single unit in particular. Try again./

jeffersonian000 wrote:That would be my 2nd post on this thread, on page 2, when I quoted you followed by referencing page 78 of the BRB. My first post on this thread, which is on the same page, was not directly in response to any post you made (see what I did there?).

Pretty sure I responded to it before but I don't feel like looking through my posts on this thread - ill just respond now.

jeffersonian000 wrote:Pages 78, BRB, under “Transports”, there are several references to transports "carrying" units (1st paragraph, 3rd paragraph, as well as the 2nd paragraph under Dedicated Transports), units being "aboard" (last paragraph), and units shooting from inside (the entire Fire Point entry).

I ask you, how is a unit that is "inside", being "carried", and "aboard" a transport not accompanying that transport? An embarked unit is, per GW, considered to be physically present inside the transport, and even becomes Fearless while inside.

It's not accompanying because the definition of the word shows us its not.

Then we have on page 80 rules detailing how passengers are affected by vehicle damage. How are passengers not accompanying the transport if they can be affected by damage the transport receives?

Because they're embarked, not accompanying.

On page 40 of the GK codex, "First to the Frey" specifies that any unit accompanied by Mordrak is affected by that special rule. People on this thread are arguing over what "accompany" means. Common usage of "accompany" is:

Verb
1. Go somewhere with (someone) as a companion or escort.
2. Be present or occur at the same time as (something else).

Embarked, per GW's usage, means: to board a ship, aircraft, or other vehicle, as for a journey.

Definition #2 is irrelevant. Definition of #1 is how GW defines joining a unit, not merely being embarked.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

Neronoxx wrote:
First off term "any unit" doesnt mean mean multiple units. It means whatever unit mordrak is a part of.
Mordrak has permission to join some units. Stormravens are not a unit that Mordrak can join.
The issue gummybear is that Mordrak CANT bring his stormraven with him, as his rules do not give him permission to do so. Mordrak may bring any unit with him on turn 1 - flyers can't arrive until turn 2.

If we were to believe what jeffersonian said then Mordrak could bring in all your reserves on turn 1. Obviously he is wrong, and his own conclusion supports this.

Are you stating that Mordrak may not embark upon a Stormraven? Where is that printed? last I checked, any TDA model can embark any transport with the exception of Rhinos and Razorbacks.

I never denied Mordrak the ability to embark upon a Storm Raven, nor did i dispute the embarking potential of TDA models. What i disputed was the rather large and fatal hole in your defense, jeffersonian.
Mordrak is allowed to deep strike with one unit ("...any unit...") on the first turn. Not only can Mordrak not join Storm Ravens (therefore not allwoing him to bring the Storm Raven in with him, as he must "accompany a unit") Flyers are not able to join the game before turn 2, unless explicitly allowed to. Furthermore, your definition of the word "accompany" in a 40k sense is shaky, and if one were to believe your false and incorrect interpretation of basic English differences between the singular usage of the word "unit" and the plural usage of the word, "units," one would be able to use "First to the Fray" to deep strike his entire army wherever he wanted.

I have asked you to cite pages in the BRB where the term "accompany" is described. you have failed to do so repeatedly. This can only lead us to believe that you are unable to do this, so i will extend the challenge to any other user. Find me a page in the BRB that defines the term "accompany." This is rather important to a RAW standing, as if you are unable to define accompany then Mordrak's rule is actually not usable by a RAW outlook.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
J - nope, you havent actually answered the points by using any actual rules. Try again.

"Any unit" allows it to be any single unit, but not restricted to any one unit in particular. Try again on your parsing of that sentence.

I'm sorry for you lack of English comprehension? "Any" has never meant "just one", as I posted above.

SJ

(and sorry for the multiple edits, just wanted to get all three responses in one post)

and here, you're sort of correct. Any has never meant "just one," but the singular form of "unit" does in fact mean one unit in particular
that is basic English comprehension, which you seem to lack.
Your posts are neither informative nor legitimate in any defense of this tactic, and your attitude has ranged from condescending to imbecile (see above.) I do not believe that you have any real evidence, support, claims, rules or data to back up your "opinions," which is clearly what you are posting. We (or at least myself) are not arguing our opinions, per say. We are discussing what the rules allow Mordrak to do. And so far there has been little to support Mordrak accompanying two units, let alone a Storm Raven or even "accompanying" anything at all, as that word has little to no meaning in 40k appearing in the full hardcover version a total of two times, neither of which are in the rules section, as was proven by sorginak himself.
Good day sir.

The fallacy of your argument is that Mordrak may only First to the Frey with a single unit of his choice, which excludes all the Independent Characters that could legally join him. Independent Characters are units, too.

In English, the word "any" does not exclude all but one of a group. "Any" allows choice from amongst a group, specifically as few or as many from a group as chosen. In the case of "Mordrak and any unit he accompanies" can be parsed out as "Mordrak+Ghosts+IC+Stormraven+grappled Dreadnought" because in English, Mordrak is being accompanied by his Ghost Knights, attacked ICs, the Deep Striking Stormraven he is embarked upon, and the Dreadnought that just so happens to be grapple to the back of the Stormraven. This is because "accompany" is a verb the means to go somewhere with someone or something as a companion or escort, and to be present or occur at the same time as someone or something else. So, in English, First to the Frey says Mordrak as well as each unit he is grouped with will arrive on the first turn without scatter if he and his group deep strike from reserve.

If doesn't matter how you decide to limit Mordrak's group, because the BRB by RAW tells us that Mordrak may be joined by his Ghost Knights, one or more Independent Characters, a vehicle he can legal embark upon as well as any passengers that may also be legally joined to the vehicle. In the case of Mordrak deep striking inside of a Stormraven, all criteria is met for First to the Frey to bypass the normal deployment sequence and allow Mordrak and his group to arrive first turn without scatter. Nowhere in First to the Frey does Mordrak's selection become limited to just one of the many units he may find himself accompanying while being placed in reserve.

