OK, so we've mostly read about them, and I'm not fully interested in RAW as everyone appears to understand we have a real problem. So how will you play them, or try to convince your gaming group to play them?

Deathwing Strike Force

Characters not in terminator armour. Deepstrike allowed or no. If no, how do they deploy?

Dedicated Transports (Land Raiders). Deepstrike allowed or no. If no, how do they deploy? i personally think this is not an issue as I feel that only drop pods for dreadnoughts were intended for this strikeforce and not Land Raiders.

Ravenwing Strike Force

HQ options not listed as Ravenwing but have option for a bike.

Chaplain...Ravenwing has their own chaplain. Add Ravenwing rule?

Interrogator Chaplains and Librarians. In Deathwing, not Ravenwing but have options for bike. Allow in strikeforce with just Deathwing rule (so no jink reroll) or give ravenwing rule? deathwing rule should not be removed (see Sammael). personally, I don't think they should get the Ravenwing rule but should be allowed in strikeforce.

Any others I missed?

Hopefully we get an official FAQ, but if not...I guess we have to govern ourselves.

 bullyboy wrote:
Deathwing Strike Force

Characters not in terminator armour. Deepstrike allowed or no. If no, how do they deploy?

Dedicated Transports (Land Raiders). Deepstrike allowed or no. If no, how do they deploy? i personally think this is not an issue as I feel that only drop pods for dreadnoughts were intended for this strikeforce and not Land Raiders.

The formation requires that all models be placed into Deep Strike Reserve but does not offer any permission to do so for models or units that are ordinarily unable.

 Mr. Shine wrote:

 bullyboy wrote:
Deathwing Strike Force

Characters not in terminator armour. Deepstrike allowed or no. If no, how do they deploy?

Dedicated Transports (Land Raiders). Deepstrike allowed or no. If no, how do they deploy? i personally think this is not an issue as I feel that only drop pods for dreadnoughts were intended for this strikeforce and not Land Raiders.

The formation requires that all models be placed into Deep Strike Reserve but does not offer any permission to do so for models or units that are ordinarily unable.

that's how my friend and I interpreted it too, only term armour and drop pod dreads for both DW formations. So any Land Raider borne termis must be from a CAD.

Sad to hear the book has such stupid problems. Well, when my roomie gets his new book I will read it and see whats up.

The Deathwing Strike Force is pretty clear cut, and restricts you to things that can only Deep Strike. I agree that the non Terminator characters should have the option for armor, but not going to care. Not really seeing any inconsistency to be honest.

As for the Ravenwing Strike Force our group came up with a happy middle ground until it gets resolved.

Any HQs taken with a Bike as Part of the Strike Force will gain the Ravenwing Rule. There was some discussion from a fluff perspective, that all Deathwing units technically have Ravenwing training as they advanced up the ranks. So there was a proposal the non Deathwing HQs wouldn't get the Ravenwing rule. We just decided to allow all the characters to have it so a smaller point game wouldn't force a RW player to have to get Sammael/Sableclaw.

HQs that take a Bike as part of a normal force will not gain the Ravenwing rule, even if the intent was to run them with a RW unit. Most will have an Invulnerable or at least the option to get one.

No, it doesn't make much sense since there isn't a non Ravenwing bike unit option. It seemed to end any argument since the only real abuse would be to put a Character on a bike, then have him join a normal unit and have a re-rolling Jink save tank wounds for the squad, much like other characters with an Invulnerable save.

Just a suggestion, but one that worked as a house rule for everyone.

I would play it quite differently.

1) The deep strike rule is the one that lets you get placed onto the deep strike reserve. You don't need the deep strike rule to deep strike once you are in there (same reason why being put into deep strike reserve by GOI mishap still let's you deep strike the following turn). Since the strike force puts you into the deep strike reserve then any model in the formation can deep strike. This is how RAW works and RAI seems to point that way, or a deathwing strikeforce wouldn't be albe to play Ezekiel and Azrael.

2) If you are playing a Ravenwing strikeforce then you are usign the 2nd company, not 2nd company led by some other big shots (inner circle). Ravenwing do not have a librarius or interrogator chaplains, so i'd add to the models that don't have the deathwing rule (chaplains and company masters) the ravenwing rule if they get a bike.

Spoletta wrote:
Since the strike force puts you into the deep strike reserve then any model in the formation can deep strike.

Sorry, but could you please point to where the formation's rules say all models in the formation may or do begin the game in Deep Strike Reserve?

The formation's command benefits require that "All units in this detachment must begin the game in Deep Strike Reserve." That's a requirement, not special permission.

Deathwing Strike Force

Characters not in terminator armour. Deepstrike allowed or no. If no, how do they deploy?

Dedicated Transports (Land Raiders). Deepstrike allowed or no. If no, how do they deploy? i personally think this is not an issue as I feel that only drop pods for dreadnoughts were intended for this strikeforce and not Land Raiders.

You have to deepstrike if you can't deep strike you can't be part of the formation. Don't see how this is an inconsistency seems entirely consistent from a RaW & RaI point of view.

Ravenwing Strike Force

HQ options not listed as Ravenwing but have option for a bike.

Chaplain...Ravenwing has their own chaplain. Add Ravenwing rule?

Interrogator Chaplains and Librarians. In Deathwing, not Ravenwing but have options for bike. Allow in strikeforce with just Deathwing rule (so no jink reroll) or give ravenwing rule? deathwing rule should not be removed (see Sammael). personally, I don't think they should get the Ravenwing rule but should be allowed in strikeforce.

I'd allow any bike HQ to join RW detachment, I wouldn't give then the RW rule seems fairest solution unless we get an FAQ...

Any others I missed?

Hopefully we get an official FAQ, but if not...I guess we have to govern ourselves.

Can't think of any others at the moment but if 1 rule is all that's wrong in a 160 page codex that'll be a first. I wouldn't hold my breath from an FAQ though.

There is one huge inconsistency actually. The formation has no requirement that all models are able to deep strike when you make the list, the problem arises when you play it. This means that a legal list conflicts with it's own rules.
There are 2 possible interpretations of this, by extending what it says from " You must deep strike everything" to:

1) All models that are able to deep strike must do so.
2) All models must deep strike even if they normally aren't allowed to.

Both of those templates of wording are used by GW in other cases.

In the first case you have made the pure deathwing players happy since they can deploy on the field by adding a non terminator IC to the unit.
In the second case you let them deep strike everything but pure deathwing isn't playable.

The case where you say "Only deep strike able models can be part of this formation" is the one forcing things too much. A table level rule cannot influence a list composition restriction.

The formation tells you that you have to put everything in DS reserve. If you get to the game anything you take that can't be put in DS reserve so can't be legally deployed and is destroyed according to the deployment rules. So you are free to take non-DS units but they are auto dead at the start of the battle WO it is a pretty dumb idea. There is absolutely not justification for either 1 or 2 in your example.

Neither is a justification for what you say, why would they be destroyed? There is nothing like that in the deployment rules. Actually nowhere does it ever take into consideration that a unit could be undeployable (except for shortage of table area or immobile models)

There is no correct answer here, we can only find the one most fitting that bends the rules as little as possible. Having an in game rule that affects list construction rules looks like to me as being a pretty big forcing of the rules.
On the other hand the 2 i suggested are just a clarification of an existing rule.

Edit: If we go by pure RAW then it follows the following rule "If a model cannot be deployed for any kind of reason then it must go in reserve". So you would keep DW non termi models in normal reserve.

Which it also can't go in. Why can't an in game rule effect list building?

I'm actually not too concerned about the Deathwing rules as I'd take all termies or a few dreads in pods, won't have to worry about buying a Land Raider now.

The Ravenwing is still an annoyance to me as I don't want to take Sammael, that should never be a requirement...not with the new way lists are built.

If you look at the fluff part it is clearly indicated that there are Ravenwing chaplains, so those at least should be able to take a bike and become Ravewing.

Spoletta wrote:
If you look at the fluff part it is clearly indicated that there are Ravenwing chaplains, so those at least should be able to take a bike and become Ravewing.

they can take a bike (as can Librarians and Interrogator Chaplains) so that part is OK. It's the lack of the Ravenwing rule that excludes them from the formation.

 FlingitNow wrote:
Which it also can't go in. Why can't an in game rule effect list building?

Cause it would be an absolute first. The rule set is divided into two parts: how to make a legal list, how to play a list on the table.

Those two set of rules don't influence each other, except for the fact that the rules on one side have to be coherent with the rules on other side. We are now facing an incoherency.
Saying that a gameplay rule affects how i'm allowed to build a list is the same as a rule saying that you can spend army points during the game. There is a chronological problem in one influencing the other.

Sure, nothing in stopping us from adding "You can add to this detachment only models/units capable of deepstriking" . But we are modifying a rule, we are not saying that this is the correct interpretation of the rules. Which is perfectly fine.
Since there is an incoherency you either modify the list building rules or the gameplay rules. One has to change to meet the other one.

I suggested the previous 2 points since we are not adding a rule, but just clarifying an existing one. If we have to go with the path of minimal modifications then that is the way.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 bullyboy wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
If you look at the fluff part it is clearly indicated that there are Ravenwing chaplains, so those at least should be able to take a bike and become Ravewing.

they can take a bike (as can Librarians and Interrogator Chaplains) so that part is OK. It's the lack of the Ravenwing rule that excludes them from the formation.

With the difference that the fact Librarians and IChaps can't become ravenwing could be intended. There are no such characters in the 2nd company. Chaplains instead are part of the 2nd company.

Cause it would be an absolute first. The rule set is divided into two parts: how to make a legal list, how to play a list on the table.

Those two set of rules don't influence each other,

I'm going to want rules support for this claim. You have a formation that forces you to put everything in DS reserve, why would you play as anything other than options which prevent DS aren't available?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Another rule inconsistency is does the RW Support squad get Stealth from the Dark shroud in the formation?

 FlingitNow wrote:

Cause it would be an absolute first. The rule set is divided into two parts: how to make a legal list, how to play a list on the table.

Those two set of rules don't influence each other,

I'm going to want rules support for this claim. You have a formation that forces you to put everything in DS reserve, why would you play as anything other than options which prevent DS aren't available?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Another rule inconsistency is does the RW Support squad get Stealth from the Dark shroud in the formation?

Look at it from another point of view. I'm allowed to take non terminator DW models in the formation, and that's a fact. The rules clearly state so.

Now those models are in my list and i get to start a game with that list. What happens when i want to deploy? Unknown, but until that moment there has no been no issues at all with the rules. This problem arises after i have legally compiled a list, so the solution (without changing the rules) can't be interpreting how list making works. If you solve this by interpretation you do it with the rules that are originating the problem (you must deep strike). If you solve it by changing how i compile my list then you are indeed changing a rule.

Let's not forget that some interrogator chaplains may have been promoted from the chaplain position in the ravenwing.

While trying to work out an argument for this issue, I just noticed that the only DA HQ with any armor listed is Beliel, all the rest have no armor listed under wargear, only a 3+ save on their profiles. GW done F'd up the DA codex .... Again!

I sware most of their problems would be resolved by simply hiring a competent editor.

Back to the inconsistency issues, I would have have to side with following the rules as possibly intended and ignore the open slots that can't be filled for the RW formation, while only taking HQs in TDA for the DW formation. Some day someone at GW will work up the will to admit they done F'd up, and issue an Errata. Until then, we might want to try not being dicks with assuming exceptions where none exist. Just say'n.

SJ

Look at it from another point of view. I'm allowed to take non terminator DW models in the formation, and that's a fact. The rules clearly state so.

Now those models are in my list and i get to start a game with that list. What happens when i want to deploy? Unknown, but until that moment there has no been no issues at all with the rules. This problem arises after i have legally compiled a list, so the solution (without changing the rules) can't be interpreting how list making works. If you solve this by interpretation you do it with the rules that are originating the problem (you must deep strike). If you solve it by changing how i compile my list then you are indeed changing a rule.

But you know at list building that selecting such units causes you to force a break in the rules at deployment. It's like claiming you point a gun at someone and pull the trigger that it can't be illegal if that bullet flies into and kills the person you pointed the gun at.

The DW is fine no matter how much you want it to be so you can take PA characters in your DW detachment and deep strike your landraiders...

 FlingitNow wrote:

Look at it from another point of view. I'm allowed to take non terminator DW models in the formation, and that's a fact. The rules clearly state so.

Now those models are in my list and i get to start a game with that list. What happens when i want to deploy? Unknown, but until that moment there has no been no issues at all with the rules. This problem arises after i have legally compiled a list, so the solution (without changing the rules) can't be interpreting how list making works. If you solve this by interpretation you do it with the rules that are originating the problem (you must deep strike). If you solve it by changing how i compile my list then you are indeed changing a rule.

But you know at list building that selecting such units causes you to force a break in the rules at deployment. It's like claiming you point a gun at someone and pull the trigger that it can't be illegal if that bullet flies into and kills the person you pointed the gun at.

The DW is fine no matter how much you want it to be so you can take PA characters in your DW detachment and deep strike your landraiders...