My point, again, is if you wish to bring proper English into the discussion (which happens to be outside of the tenants of YMDC), then at the very least understand the English language. "Any" does mean as many or as few, "accompany" does mean going with and grouped together, and "unit" per GW means one or more models in a group. And as a separate point, GW does in fact use the word "dice" as a singular die or as multiples of dice, so it is safe to say GW in its own right does not have a firm grasp of the English language.

SJ

and besides it doesnt even matter if he is acomanying the SR or not the rules for coming in from reserves states that they, and any transport they are embarked upon come in with them regardless of your shenanigans

 A GumyBear wrote:
and besides it doesnt even matter if he is acomanying the SR or not the rules for coming in from reserves states that they, and any transport they are embarked upon come in with them regardless of your shenanigans

I think you just argeed with me, but I'm not sure.

SJ

jeffersonian000 wrote:The fallacy of your argument is that Mordrak may only First to the Frey with a single unit of his choice, which excludes all the Independent Characters that could legally join him. Independent Characters are units, too.

Reread the IC rules, note that there is no longer a separate unit once they join. Your counter "argument" falls at the very first step - where you made a rule up

jeffersonian000 wrote:In English, the word "any" does not exclude all but one of a group.

Good job we're talking about the phrase "any unit", then. In actual, real English this is a singular entity, just not one limited to exactly which unit - you have a choice. That choice is still limited to a single unit in totality.

You keep failing, and failing hard, because you are not actually countering an argument anyone is making, but one you are making up. Good strawman.

jeffersonian000, you seems to be using the word "accompany" to mean having a relationship or associated with in some way via proximity and/or organization. This is so broad as to include nearly anything from a IC joining Mordrak to the whole GK force + allies.

Precedent and similar rules should be examined for intent, rather than just applying an overly broad dictionary definition. Several have been cited for you.

"Any" doesn't mean just one.

But using "unit" instead of "units" does. Game over.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
The fallacy of your argument is that Mordrak may only First to the Frey with a single unit of his choice, which excludes all the Independent Characters that could legally join him. Independent Characters are units, too.

Except for when they join a unit, they're a member of that unit for all rules purposes. Or did you ignore that bit in the IC rules?

This is because "accompany" is a verb the means to go somewhere with someone or something as a companion or escort, and to be present or occur at the same time as someone or something else. So, in English, First to the Frey says Mordrak as well as each unit he is grouped with will arrive on the first turn without scatter if he and his group deep strike from reserve.

Again, you're ignoring the fact that accompany cannot mean anything beyond Mordrak's unit. Also, there is a difference between "any unit" and "each unit".

My point, again, is if you wish to bring proper English into the discussion (which happens to be outside of the tenants of YMDC), then at the very least understand the English language. "Any" does mean as many or as few, "accompany" does mean going with and grouped together, and "unit" per GW means one or more models in a group. And as a separate point, GW does in fact use the word "dice" as a singular die or as multiples of dice, so it is safe to say GW in its own right does not have a firm grasp of the English language.

The bolded is absolutely incorrect.
And you continue to ignore that GW uses "go with" to mean join to a unit. Until you resolve that problem your interpretation cannot be correct.
You haven't addressed that issue directly. Please provide rules quotes showing your definition of "to go somewhere with" is correct. I've shown rules quotes proving it is not correct.

That mighy havd been the single worst response be the j-man in this thread.
No proper rules cited.
Actually makes up rules.
Insists on using accompanies definition.
Doesnt understand singular VS plural.
Doesnt understand "any."
Doesn't understand the tenets of dakkadakka.

Gentlemen....i think we have a troll.

Neronoxx wrote:
That mighy havd been the single worst response be the j-man in this thread.
No proper rules cited.
Actually makes up rules.
Insists on using accompanies definition.
Doesnt understand singular VS plural.
Doesnt understand "any."
Doesn't understand the tenets of dakkadakka.

Gentlemen....i think we have a troll.

You just described yourself.

I have cited the relevant rules. No new rules were invented, I do in fact understand singular versus plural (yet posters on this thread apparently do not). I have gone out of my way to educate this thread on what "any" means and how "any" is used within the context of both the game and the English language. And I have in fact stayed within the tenets of Dakka.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

chipstar1 wrote:
"Any" doesn't mean just one.

But using "unit" instead of "units" does. Game over.

That would be true only if you had elementary understanding of the English language. Like grades k-4 understanding of English. Yet, it does seem to be the case, so I will agree that it is game over as there appears to be a stopping point due to lack of education and reading comprehension of my opponents.

I will try again, though, for those that might be able to grasp a 5th grade concept of English.

"Mordrak and any unit he accompanies" is not singular, in the same way as "chipstar1 and any post he has written" is not singular. Both statements use the word "any" to modify the singular word "unit" or "post" to include as many or as few "units" or "posts" that many exist within a set group (i.e., the units accompanying Mordrak or the posts in this thread). "Any" can easily be replaced by "every", which changes the meaning from as many or as few to all within the group. "Mordrak and every unit he accompanies" is the same as "chipstar1 and every post he has written", both statements being plural despite the singular usage of the words "unit" and "post". The difference between "any" and "every" is that "any" allows for less than "all" while "every" is limited to "all". If it was GW’s goal to limit First to the Frey to only the unit Mordrak is with, they would have written the rule as, “Mordrak and the unit he accompanies” (chipstar1 and the post he has written).