Correct, i can make a list that does not incur in that problem.
I can make a list without assassinorum execution force and never having to face the insolvable problem of preferred enemy (warlord).
I can make a list without centurions and never having to face the insolvable problem of different armor values in a unit.

The fact that i can prevent a problem by limiting my lists doesn't mean that the rule in fault is the one allowing me to take centurions.

Spoletta wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:

Look at it from another point of view. I'm allowed to take non terminator DW models in the formation, and that's a fact. The rules clearly state so.

Now those models are in my list and i get to start a game with that list. What happens when i want to deploy? Unknown, but until that moment there has no been no issues at all with the rules. This problem arises after i have legally compiled a list, so the solution (without changing the rules) can't be interpreting how list making works. If you solve this by interpretation you do it with the rules that are originating the problem (you must deep strike). If you solve it by changing how i compile my list then you are indeed changing a rule.

But you know at list building that selecting such units causes you to force a break in the rules at deployment. It's like claiming you point a gun at someone and pull the trigger that it can't be illegal if that bullet flies into and kills the person you pointed the gun at.

The DW is fine no matter how much you want it to be so you can take PA characters in your DW detachment and deep strike your landraiders...

Correct, i can make a list that does not incur in that problem.
I can make a list without assassinorum execution force and never having to face the insolvable problem of preferred enemy (warlord).
I can make a list without centurions and never having to face the insolvable problem of different armor values in a unit.

The fact that i can prevent a problem by limiting my lists doesn't mean that the rule in fault is the one allowing me to take centurions.

So how can you field the Execution Force or Centurions? My interpretation does not prevent you from ever fielding DW , nor does it stop you from ever fielding Landraiders or PA DW characters. Also there is a difference between a rules gap (like PE vs model properties and Grav vs mixed saves) and a rules break (taking a unit that can't deep strike in a formation that must). This is clearly as case of the later, where as there would be no way to ever field the examples you gave.

This just illustrates how desperate you are to seek an unfair advantage through trying to exploit what you feel are unclear rules.

Not trying to get anything man (i'm a nid player), i'm just saying something that should be crystal clear, so i'm not sure why it appears so hard to understand.

There is no way to interpret the rule in saying that you can't get non termi models in there.

That said, there is no correct way to interpret the rules and say that you can do that without problem.

So something has to change. You either change the rules on the list building, or you change the rules on the list playing.

If we say that we change the rules and you can't take those models then that is a fine solution. Just don't come and say that you are not changing the rules but the rules mean what you say.

So at a shooting range you may point and aim and fire a gun. You can never kill some one. Can you point and aim and fire a gun at someone at a shooting range?

There is only 1 way to interpret the DW detachment, models must have the DW rule and they must be held in DS reserve (and thus must be eligible for the latter).

 FlingitNow wrote:
So at a shooting range you may point and aim and fire a gun. You can never kill some one. Can you point and aim and fire a gun at someone at a shooting range?

There is only 1 way to interpret the DW detachment, models must have the DW rule and they must be held in DS reserve (and thus must be eligible for the latter).

Ok i'm getting tired of this, if you have a real argument for what you say then use it please, if not i'm just going to ignore you.

I've given you explanations, precedents, proposed solutions... you provided nothing except your one minded interpretation of the rules, even supporting yourself with invented rules (models getting destroyed... lol).

It appears 100% clear to me (and precedents say so too) that in these cases you intervene on the rule causing the problem and not on the rule allowing you to field the model.

It is much more logical to change from "All models in the detachment must start in deepstrike reserve" to "All models in the detachment must, if able, start in deepstrike reserve" instead of changing "You can take only models with the DW rule" to "You can take only models with the DW rule that can deepstrike".

Changing is still changing I'm going to just follow all the rules. One interpretation requires changing rules, the other doesn't.

By taking the model, you intend to break a rule. Doing so is cheating.

It's like taking a sole Tervigon HQ army in sixth. Legal Lista p
M but when you can to pick your warlord, you couldn't.

 FlingitNow wrote:
Changing is still changing I'm going to just follow all the rules. One interpretation requires changing rules, the other doesn't.

And that is where you are wrong.
No solution here can be achieved without changing a rule. If you follow all the rules then you can take those models in your list. That's RAW for you, sorry.
But i already said this, so it seems that the communication isn't working, let's drop the discussion before it degenerates.

@ Nosferatu
It's not cheating, the same as taking the deathleaper formation in your list is not cheating even if you know that they commonly break the game. In this case it happens every time instead of commonly but the solution applied should be the same, and i don't remember that formation being banned.

The logical and easiest solution is clarifying the rule by adding an "If able" to it.

No the easiest way is to just follow all the rules without changing or breaking any. The Deathleaper and other examples you've come up with are not remotely comparable, they cause gaps in the rules not force you to intentionally break them and they all make the entire unit/detachment/formation unfieldable. We're not doing that just asking you to follow the rules whilst still being able to take the formation.

No, the logical solution is: if taking the model results in you breaking a rule, don't take that model. If you do, you're cheating.

Nice, next time i see centurion on the other side of the table i'll tell them that.

More seriously, i mailed GW about the issue.

Again how does taking Centurions lead you to acting counter to the rules? We just get a situation that the rules don't cover which is entirely different (and you could argue it's just as muchhis oopponent's fault for fielding a mixed save unit). Plus how CAN you field Centurions?

Have you actually got any coherent point or relevant example?

Plenty man, but you keep ignoring all of those.

There is no difference in taking a model that is likely to break the game and one that will do so. Both cases are treated the same way. This is not the first time we incur in one of those.

You know what was done in the long list of similar cases? Here's an hint, we didn't forbid the use of that model/formation.

You don't only want to make a special snowflake case out of this, but in doing so you are banning from the detachment the one model that was allowing this same list until a week ago. Do you understand how dumb it sounds to ban Azrael in the DW/RW detachment?

Edit: And not cause there was a change in the fluff or something done by GW, but because he generates one of the easiest to solve rules issues in the game. Yeah, nice choice.

One causes a rule whole the other forces you to break a rule. There is a difference between the rules breaking and you breaking a rule. One means the rules do not function, the other means you act contrary to the rules.

Likewise none of the examples you've listed are relevant or comparable as all first cause a rule to break (rather than cause you to break a rule) and secondly all involve an entire unit or formation to be unfieldable, neither is true in this case. So are you going to come up with anything that allows you to break rules or a relevant example?

 FlingitNow wrote:
One causes a rule whole the other forces you to break a rule. There is a difference between the rules breaking and you breaking a rule. One means the rules do not function, the other means you act contrary to the rules.