People in English speaking countries learn that basic concept before High School. Harp all you want about my supposed misunderstanding of singular versus plural, the truth is that I am not one with the misunderstanding. So yes, I can see where it is "Game Over" if the average reader is unable to understand such a basic concept in the English language. Because if you cannot understand basic English, then these rules GW has written are lost on you.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
On the word “accompany”, since it matters, the definition can be found on-line or in any dictionary. As it pertains to 40k, the following rules in the BRB should be read:

Page 3, Forming a Unit
Page 11, Unit Coherency
Page 39, Independent Characters
Page 78, Transports
Page 121, Deployment
Page 124, Reserves

In each instance, GW has provided language describing how models are grouped together, move together, deploy together, are reserved together, and how they can even occupied the same space together. The same language as can be found in the common use definition of “accompany”. So while “accompany” is never defined by GW as a term, when GW has used the word “accompany”, they have used it correctly to mean being grouped together, traveling together, to go with, to move with, to be with, etc. This does mean that since GW has defined the words “join” and “attach” to have specific meanings in 40k, the word “accompany” retains its common usage meaning when used by GW.

So when a “unit” is “embarked” upon a transport that is place in “reserves”, the “unit” and the transport they “accompany” will “deploy” together, per the rules as written. If this sequence is true in general, then it is true in specific. “A units of Space Marine Scouts are embarked on a Rhino and placed in reserves for Outflanking, and will arrive together when they are deployed” is a true statement. “Mordrak, 4 Ghosts Knight, and a Librarian embarked in a Stormraven are placed in reserves for Deep Striking, and will arrive together when they are deployed” is a true statement.

The only hang up seems to be whether or not First to the Frey will change the arrival time of a legally reserved “unit”. Per the BRB and the GK codex, the answer is yes if the unit in question has Mordrak, is reserved, and will be deep striking. It is not legal for Mordrak to arrive separately from the transport he is embarked upon. It is legal for the transport Mordrak is embarked upon to arrive with him on the same reserve roll. First to the Frey simply bypasses the reserve roll stage if the correct conditions are met, with no specific limitations beyond that. When we follow the rules as written, Mordrak will arrive on turn 1 without scatter if he is placed in reserve for deep striking, regardless of whether or not he is embarked on a deep strike capable transport. By following the rules as written, the deep striking transport Mordrak is embark upon will arrive with him when he deploys via deep strike from reserve, just like a non-deep striking transport would arrive with Mordrak from reserve when he passed his reserve roll to deploy.

No new rules created. The rules as written followed. All criteria for the special rule were met.

SJ

So you're saying riding in a transport is the same as joining a unit?

Can I laugh now, or should I wait?

rigeld2 wrote:
So you're saying riding in a transport is the same as joining a unit?

Can I laugh now, or should I wait?

I'm thinking the lysander should start taking look out sirs for my land raider redeemer.

What do you think jeffersonian? This is a rather unique rule you've "created."

You still haven't cited a clear definition in 40k's terms of the word "accompany." RAW Mordraks rule doesnt allow him to bring anything in, as there is no "accompanying" in 40k. Only joining.

But lets say we play along with your RAI. So any unit means more than one unit?

So what stops me from deepstriking my entire army? Your implied meaning of accompany? the one you just admitted doesnt actually exist in 40k?

This guy is brilliant... I've never seen a 100% Grade A Troll

rigeld2 wrote:
So you're saying riding in a transport is the same as joining a unit?

Can I laugh now, or should I wait?

I think we've all been laughing for a few pages.

True, grade "A" 24-karat troll. Brilliant!

"Any unit" is plural, apparently. Lol. If we dont "understand" this then we're only grade 4 - what is that in English grades? 8 yrs old?

My entire army "accompanies" Mordrak. I can prove it too. See, its right here on the FOC. There Mordrak is, accompanying my army to every single battle it goes too.

Fragile wrote:
My entire army "accompanies" Mordrak. I can prove it too. See, its right here on the FOC. There Mordrak is, accompanying my army to every single battle it goes too.

Ima deepstrike mah landraiders!!!!!

Mock all you want, but none of you have posted a rebuttal as to why a unit in reserve would arrive over multiple turns. Because the only way for First to the Frey to not work is if you break the deployment from reserve rules. If Mordrak arrives on the same turn as the vehicle he is embarked upon, then the vehicle he is embarked upon will arrive at the same time as Mordrak. The only thing First to the Frey does as change which turn the arrival occurs on.

I’d like to see your reason why Mordrak cannot arrive from reserve in a vehicle he is embarked upon.

I'm waiting.

SJ

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Mock all you want, but none of you have posted a rebuttal as to why a unit in reserve would arrive over multiple turns. Because the only way for First to the Frey to not work is if you break the deployment from reserve rules. If Mordrak arrives on the same turn as the vehicle he is embarked upon, then the vehicle he is embarked upon will arrive at the same time as Mordrak. The only thing First to the Frey does as change which turn the arrival occurs on.

I’d like to see your reason why Mordrak cannot arrive from reserve in a vehicle he is embarked upon.

I'm waiting.

SJ

I already disproved you. Accompany doesn't exist in 40k. You stated this yourself.
Find me the word "accompany" in any of the rules. RAW Mordraks rule doesnt work, because accompanying means nothing in 40k, only joining, embarking, etc are actual rules. Point proven, hook, line and sinker.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Mock all you want, but none of you have posted a rebuttal as to why a unit in reserve would arrive over multiple turns. Because the only way for First to the Frey to not work is if you break the deployment from reserve rules. If Mordrak arrives on the same turn as the vehicle he is embarked upon, then the vehicle he is embarked upon will arrive at the same time as Mordrak. The only thing First to the Frey does as change which turn the arrival occurs on.

I’d like to see your reason why Mordrak cannot arrive from reserve in a vehicle he is embarked upon.

I'm waiting.