Likewise none of the examples you've listed are relevant or comparable as all first cause a rule to break (rather than cause you to break a rule) and secondly all involve an entire unit or formation to be unfieldable, neither is true in this case. So are you going to come up with anything that allows you to break rules or a relevant example?

We are talking about several models being unfieldable as a result of this. Apart from that sorry but i don't get your point.

OK I'm confused here. What does Deathleapers Assassin Brood and Centurions have to do with anything?

They are all models that in some cases generate situations were rules don't work and need an interpretation.

Spoletta wrote:
They are all models that in some cases generate situations were rules don't work and need an interpretation.

How so?

Spoletta wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
One causes a rule whole the other forces you to break a rule. There is a difference between the rules breaking and you breaking a rule. One means the rules do not function, the other means you act contrary to the rules.

Likewise none of the examples you've listed are relevant or comparable as all first cause a rule to break (rather than cause you to break a rule) and secondly all involve an entire unit or formation to be unfieldable, neither is true in this case. So are you going to come up with anything that allows you to break rules or a relevant example?

We are talking about several models being unfieldable as a result of this. Apart from that sorry but i don't get your point.

Name 1 model that is unfieldable due to this interpretation?

So you don't see the difference between rules not functioning and you acting contrary to a direct instruction? If not I really can't help you.

RAW, I believe it's either of these 2:

1) You can use whatever units you like, LR included.
At the start of your game, you place all units in deepstrike reserves, because nothing prevents units without DS to be in DS reserves. However, ALL models in the unit must have the deepstrike special rule in order to actually deep strike (this is literally the first line of rules in the BRB under "deep strike".

Result: Land raiders and any other models that don't have the DS special rule remain in DS reserves for the rest of the game.

2) Deep strike reserves are units placed in reserves with the intent to deepstrike. Since models without DS special rule cannot be placed in reserves WITH intent to deepstrike because they are not allowed to do so (again, this is literally written in the BRB), you cannot deploy your units without DS special rule legally and thus you cannot legally deploy your army and the game ends.

If you insist on playing any other way, either by placing the units without DS special rule in regular reserves (for which you have no permission) or deepstriking them (breaking the rule that you need the DS special rule to do so), you are performing an illegal deployment, thus cheating.

The rule 'Not Enough Room' does not apply in this case because you are not trying to fit models in a deployment zone.

Spoletta wrote:
Plenty man, but you keep ignoring all of those.

There is no difference in taking a model that is likely to break the game and one that will do so. Both cases are treated the same way. This is not the first time we incur in one of those.

You know what was done in the long list of similar cases? Here's an hint, we didn't forbid the use of that model/formation.

You don't only want to make a special snowflake case out of this, but in doing so you are banning from the detachment the one model that was allowing this same list until a week ago. Do you understand how dumb it sounds to ban Azrael in the DW/RW detachment?

Edit: And not cause there was a change in the fluff or something done by GW, but because he generates one of the easiest to solve rules issues in the game. Yeah, nice choice.

I hope you realize the weakness of this arguement? New codex --> new rules. Should I still give purgation squads Astral aim 'because it was in the last GK codex'?

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
While trying to work out an argument for this issue, I just noticed that the only DA HQ with any armor listed is Beliel, all the rest have no armor listed under wargear, only a 3+ save on their profiles. GW done F'd up the DA codex .... Again!

That isn't an issue at all. The same is true in C:SM, C:Orks, etc. Only armour with additional special effects is listed in the wargear section of their profile.
That's also the way Orks have been from at at least 4th Edition.

DaPino wrote:
RAW, I believe it's either of these 2:

1) You can use whatever units you like, LR included.
At the start of your game, you place all units in deepstrike reserves, because nothing prevents units without DS to be in DS reserves. However, ALL models in the unit must have the deepstrike special rule in order to actually deep strike (this is literally the first line of rules in the BRB under "deep strike".

Result: Land raiders and any other models that don't have the DS special rule remain in DS reserves for the rest of the game.

2) Deep strike reserves are units placed in reserves with the intent to deepstrike. Since models without DS special rule cannot be placed in reserves WITH intent to deepstrike because they are not allowed to do so (again, this is literally written in the BRB), you cannot deploy your units without DS special rule legally and thus you cannot legally deploy your army and the game ends.

If you insist on playing any other way, either by placing the units without DS special rule in regular reserves (for which you have no permission) or deepstriking them (breaking the rule that you need the DS special rule to do so), you are performing an illegal deployment, thus cheating.

The rule 'Not Enough Room' does not apply in this case because you are not trying to fit models in a deployment zone.

Spoletta wrote:
Plenty man, but you keep ignoring all of those.

There is no difference in taking a model that is likely to break the game and one that will do so. Both cases are treated the same way. This is not the first time we incur in one of those.

You know what was done in the long list of similar cases? Here's an hint, we didn't forbid the use of that model/formation.

You don't only want to make a special snowflake case out of this, but in doing so you are banning from the detachment the one model that was allowing this same list until a week ago. Do you understand how dumb it sounds to ban Azrael in the DW/RW detachment?

Edit: And not cause there was a change in the fluff or something done by GW, but because he generates one of the easiest to solve rules issues in the game. Yeah, nice choice.

I hope you realize the weakness of this arguement? New codex --> new rules. Should I still give purgation squads Astral aim 'because it was in the last GK codex'?

We all agree (except someone it seems) that at the present time the rules don't work. I'm not trying to say that right now you can deep strike. I'm trying to say that since you need to change the rules to solve this, it is easier to add a "if able" to that rule than to ban some legal models from that detachment.

So no examples of models that become unfieldable because of this interpretation? Just bluster once again like your refusal to cite relevant examples and refusal to accept that the rules breaking and you breaking a rule are two entirely different things?

Personally I'd contact games workshop and ask for a refund if I had bought the DA book, and tell them it's unfit for purpose which under UK law means they are required to refund you. If you ordered it online you have about a week to return it for any/no reason, but I'd make it clear it's because they haven't edited the book correctly.
GW won't take notice and write good rules until customers start complaining with their wallets instead of their keyboards. If enough people did this, we might see a turn around in their 'no faq' policy.
There are people writing more coherent rules in the "proposed rules" section of this forum than the actual game designers who charge £35~50 per book, it's a pretty depressing state.

So 1 rules error in a 160 page book makes you want a refund? If RaW was perfect at this level of complexity it'd have to be written in legal speak which would make it unreadable to anyone with legal training.

Yeah I'll keep my slightly flawed book that allows me to play my $5000 army.