SJ

They do arrive on the same turn. Just not on turn one, because Mordrak can't use his First to the Fray ability on a unit he is not joined to. No rules are broken.

If the stormraven is a dedicated transport then I'd say yes to circumventing the no flyer on turn one rule, since however its bought apart from the unit an they do not need the stormraven to deepstrike i'd say no you can't circumvent the rule that states all flyers start in reserves.

I've read through this thread and there is a flaw in the initial arguement:

Mordrak does not have the Independent Character rule. If Ghost Knights are bought he is treated as an Upgrade Character for them (thus making them a retinue, not a seperate unit that he's joining). Mordrak can't join any unit because of this, flyer or otherwise. This is all outlined in page 40 of the Grey Knights codex.

Now on the other hand Independent Characters can join Mordrak, they would benefit from his rule, but again, flyers can't join Mordrak because it's not an independent character.

Further more the only time vehicles are a unit is when they are in a Squadron, which is formed with other vehicles (page 77 of the big rulebook). "Most vehicles fight as individual units and are represented by a single model."

The Storm Raven doesn't have the Squadron rule and is thus, a unit of a single model.

Lastly on page 39 of the rulebook we see that Independent Characters can join other units, but not vehicle squadrons, or units that consist of single models (such as most vehicles or Monstrous Creatures).

So while Mordak can embark onto a Storm Raven, he can't join it as he doesn't have the Independent Character rule, and even if he did you can't form a unit with vehicles. This means that despite who is inside the Storm Raven it does not share rules with the models inside as they are not a single unit. The only exception to this sharing of rules is if a model specifically has a rule that affects vehicles, not just units they are joined too. Since Mordrak does not have a rule that affects any vehicle he is embarked in, he can not affect the Storm Raven with his FttF rule.

In conclusion I believe that if Mordrak and his Ghost Knight are embarked in a vehicle that is deep striking they do not use Mordrak's special rule as it is the Vehicle that is Deep Striking, not Mordrak. This is due in part to the fact that if Mordrak was deep striking he would be placed on the table, not the flyer (as per the Deep Strike rules (on page 36 in the rulebook).

And finally, a unit and a Dedicated Transport are counted as a single unit (124 in the rulebook), but in the case of a unit in reserves and any other vehicle is only mentioned as "arriving together". This means they do not count as a singular unit for purposes of special rules that modify the way deployment would work. Since Mordrak can not buy a transport as a dedicated transport no transport counts as being a singular unit with him for the purposes of reserves. This would mean that a Deep Striking Storm Raven with Mordrak inside wouldn't use his Deep Strike rules (because he's embarked, doesn't form a unit with the transport and doesn't get placed on the board when placing him for the purposes of determining since the rules for being in a transport do not say that you form a unit with the vehicle, only that your inside of it), and FttF doesn't give operate permissively to say "vehicles".

So no, this combo doesn't work without GW giving us an FAQ from the Devs saying that it's supposed to (which would make that RAI not RAW).

Wow, the OP and Jeffersonion are great examples of the kind of player i hope I NEVER have to play. Hell, my first thought was that they were the same person since the OP disappeared and Jeffersonian came in white knighting his argument.

Rigeld, Nos, and others have repeatedly pointed out how you are incorrect within the realm of GW rules and you continue to carry on with the whole "your wrong, and I'm right, so nannie nannie boo boo" schtick.

ClockworkZion Seems to have eaten their wheaties this morning and have covered what seems to be every base left remotely open.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Mock all you want, but none of you have posted a rebuttal as to why a unit in reserve would arrive over multiple turns. Because the only way for First to the Frey to not work is if you break the deployment from reserve rules. If Mordrak arrives on the same turn as the vehicle he is embarked upon, then the vehicle he is embarked upon will arrive at the same time as Mordrak. The only thing First to the Frey does as change which turn the arrival occurs on.

I’d like to see your reason why Mordrak cannot arrive from reserve in a vehicle he is embarked upon.

I'm waiting.

SJ

ClockworkZion wrote:
I've read through this thread and there is a flaw in the initial arguement:

Mordrak does not have the Independent Character rule. If Ghost Knights are bought he is treated as an Upgrade Character for them (thus making them a retinue, not a seperate unit that he's joining). Mordrak can't join any unit because of this, flyer or otherwise. This is all outlined in page 40 of the Grey Knights codex.

Now on the other hand Independent Characters can join Mordrak, they would benefit from his rule, but again, flyers can't join Mordrak because it's not an independent character.

Further more the only time vehicles are a unit is when they are in a Squadron, which is formed with other vehicles (page 77 of the big rulebook). "Most vehicles fight as individual units and are represented by a single model."

The Storm Raven doesn't have the Squadron rule and is thus, a unit of a single model.

Lastly on page 39 of the rulebook we see that Independent Characters can join other units, but not vehicle squadrons, or units that consist of single models (such as most vehicles or Monstrous Creatures).

So while Mordak can embark onto a Storm Raven, he can't join it as he doesn't have the Independent Character rule, and even if he did you can't form a unit with vehicles. This means that despite who is inside the Storm Raven it does not share rules with the models inside as they are not a single unit. The only exception to this sharing of rules is if a model specifically has a rule that affects vehicles, not just units they are joined too. Since Mordrak does not have a rule that affects any vehicle he is embarked in, he can not affect the Storm Raven with his FttF rule.

In conclusion I believe that if Mordrak and his Ghost Knight are embarked in a vehicle that is deep striking they do not use Mordrak's special rule as it is the Vehicle that is Deep Striking, not Mordrak. This is due in part to the fact that if Mordrak was deep striking he would be placed on the table, not the flyer (as per the Deep Strike rules (on page 36 in the rulebook).