 FlingitNow wrote:
So no examples of models that become unfieldable because of this interpretation? Just bluster once again like your refusal to cite relevant examples and refusal to accept that the rules breaking and you breaking a rule are two entirely different things?

Ezekiel and Azrael are unfieldable in the DW and RW detachment due to that rule change, happy? Thought it was obvious.
Gave you plenty of examples.
Having a chance to break a game and breaking a game are the same thing, sorry if you don't get it.
In effect i said i wouldn't answer anymore to you.

@Everyone else

Sure, we can right now say that those models are not allowed in the detachment, but that is neither an interpretation nor a solution. It's a stopgap measure.
There needs to be an agreement of some kind on the kind of rule change we are going to adopt, so:

1) We change the detachment restriction to force IC to wear termi armor like the DW formation already does?
2) Do we intervene on that rule that is causing the problem? And in that case we:
a) Add an "If able" to the rule?
b) Add an "Even in normally is not allowed to" to the rule?

Personally i'd go with 2a for the reason that we keep Azrael in the DW detachment while allowing all those guys that played full DW to avoid getting screwed by the new codex.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jy2 wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
They are all models that in some cases generate situations were rules don't work and need an interpretation.

How so?

Centurion firing on a unit with multiple armor values is an unresolvable situation.
Bloodleaper formation Preferred enemy IC is an unresolvable rule in all those cases where the IC is not alone.
There many other cases like this in the game. Usually the tournament formats rule those in some way.

Ezekiel and Azrael are unfieldable in the DW and RW detachment due to that rule change, happy? Thought it was obvious.
Gave you plenty of examples.
Having a chance to break a game and breaking a game are the same thing, sorry if you don't get it.
In effect i said i wouldn't answer anymore to you.

Pretty certain both those models can be fielded in a CAD or a Lion's Blade detachment for a start. So try again which models are unfieldable if you don't intentionally break any rules?

Please list 1 relevant example. Yes the irrelevant examples you used caused the game to break, what you're trying to do here is intentionally take an action contrary to the rules. You are taking an action that forces you to do something that the rules expressly prohibits, rather than taking an action that could result in a situation not covered by the rules depending on your opponents army (like for instance the Grav weapon example could equally be put down to your opponent fielding mixed save units, or you choosing to target them).

Azrael has never been able to join the DW detachment so why use the word keep? You're also missing the option of not changing and not breaking any rules. Or if you insist on rules spelling every eventuality out the most sensible change would be to (and therefore must be able to) on the DS restriction.

Things change in new codexes all the time. I used to run Pedro and Calgary in a list together, can't anymore. You used to be able to run RW as troops with Sammael and have DW in your list without taking another HQ, now you can't. Things change that's kind of the entire point of a new codex.

Which Codex are you guys looking at?

Mine says all ICs in the Deathwing Redemption Force must have TDA. Am I missing something?

Why would you even want to...it's a formation to drop in an all Deathwing force, one would think only Deathwing members would be in it. Combined with the DP requirement for the Dreads and the Deathwing Assult rule for the Formation, it seems pretty obvious that Landraiders are not meant to be included.

 FlingitNow wrote:
So no examples of models that become unfieldable because of this interpretation? Just bluster once again like your refusal to cite relevant examples and refusal to accept that the rules breaking and you breaking a rule are two entirely different things?

text removed.
Reds8n No need for comments like this.
. You can argue what you think as RAW as long as you want, but at some point you need to see that GW needs to write codexes with the idea that someone has never played before. Heck, people are still making mistakes in list building with the new decurions, auxiliaries and formations, even experienced players.

let's look at a new player perspective at the Deathwing Strike Force.

he looks at the FOC picture, then reads the Restrictions....Deathwing rule unless a dedicated transport. It then talsk about a dreadnought and it's dedicated transport, the drop pod.
So he goes back in the book at sees that the Interrogator Chaplain has the Deathwing rule...COOL, I just bought that model along with the book. he'll be my HQ.
he then looks at elites and sees that only deathwing terms, knights and ven dreads have deathwing rule. But then he sees that each terminator sqd can have a dedicated transport, a mighty Land Raider. Oh yeah, there was a part in the book on pg 53 that talked about Deathwing Land Raiders. Cool.
And so he builds his list with these models, spent good money and readies for a game. he goes on to read the command benefits for his brand new army. he sees a thing called Deep strike reserve...wow, that sounds kind of neat, let me see what that does in the rulebook.
He opens the rulebook and looks for the Deep Strike Reserve rule, he then reads that all models must have the Deep Strike rule, at first he thinks nothing of it as he assumes GW wouldn;t allow him to take a model that contradicts the rules. Hmm, but where does it say if a unit has deep strike. he looks at the chaplain....hmm, no rule about deep strike. He then looks at terminators....no rule for deep strike, same as land raiders. OK, now I'm confused, but again, maybe deathwing gives me Deep Strike since that's what detachment says.
A buddy then tells him about the rules for terminator armour and he checks that. Oh, there is the Deep Strike rule. But what about my chaplain I bought....what about the Land raider? Keeps reading, gets more confused.

Calls friend who informs him he can't play those models as they can't deep strike. Gets all pissed off about the models he bought and wonders why the heck GW would allow him to take a unit in one rule and then not allow him to field it in another right below. Stupid game.

THIS is how it should be looked at. GW should have been specific, and certainly NOT talk about dedicated transports in one line, and then right below talk about dreadnoughts and their dedicated transports (drop pods) in the next sentence. This infers that the first sentence is talking about land raiders since it makes no sense to repeat the line below when discussing dreadnoughts.

It is extremely poor writing and should not be dismissed with contempt as easily as you have been doing throughout this whole thread.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 hisdudeness wrote:
Which Codex are you guys looking at?

Mine says all ICs in the Deathwing Redemption Force must have TDA. Am I missing something?

Why would you even want to...it's a formation to drop in an all Deathwing force, one would think only Deathwing members would be in it. Combined with the DP requirement for the Dreads and the Deathwing Assult rule for the Formation, it seems pretty obvious that Landraiders are not meant to be included.

Deathwing Strike Force on pg 158, not Deathwing Redemption Force.

jeez, this is a perfect example. In one formation, they specifically tell you that all ICs MUST have TDA, but in the strikeforce this is omitted. Dumb.

 FlingitNow wrote:

Cause it would be an absolute first. The rule set is divided into two parts: how to make a legal list, how to play a list on the table.

Those two set of rules don't influence each other,

I'm going to want rules support for this claim. You have a formation that forces you to put everything in DS reserve, why would you play as anything other than options which prevent DS aren't available?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Another rule inconsistency is does the RW Support squad get Stealth from the Dark shroud in the formation?

What if I allied in a drop pod, or another transport that could deep strike?
That would let all the models in the formation deep strike, even though some of those are doing so by units not in the formation.

The darkshroud unit getting shrouded stealth isn't even inconsistent imo. It still affects the unit because it is within a 6" bubble. It then specifically states that the darkshroud itself is not affected.

It sounds like the wording for grimoire of true names.

I would allow anyone with the Deathwing rule to be included in the Ravenwing Detachment....

But obviously wouldn't get the Ravenwing reroll.

Frankly, these "inconsistencies" seem to be people wanting to min/max or Easter egg the codex.

Why on earth would a non-wing unit/IC be included in a wing formation/detachment? If you want to attach a PA IC to a wing unit in a wing formation take a CAD.

 Nightlord1987 wrote:
I would allow anyone with the Deathwing rule to be included in the Ravenwing Detachment....

But obviously wouldn't get the Ravenwing reroll.

That makes the least sense out of the all the suggestions.

Maybe exchange deathwing for ravenwing, but you can't just leave out the ravenwing rule for a ravenwing librarian

In my digital codex, it states that all models must enter by deep strike reserve, then it goes on to define deep strike by stating all models must have the "deep strike special rule". Separately but similarly, the DW redemption force even spells out that your dreadnoughts must arrive via a drop pod in a single model formation. My group has played it that if you can't take terminator armor or a drop pod as a DC you're out.


For RW, any HQ that can take a bike automatically gains the RW special rule. Pretty simple.

 hisdudeness wrote:
Frankly, these "inconsistencies" seem to be people wanting to min/max or Easter egg the codex.

Why on earth would a non-wing unit/IC be included in a wing formation/detachment? If you want to attach a PA IC to a wing unit in a wing formation take a CAD.

wow, not only did you not hit the bullseye, you didn't even hit the dartboard!

You have to have an understanding of the Dark Angels organization to understand why there are complaints.

You can argue what you think as RAW as long as you want, but at some point you need to see that GW needs to write codexes with the idea that someone has never played before. Heck, people are still making mistakes in list building with the new decurions, auxiliaries and formations, even experienced players.

let's look at a new player perspective at the Deathwing Strike Force.

he looks at the FOC picture, then reads the Restrictions....Deathwing rule unless a dedicated transport. It then talsk about a dreadnought and it's dedicated transport, the drop pod.
So he goes back in the book at sees that the Interrogator Chaplain has the Deathwing rule...COOL, I just bought that model along with the book. he'll be my HQ.
he then looks at elites and sees that only deathwing terms, knights and ven dreads have deathwing rule. But then he sees that each terminator sqd can have a dedicated transport, a mighty Land Raider. Oh yeah, there was a part in the book on pg 53 that talked about Deathwing Land Raiders. Cool.
And so he builds his list with these models, spent good money and readies for a game. he goes on to read the command benefits for his brand new army. he sees a thing called Deep strike reserve...wow, that sounds kind of neat, let me see what that does in the rulebook.
He opens the rulebook and looks for the Deep Strike Reserve rule, he then reads that all models must have the Deep Strike rule, at first he thinks nothing of it as he assumes GW wouldn;t allow him to take a model that contradicts the rules. Hmm, but where does it say if a unit has deep strike. he looks at the chaplain....hmm, no rule about deep strike. He then looks at terminators....no rule for deep strike, same as land raiders. OK, now I'm confused, but again, maybe deathwing gives me Deep Strike since that's what detachment says.
A buddy then tells him about the rules for terminator armour and he checks that. Oh, there is the Deep Strike rule. But what about my chaplain I bought....what about the Land raider? Keeps reading, gets more confused.

Calls friend who informs him he can't play those models as they can't deep strike. Gets all pissed off about the models he bought and wonders why the heck GW would allow him to take a unit in one rule and then not allow him to field it in another right below. Stupid game.

THIS is how it should be looked at. GW should have been specific, and certainly NOT talk about dedicated transports in one line, and then right below talk about dreadnoughts and their dedicated transports (drop pods) in the next sentence. This infers that the first sentence is talking about land raiders since it makes no sense to repeat the line below when discussing dreadnoughts.

It is extremely poor writing and should not be dismissed with contempt as easily as you have been doing throughout this whole thread.

Essentially this is a long way of saying because new players make mistakes you can break rules all you want and it's GW's fault for not stopping you.

Yes I could see a new player making that error, if I was playing him I'd let him count his Into Chappy as having Terminator Armour for free in that game and explain he needs to reorganise his list for next time. He could run an identical list as he initially ran just as unbound so it's not like he's totally wasted his money just is list isn't as strong as he thought it might be. Which is par for the course with a new player.

Could the rules doubly spell out what you could take to not break the rules? Yes they could. But at some point it is just a waste of ink and GW has to draw the line somewhere they can't be expected to repeat the entire rulebook in reference to every rule.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 bullyboy wrote:

 hisdudeness wrote:
Frankly, these "inconsistencies" seem to be people wanting to min/max or Easter egg the codex.

Why on earth would a non-wing unit/IC be included in a wing formation/detachment? If you want to attach a PA IC to a wing unit in a wing formation take a CAD.

wow, not only did you not hit the bullseye, you didn't even hit the dartboard!

You have to have an understanding of the Dark Angels organization to understand why there are complaints.

To be fair the Death wing stuff is blatant easter egging he's right there. The Ravenwing is clearly not as there are 3 HQ slots and 3>1 so the interpretation that the maximum HQs you can field in the RW detachment being 1 is clearly off.

Where as the Darkshroud Support Squad issue is a case of the rules not being immediately obvious.

 hisdudeness wrote:
Frankly, these "inconsistencies" seem to be people wanting to min/max or Easter egg the codex.

Why on earth would a non-wing unit/IC be included in a wing formation/detachment? If you want to attach a PA IC to a wing unit in a wing formation take a CAD.

That's exactly the problem here, we are talking about wing IC (they all have the deathwing rule) that cannot be taken into the Deathwing detachment due to the wording of a rule.
Someone here is trying to say that it is intended (??) and someone else is trying to find a way to correct that wording.
This gets only more complicated if you look at the Land Raider issue (which again, are part of Deathwing by fluff).

Spoletta wrote:

 hisdudeness wrote:
Frankly, these "inconsistencies" seem to be people wanting to min/max or Easter egg the codex.

Why on earth would a non-wing unit/IC be included in a wing formation/detachment? If you want to attach a PA IC to a wing unit in a wing formation take a CAD.