And finally, a unit and a Dedicated Transport are counted as a single unit (124 in the rulebook), but in the case of a unit in reserves and any other vehicle is only mentioned as "arriving together". This means they do not count as a singular unit for purposes of special rules that modify the way deployment would work. Since Mordrak can not buy a transport as a dedicated transport no transport counts as being a singular unit with him for the purposes of reserves. This would mean that a Deep Striking Storm Raven with Mordrak inside wouldn't use his Deep Strike rules (because he's embarked, doesn't form a unit with the transport and doesn't get placed on the board when placing him for the purposes of determining since the rules for being in a transport do not say that you form a unit with the vehicle, only that your inside of it), and FttF doesn't give operate permissively to say "vehicles".

So no, this combo doesn't work without GW giving us an FAQ from the Devs saying that it's supposed to (which would make that RAI not RAW).

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:
ClockworkZion Seems to have eaten their wheaties this morning and have covered what seems to be every base left remotely open.

Actually it was a Kashi cereal, but either way it was full of lots of fiber.

I tried to cover all the bases, but I'm sure someone will still find semantics to try and use to claim it'll work regardless. Or attack my post count on this board (this one being my second) which creates the appearance of being new (I'm not. I just lurk a lot). Either way I appreciate the nod, it's nice when you take the time to post a full argument and people notice it instead of skipping it because it has words instead of crayon drawings.

And just because I think I forgot to mention it (or if it's just not clear enough):

Embarking isn't the same as forming a unit. Embarking is riding inside of a transport. And unless you have a special rule that works from inside of a vehicle (by FAQ or being specifically mentioned as working that way (for example the Techmarine's Blessing of the Omnissiah which is permitted to work from inside a vehicle per FAQ)), you can't use your special rule from inside a vehicle. This goes for psychic powers, and rules like FttF. As such regardless of what your interpretation of how the model joins the vehicle, he can't affect it with the rule as it does not specifically mention it affecting any vehicles he's embarked on.

And since he's inside a vehicle his rules for Deep Striking aren't used for the same reason. Instead we use the Flyer's rules for Deep Striking which aren't affected by FttF (as previously mentioned) thus meaning it uses it's own rules instead (which follow the basic rules as outlined in the rulebook).

Now if GW puts out an FAQ that says otherwise, then fine, as FAQ trumps internet arguments. But as it stands there is nothing in the rules (which are permissive, not omissive, as in they restrict your actions by say what you can do, not by only saying what you can't) that actually supports this in the actual rules and thus it is not a legal option.

Now assuming that this is actually shut, I'm going back to my lurking, pending any response to my postings regarding this rule.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Mock all you want, but none of you have posted a rebuttal as to why a unit in reserve would arrive over multiple turns. Because the only way for First to the Frey to not work is if you break the deployment from reserve rules. If Mordrak arrives on the same turn as the vehicle he is embarked upon, then the vehicle he is embarked upon will arrive at the same time as Mordrak. The only thing First to the Frey does as change which turn the arrival occurs on.

I’d like to see your reason why Mordrak cannot arrive from reserve in a vehicle he is embarked upon.

I'm waiting.

SJ

It's already been explained, you're just ignoring it.
Mordrak cannot join the Flyer, therefore First to the Frey cannot apply if he's embarked.
Perhaps you should read the relevant rules instead of assuming you're right?

Where does it say in First to the Frey that Mordrak must be joined to a unit he accompanies? Accompany is a word used in the First to the Frey rule, so therefore it does exist in the 40k 6th edition rule set. I have challenged the assumption that a transport is not included in the First to the Frey special rule, as "any unit he accompanies" does in fact literally cover any unit Mordrak is grouped with. There is no rule in 6th edition that specifically states special rules cannot be used inside vehicles (transport bestow Fearless on passengers, for example), nor is there a rule that specifically states psychic powers cannot be used inside vehicles (although there are rules that specifically stated only witchfire powers maybe use to target models via fire ports). I am not the OP. And I have read the relevant rules, which do support the OP's position (although judging by some of the posts by others, they may not have even bothered to read the rules at all).

What I have not seen on this thread is any attempt to disprove my statements using the actual rules as written. I have read each response, which ranges from "you are wrong" to "any unit is singular" to "embarked is not accompanying" to “ this special rule does not work”. I have fully proven my position by RAW. Simply stating that I am wrong because accompany either equals joining or accompany does not equal joining is an opinion, not RAW. RAW supports units grouped together in reserve to arrive at the same time, in the same place, by a single reserve roll. First to the Frey is a special rule (Codex > BRB) that changes to order upon which Mordrak and any unit he accompanies (RAW supports all units arriving with Mordrak from reserve on the same reserve roll to be treated as a single unit for deployment purposes) to arrive on turn 1 without scatter if Mordrak is deep striking (Mordrak inside a vehicle that is deep striking is considered to be deep striking as Deep Striking rules apply to him just as they apply to the vehicle), no reserve roll required. The combination the OP proposed is legal and is fully supported by RAW. Each attempt to disprove this has ignored rules covering reserves and deployment from reserves, and has either hinged on what “any”, “unit”, and “accompany” means, or blatantly ignores the rules as written.

Calling me a troll, mocking me, and just stating that I am wrong does not disprove my posts. And for the record, I’m not posting because I support the tactic, I’m posting because it is legal and posters on this forum have taken a hard line against the tactic by ignoring the actual rules as they are written.

SJ

Mock you? Your taking a word and trying to twist the definition to fit your purposes. Yet, you say you are being mocked when we apply YOUR definitions in a broader context.

You have been shown to be wrong on just about every level of this rule, yet you ignore it, and selectively reply to arguments, avoiding the ones that outright disprove your claim. Your argument is simply restating the same stance.