That's exactly the problem here, we are talking about wing IC (they all have the deathwing rule) that cannot be taken into the Deathwing detachment due to the wording of a rule.
Someone here is trying to say that it is intended (??) and someone else is trying to find a way to correct that wording.
This gets only more complicated if you look at the Land Raider issue (which again, are part of Deathwing by fluff).

Yes it is clearly intended as the/DW detachment is not the only way to field DW. It is a way to field DW that arrive in a massed teleport assault. Why would you think it is intended ?with no fluff support for models that can't teleport to be able to teleport as long as there are enough Terminators around? Why does taking 2 squads of terminators magically make their teleporters capable of teleporting a PA marine or a Landraider? I genuinely want to know why you think this?

 FlingitNow wrote:

Spoletta wrote:

 hisdudeness wrote:
Frankly, these "inconsistencies" seem to be people wanting to min/max or Easter egg the codex.

Why on earth would a non-wing unit/IC be included in a wing formation/detachment? If you want to attach a PA IC to a wing unit in a wing formation take a CAD.

That's exactly the problem here, we are talking about wing IC (they all have the deathwing rule) that cannot be taken into the Deathwing detachment due to the wording of a rule.
Someone here is trying to say that it is intended (??) and someone else is trying to find a way to correct that wording.
This gets only more complicated if you look at the Land Raider issue (which again, are part of Deathwing by fluff).

Yes it is clearly intended as the/DW detachment is not the only way to field DW. It is a way to field DW that arrive in a massed teleport assault. Why would you think it is intended ?with no fluff support for models that can't teleport to be able to teleport as long as there are enough Terminators around? Why does taking 2 squads of terminators magically make their teleporters capable of teleporting a PA marine or a Landraider? I genuinely want to know why you think this?

You clearly haven't read anything of what has been said in this thread. Ignored.

No, fling is just correct.

You're coming from the position that the rule is wrong, so must be changed. Howveer the rule isnt wrong - like all rules it presumes you wont deliberately break the rules. You have done. Thats cheating

Grav is not you deliberately breaking arule. You get to a situaiton the rules do nt cover. That iks totally separate

Youre intentionally trying to change a rule that works perfectly well, and does not cause the game to break, "JUST BECAUSE". Thats it.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
No, fling is just correct.

You're coming from the position that the rule is wrong, so must be changed. Howveer the rule isnt wrong - like all rules it presumes you wont deliberately break the rules. You have done. Thats cheating

Grav is not you deliberately breaking arule. You get to a situaiton the rules do nt cover. That iks totally separate

Youre intentionally trying to change a rule that works perfectly well, and does not cause the game to break, "JUST BECAUSE". Thats it.

Sorry man, if that rule "perfectly worked" we wouldn't have a 3 page long thread trying to understand how that rule works called "How will you/your group play Dark Angel rule inconsistencies?".
It's actually quite the contrary, we have no idea what the author intended to do with that rule. We know that the RAW is incorrect and are looking for the RAI so that we can mend the rule accordingly.
Again, the fact that you can avoid all this by not selecting certain models is a workaround, not surely the answer.

Sigh.

No, the RAW is not incorrect. and, people on here can argue for 15 pages about "has the ability" meaning "must already have" so 3 pages is nothing.

You must follow the urle: all models are placed in Deepstrike Reserve. You know you must comp[ly with this rule at list building time, as the rule is clearly laid out. You dont get to purchas emodels that cannot meet this requirement and decide the RAW is "incorrect" on this

It is a massed teleporter assault. If you cannot teleport (or rather, be in DSR representing Teleport) then you may not be fielded

It isnt a "workaround". It is literally following the rules

Your assumptions are what is causing your error and confusion here. The same way peoples assumptions on how armies are constructed gives them issues with 7ths new way of constructing armies

There is no need for a workaround, when there is no problem apart from the one you have constructed yourself.

I didn't choose the grav example by chance, cause it is this exact same situation. In one case you are asked to roll a dice toward an unknown result, in another case you have model that is asked to do something that it can't do.

Want another case? Model that finds himself stuck on impassable terrain (maybe do to the vortex rule). He can't get away from there, but can't end it's movement there. Woot i broke the game again! Let's ban all models with vortex rule!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Sigh.

No, the RAW is not incorrect. and, people on here can argue for 15 pages about "has the ability" meaning "must already have" so 3 pages is nothing.

You must follow the urle: all models are placed in Deepstrike Reserve. You know you must comp[ly with this rule at list building time, as the rule is clearly laid out. You dont get to purchas emodels that cannot meet this requirement and decide the RAW is "incorrect" on this

It is a massed teleporter assault. If you cannot teleport (or rather, be in DSR representing Teleport) then you may not be fielded

It isnt a "workaround". It is literally following the rules

Your assumptions are what is causing your error and confusion here. The same way peoples assumptions on how armies are constructed gives them issues with 7ths new way of constructing armies

There is no need for a workaround, when there is no problem apart from the one you have constructed yourself.

You are looking at this from a warped point of view. And no one is saying that those models should be able to deep strike (but it can be a solution). And yes the RAW is busted since first it tells you "A" and then "Not A". It is literally telling you "You can take models that can deep strike and models that cannot deepstrike, but they all must deep strike at the start of the game".

Spoletta wrote:
Want another case? Model that finds himself stuck on impassable terrain (maybe do to the vortex rule). He can't get away from there, but can't end it's movement there. Woot i broke the game again! Let's ban all models with vortex rule!

And how did the model get stuck in Impassable Terrain? He could not have moved there (the rules forbid it), and if the impassable terrain moved on top of the model (which is the more likely scenario), the model did not end his move in impassable terrain. So again no rule was broken. He simply would not be able to move, much like an Immobilized vehicle cannot move.

I think the rule I am going to make with regard to how my brother plays his Dark Angels is that an Independent Character with the Deathwing rule that takes a Space Marine Bike may be taken in the Ravenwing Strike Force.

 bullyboy wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
So no examples of models that become unfieldable because of this interpretation? Just bluster once again like your refusal to cite relevant examples and refusal to accept that the rules breaking and you breaking a rule are two entirely different things?

text removed.
Reds8n No need for comments like this.
. You can argue what you think as RAW as long as you want, but at some point you need to see that GW needs to write codexes with the idea that someone has never played before. Heck, people are still making mistakes in list building with the new decurions, auxiliaries and formations, even experienced players.

let's look at a new player perspective at the Deathwing Strike Force.