Even your own statement. ""does in fact literally cover any unit Mordrak is grouped with."" disproves your stance.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Where does it say in First to the Frey that Mordrak must be joined to a unit he accompanies? Accompany is a word used in the First to the Frey rule, so therefore it does exist in the 40k 6th edition rule set.

Since ACCOMPANY is not defined in the 40k ruleset, RAW FttF never works. According to the Rules, ACCOMPANYING is not a thing any model can do.

We can argue English definitions all we want, but if the rules make no mention of ACCOMPANY then it has no meaning in the game of 40k.


It is the same as the rules debate about Vehicles and INV saves. RAW, Vehicles have INV saves they can use against Wounds, but no permission is given to use them against Glances or Pens. However, no one actually plays that RAW.

It is a similar issue here. ACCOMPANY is not defined by the 40k rulebook. Mordrak is unable to ACCOMPANY any unit, RAW. Therefore FttF never works.

I have challenged the assumption that a transport is not included in the First to the Frey special rule, as "any unit he accompanies" in fact literally cover any unit Mordrak is grouped with. There is no rule in 6th edition that specifically states special rules cannot be used inside vehicles (transport bestow Fearless on passengers, for example),

The bolded statement is irrelevant. the rules tell you what you CAN do not what you CANNOT.

Example: there is no rule saying that I cannot smash your models with hammer.


According to the strictest RAW, ACCOMPANY does not exist.

You can EMBARK in a Transport.
You can JOIN a unit,

You never "ACCOMPANY" anything.
RAW FttF never works.



================



List of the times the Word Accompany [or various forms] is used in the 40k rulebook

Introduction page
xviii under battles
138 Adeptus ministorum
159 organization
173 Roots of Corruption
192 Yarrick
232 Betrayal of Body
349 Teleport Attack

Please show that one of those instances [or an instance i did not find] gives you permission to ACCOMPANY a unit.


=======================


Lacking another definition for the word ACCOMPANY, most players assume that ACCOMPANY=JOIN [this is RAI, not RAW]


You have a different interpretation of the word ACCOMPANY in your version or RAI. [which states that ACCOMPANY = JOIN or EMBARKED in reserves]


As such there will not be any agreement on this issue until GW makes some sort of FAQ that further clarifiies the definition of Accompany in the ruleset of 40k.

And there lies why this is a doomed forum. You just stated First to the Frey can never work because GW failed to define the word "accompany". Bravo.

SJ

First to the fray requires the unit to be DS; he isnt, he is embarked in a vehicle that is DS; the unit that is DS is not Mordrak.

FttF doesnt activate, meaning it is yet another rule Jeff hasnt read.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
And there lies why this is a doomed forum. You just stated First to the Frey can never work because GW failed to define the word "accompany". Bravo.

SJ

The whole point of this sub-forum is to argue about the RAW.

It clearly states in the 40k rulesbook that you need to make some sort of agreement between the players in order to play the game. GW basically admits that it is impossible to play 40k with strict RAW.

By pointing out the rules issues like this one, where the GW rules are inconsistent or incomplete, we can help to prepare players. They should know what rules do and do not work RAW, so they are able to generate a set of Rules As Played that works for them and those they play with.

Additionally, I think that GW does have an ear to forums like this and others. In the past, GW has put out some FAQ answers that were remarkably similar to questions on this forum and from the INAT FAQ.


By pointing out the inconsistencies like this, I am helping other play the game, avoid potential arguments with no "Correct" answer, and hopefully improve the ruleset of the game in the future.


I am doing exactly what this forum was intended to do, and I am not ashamed of it at all.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Where does it say in First to the Frey that Mordrak must be joined to a unit he accompanies?

Mordrak can't convey this rule magically to a unit he's not joined to. The only way he can join a unit is by taking Ghost Knights (and he counts as an upgrade of them). To share this rule he needs to be part of the unit, otherwise he's working it alone. The only other way to claim that this rule would work is that the entire army benefits from it because he "accompanies" the army.

And that is frankly is ridicuious.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Accompany is a word used in the First to the Frey rule, so therefore it does exist in the 40k 6th edition rule set.

Technically true. It's not a word that's used to describe units, characters or independent characters.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
I have challenged the assumption that a transport is not included in the First to the Frey special rule, as "any unit he accompanies" does in fact literally cover any unit Mordrak is grouped with.

As I quoted from the actual rulebook you can't join a model that isn't a vehicle to a vehicle. The only things that can form units with vehicles are vehicles when used in Squadrons. To share a rule with another model Mordrak needs to be in a unit (thus accompanying them since he would be with them). He can't join units (not an IC), and only creates a unit when he buys Ghost Knights. He doesn't accompany a vehicle since he can't form a unit with a vehicle.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
There is no rule in 6th edition that specifically states special rules cannot be used inside vehicles (transport bestow Fearless on passengers, for example),

Permissive ruleset. It tells you what you can do, not what you can't. Nowhere does the rulebook say you can use special rules from the inside of a vehicle.

The fearless rule is a specific rule granted by transports, regardless of the rules of the unit inside. It's granted by the transport, not the unit and thus doesn't support your arguement.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
nor is there a rule that specifically states psychic powers cannot be used inside vehicles (although there are rules that specifically stated only witchfire powers maybe use to target models via fire ports). I am not the OP. And I have read the relevant rules, which do support the OP's position (although judging by some of the posts by others, they may not have even bothered to read the rules at all).

You are confusing having a ruleset that specifically gives you permission to do things, and one that works by only telling you the things you can't do. 40K is the former, not the latter.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
What I have not seen on this thread is any attempt to disprove my statements using the actual rules as written.

So taking rules in context of the actual books, posting page numbers and using them as supporting evidence wasn't using actual rules to support an arguement? I guess I forgot how this sort of thing works.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
I have read each response, which ranges from "you are wrong" to "any unit is singular" to "embarked is not accompanying" to “ this special rule does not work”.

My "this special rule does not work" was a summary, not the entire post. I don't feel like drawing a flow chart in crayons so I'm not going to break it down for you again.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
I have fully proven my position by RAW. Simply stating that I am wrong because accompany either equals joining or accompany does not equal joining is an opinion, not RAW. RAW supports units grouped together in reserve to arrive at the same time, in the same place, by a single reserve roll.

Yes it does, by putting one unit inside the other. When Deep Striking the Deep Striking unit is placed on the table and then scatter is rolled (unless some other rule trumps the scatter). When a unit is inside a transport and both unit and the transport have the Deep Strike rule, which are you putting on the table? If it's not the unit, you aren't using their Deep Strike rules.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
First to the Frey is a special rule (Codex > BRB) that changes to order upon which Mordrak and any unit he accompanies (RAW supports all units arriving with Mordrak from reserve on the same reserve roll to be treated as a single unit for deployment purposes) to arrive on turn 1 without scatter if Mordrak is deep striking (Mordrak inside a vehicle that is deep striking is considered to be deep striking as Deep Striking rules apply to him just as they apply to the vehicle), no reserve roll required. The combination the OP proposed is legal and is fully supported by RAW. Each attempt to disprove this has ignored rules covering reserves and deployment from reserves, and has either hinged on what “any”, “unit”, and “accompany” means, or blatantly ignores the rules as written.

RAW supports dedicated transports being a single unit, otherwise just mentioned as being a single roll. Storm Ravens aren't a dedicated transport (as it doesn't say that all transports form single units and the rule set is permissive, we can't assume that all do therefore they don't). To do otherwise is not RAW it's RAIIT (Rules as I Interpret Them). I quoted page numbers and rules supporting the fact that the OP's and your interpretation where not true RAW, showing that Mordrak can't form a unit with the Storm Raven because the rules don't explicitly state it. This isn't about precedent or implication, it's about what the rules say in pure black and white only.. I suggest you actually go back and read my entire post, read the things I said and read the things I referenced.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Calling me a troll, mocking me, and just stating that I am wrong does not disprove my posts. And for the record, I’m not posting because I support the tactic, I’m posting because it is legal and posters on this forum have taken a hard line against the tactic by ignoring the actual rules as they are written.

SJ

Discounting other people because they disagree with your narrow interpretation of the rules (which requires adding to the rules in a way that alters the way they are written) does not make them wrong. I'm not mocking you, nor am I picking on you. I posted strong evidence that you've ignored so I'll bring it all up again. If you still disagree, tough cookies. Your opinion is not fact, and your interpretation is not one that is supported by a pure RAW reading of the rules.

It comes down to this: for Mordrak's rule to work, he has to be the one Deep Striking. Nowhere in the rules does it say that a model that is embarked in the reserves may choose to Deep Strike out of that vehicle. And because the Deep Striking model must be placed on the table Mordrak can't Deep Strike once he's embarked. However, the transport he's in (again, the Storm Raven), can Deep Strike and can be placed. It is a separate unit that Mordrak (and maybe his Ghost Knights) are inside of. Because it's not a Dedicated Transport for Mordrak and his Phantom Crew the rules do not explicitly say (which is the crux of RAW, what the rules literally say, not what we extrapolate them to say) that it forms a unit with the models inside of it. Because of this we use the Deep Strike rules as they pertain to the Storm Raven which are not affected by FttF rule because nowhere in the rules (and that would be any of them) does it give explicit permission to use a rule that modifies when it can come in from inside the vehicle.

To argue otherwise is not RAW because there is not permission given in this permissive rule set to do so. It doesn't matter if "Mordrak" accompanies a unit in the Grey Knight book because neither the main rulebook nor the Grey Knights book explain how accompanying a unit works. And due to this lack of a definition set forth in the rules (no English Dictionary is the authority to set forth the definition for a ruleset as they are not the authorities of the rules, only the rules themselves hold that distinction) there is no RAW to claim that Mordrak inside of anything is "accompanying" it. Furthermore because there are no rules for "accompanying" anything Mordrak is instead effectively broken and apparently can't use his own rule due to the way the rules work.

So this is where we sit. Mordrak technically doesn't work because there are no rules for "accompanying" things.

Get an FAQ that says otherwise and you've got a leg to stand on. Otherwise your arguing an interpretation of the rules, not how they are actually written in black and white.

Now I've had to repeat myself again, there won't be a third time because we've just reached the only true logical conclusion of this "accompany" argument: Mordrak doesn't work. Congrats. You broke Grey Knights in a bad way. That's an achievement.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Where does it say in First to the Frey that Mordrak must be joined to a unit he accompanies? Accompany is a word used in the First to the Frey rule, so therefore it does exist in the 40k 6th edition rule set.

Now you must define it. Since it doesn't exist in rules outside FttF, we look at the English definition which is "to go with".
Please, quote this post and explain how "to go with" is not the same wording used for ICs joining a unit.

What I have not seen on this thread is any attempt to disprove my statements using the actual rules as written.

Bold lie. Please retract it.

Simply stating that I am wrong because accompany either equals joining or accompany does not equal joining is an opinion, not RAW.

Perhaps you're not familiar with the definition of RAW? Or you're somehow not familiar with the plain English definition of accompany, despite the fact that you keep using it and its been provided in the thread multiple times?

Each attempt to disprove this has ignored rules covering reserves and deployment from reserves, and has either hinged on what “any”, “unit”, and “accompany” means, or blatantly ignores the rules as written.

Yes, just as your position hinges on what the word "accompany" means, so does mine. One of those positions is actually supported by rules and has quoted them.

Calling me a troll, mocking me, and just stating that I am wrong does not disprove my posts. And for the record, I’m not posting because I support the tactic, I’m posting because it is legal and posters on this forum have taken a hard line against the tactic by ignoring the actual rules as they are written.

No, I haven't ignored any rules. Perhaps you'd like to finally attempt to disprove me? Or do you have me on ignore? Frankly that's about the only way you could possibly have not responded to my posts yet.

ClockworkZion wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Where does it say in First to the Frey that Mordrak must be joined to a unit he accompanies?

Get an FAQ that says otherwise and you've got a leg to stand on. Otherwise your arguing an interpretation of the rules, not how they are actually written in black and white.

Now I've had to repeat myself again, there won't be a third time because we've just reached the only true logical conclusion of this "accompany" argument: Mordrak doesn't work. Congrats. You broke Grey Knights in a bad way. That's an achievement.

Nice, i gotta say, that was impressive. Thank you Clockwork, for that overwhelming rebuttal.

More so to the point, Mordrak does need to be Faq'd. His rule literally doesn't work in any fashion at all RAW, so like old Zogwort, I'll be shelving him for a while.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:


Calling me a troll, mocking me, and just stating that I am wrong does not disprove my posts. And for the record, I’m not posting because I support the tactic, I’m posting because it is legal and posters on this forum have taken a hard line against the tactic by ignoring the actual rules as they are written.

No, I haven't ignored any rules. Perhaps you'd like to finally attempt to disprove me? Or do you have me on ignore? Frankly that's about the only way you could possibly have not responded to my posts yet.

This has literally been his tactic all along....and to top it all off? read his original post in this thread....


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Dakka-daka has gone down hill as a source of good rule debating. This is not the first thread peeps on this forum have gone decidedly against a legal combination (as based on rule as written).

Mordark embarked on a transport is in fact "accompanying" the transport. Rules-wise, the two models are co-located. If the transport had firing ports, Mordrak could legally shoot his Stormbolter from that firing port. If Mordrak was not accompanying the transport, then he would not be able to legally fire his weapon from the port.

If a Strike Squad is embarked on a transport, we measure their Warp Quake from the hull of the vehicle. If the Strike Squad was not legally accompanying the transport, we would not be able to use Warp Quake at all while embarked.

These are to examples of units accompanying a transport. As such, if we follow Mordrak's First to the Frey special rule, all the is required is for Morkrak and every unit he is accompanying to be designated as deep striking. That's it. Mordrak in a Stormraven that are designated as deep striking will, by the rules as written, arrive on turn 1 without scatter. This is legal because the rules make it legal.

Debating what the word "accompany" means is a debating technique to disregard an argument by focuing on a word rather than the actual issue.

SJ

No page references, makes up a rule about transports and strike squads, makes up rules for "accompanying" and then tries to defend himself by literally saying if you debate the meaning of "accompany" you aren't focusing on the actual issue, which is that accompany doesn't have any actual value in 40k from a RAW perspective.
This is either the worst debater on the planet, or one of the most stubborn trolls i've ever dealt with. Which is an entertaining idea, because i actually enjoy stupid people, so i'm winning in the end.

Isn't it Fray, not Frey?

He's been spelling it wrong this entire time while standing on top of his pedestal of intellect.

Unless, of course, you mean some Norse Goddess of Fertility, in which case, carry on.

Of course, I'm just nitpicking, but I think this entire argument is stupid, and rests upon words that aren't even used in the rulebook/codex.

Neronoxx wrote:

ClockworkZion wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Where does it say in First to the Frey that Mordrak must be joined to a unit he accompanies?

Get an FAQ that says otherwise and you've got a leg to stand on. Otherwise your arguing an interpretation of the rules, not how they are actually written in black and white.

Now I've had to repeat myself again, there won't be a third time because we've just reached the only true logical conclusion of this "accompany" argument: Mordrak doesn't work. Congrats. You broke Grey Knights in a bad way. That's an achievement.

Nice, i gotta say, that was impressive. Thank you Clockwork, for that overwhelming rebuttal.

More so to the point, Mordrak does need to be Faq'd. His rule literally doesn't work in any fashion at all RAW, so like old Zogwort, I'll be shelving him for a while.

Thanks, I think! I hate that I had to take their own conclusions to that extreme, but it was the only true outcome of harping on how their was no definition of "accompany" by the game rules, thus Mordrak can't give his rule to anyone else.

He's not nearly as broken as he seems, he only falls apart when you start taking "accompany" to mean anything other than "Mordrak, his Ghost Knights and the ICs that are tagging along". Most people see him this way, it's only when people try to twist the meaning of "accompany" to mean "Mordrak and the entire army of Grey Knights he's a part of" that it really falls apart. Your average person won't complain about it, and if you broach the problem with a TO before a tournament and establish a common ruling there shouldn't be an issue. And I don't think I know of any TO that would say "yes" to the "turn 1 Deepstrike a Storm Raven into your opponent's line, have it Zooming, and get to kill their important stuff without even risking scatter" interpretation.

Either way this whole thread got so silly I sent an email into the GW FAQ address along with an explanation of the problem, and the questions that came up, as well as the answers most of us had, and the ones that were being proposed that bent the spirit of the game over a desk and railed it from behind.

I normally just do this quietly from time to time when threads get heated, but this was one of those threads where you see people making good points and someone wearing a dunce cap running around wearing only a thin coat of fecal matter with their fingers in their ears going "I'M NOT LISTENING!".

Crazyterran wrote:


Of course, I'm just nitpicking, but I think this entire argument is stupid, and rests upon words that aren't even used in the rulebook/codex.

Kinda been my point for a while....

The thread is going around in circles at this point and has gotten a bit hostile and unfriendly.

I think the question's been adequately answered, too.

Locking.