he looks at the FOC picture, then reads the Restrictions....Deathwing rule unless a dedicated transport. It then talsk about a dreadnought and it's dedicated transport, the drop pod.
So he goes back in the book at sees that the Interrogator Chaplain has the Deathwing rule...COOL, I just bought that model along with the book. he'll be my HQ.
he then looks at elites and sees that only deathwing terms, knights and ven dreads have deathwing rule. But then he sees that each terminator sqd can have a dedicated transport, a mighty Land Raider. Oh yeah, there was a part in the book on pg 53 that talked about Deathwing Land Raiders. Cool.
And so he builds his list with these models, spent good money and readies for a game. he goes on to read the command benefits for his brand new army. he sees a thing called Deep strike reserve...wow, that sounds kind of neat, let me see what that does in the rulebook.
He opens the rulebook and looks for the Deep Strike Reserve rule, he then reads that all models must have the Deep Strike rule, at first he thinks nothing of it as he assumes GW wouldn;t allow him to take a model that contradicts the rules. Hmm, but where does it say if a unit has deep strike. he looks at the chaplain....hmm, no rule about deep strike. He then looks at terminators....no rule for deep strike, same as land raiders. OK, now I'm confused, but again, maybe deathwing gives me Deep Strike since that's what detachment says.
A buddy then tells him about the rules for terminator armour and he checks that. Oh, there is the Deep Strike rule. But what about my chaplain I bought....what about the Land raider? Keeps reading, gets more confused.

Calls friend who informs him he can't play those models as they can't deep strike. Gets all pissed off about the models he bought and wonders why the heck GW would allow him to take a unit in one rule and then not allow him to field it in another right below. Stupid game.

THIS is how it should be looked at. GW should have been specific, and certainly NOT talk about dedicated transports in one line, and then right below talk about dreadnoughts and their dedicated transports (drop pods) in the next sentence. This infers that the first sentence is talking about land raiders since it makes no sense to repeat the line below when discussing dreadnoughts.

It is extremely poor writing and should not be dismissed with contempt as easily as you have been doing throughout this whole thread.

That's just a BS arguement and you know it. Could GW write more clearly? Yeah, definately, I'm totally with you on that. But it doesn't mean that the current rules don't count. You might need to take another detachement field a model, but no model is "unfieldable" as some claim.

Not knowing enough about the rules is your own damn fault. Someone I know bought 3 Nemesis dreadknights, built them and found out he could bring only 2 in a Nemesis strike force when someone pointed it out to himat deployment.

I felt bad for him but even he himself had to admit it was his own damn stupidity that led him to 'waste' money. And I say waste but he can and does run 3 DK's in a regular CAD from time to time.

 casvalremdeikun wrote:
I think the rule I am going to make with regard to how my brother plays his Dark Angels is that an Independent Character with the Deathwing rule that takes a Space Marine Bike may be taken in the Ravenwing Strike Force.

My issue with that is that the only Character without the DW rule that can take a bike is the character MOST likely to be Ravenwing in the standard chappy...

Spoletta wrote:


Want another case? Model that finds himself stuck on impassable terrain (maybe do to the vortex rule). He can't get away from there, but can't end it's movement there. Woot i broke the game again! Let's ban all models with vortex rule!

Model is suddenly in impassable, let's say because of vortex. Model cannot move through impassable terrain, and model cannot end a move in impassable terrain. Therefore: model cannot move.

Formation says all models in this formation must deepstrike. Model cannot deepstrike. Therefore: model cannot be in formation.

These conclusion require only a modicum of critical thinking skills. Just because you are refusing to view these rules in a reasonable manor does not mean they are broken. They function. Maybe not how we want them too, but they work, unlike the Grav/armour save example which is simply something the rules do not cover.

In the DW case, it serves to create a restriction that only models capable of deepstrike may be in this particular detachment.

In the RW case... they function. It is not the desired result, and I am willing to bet that it's going to get FAQ'd (eventually), but it is still a functional rule: to take that RW det, you must take Sammy. They should add that RW Bike grants RW rule to ICs.

The trouble is models with out the deep strike special rule ARE allowed in the DW strike force detachment, and that's his point entirely. This detachment allows you to legally find yourself in a situation the rules do not cover.

My opinion, based on the RAW, if you place a model in deep strike reserve that cannot deep strike the model will be 'trapped' in reserves through the game and will inevitably count as a casualty.

I find it amusing that the players who are basically saying the DW rules are clearcut and are not RAI can also claim that RW biker HQs should be allowed in RWSF. cake and eat it boys. Either you are playing RAW for all or not all.

Here are 3 distinctive points regarding DWSF that should be considered.

1. In the Deathwing Redemption Force, the restrictions specifically state that ICs MUST be in terminator armour. There are no such restrictions in the DWSF, this may be completely RAI.
2. In the DWSF there is a sentence talking about dedicated transports preceding another sentence talking about dreadnoughts and their dedicated transports. There would be no reason to have this stated twice if just referring to drop pod dreads. RAI may be referring to land raider transports.
3. If the DWSF was supposed to be terminators and dreads only, it would become eerily similar to the Deathwing Redemption Force, almost too similar.

RAI may have intended for the DWSF to include all Deathwing members and their transports. I agree that it may not have intended for them to Deep Strike and to me the thought of deep striking land raiders is absurd, but I cannot rule out that the intention was to allow these elements in the force.

This is exactly the same as the RWSF HQ options. People are having no problem allowing bikers to be in this force, but we have no idea if that is RAI for all HQ choices on bike. Only the chaplain has a legitimate claim to be in the Ravenwing. Librarians and Interrogator Chaplains may never have been given RW training so may only belong in a CAD. Same with the techmarine.

I think the DWSF was intended to give the option of all the elements of the deathwing, same as the RWSF. Deathwing Land Raiders are an integral part of that puzzle and even though they removed venerable from land raiders, there is still a page in the book talking about the Deathwing Land Raiders.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Sigh.

No, the RAW is not incorrect. and, people on here can argue for 15 pages about "has the ability" meaning "must already have" so 3 pages is nothing.

You must follow the urle: all models are placed in Deepstrike Reserve. You know you must comp[ly with this rule at list building time, as the rule is clearly laid out. You dont get to purchas emodels that cannot meet this requirement and decide the RAW is "incorrect" on this

It is a massed teleporter assault. If you cannot teleport (or rather, be in DSR representing Teleport) then you may not be fielded

It isnt a "workaround". It is literally following the rules

Your assumptions are what is causing your error and confusion here. The same way peoples assumptions on how armies are constructed gives them issues with 7ths new way of constructing armies

There is no need for a workaround, when there is no problem apart from the one you have constructed yourself.

for most of this I compltely agree. The only issue I have is that it's very strange of GW to create the DWSF without the option to field ALL of the Deathwing (members, transports). The deep Striking teleportation force is already in the book and is called the Deathwing Redemption Force. It seems odd to almost repeat this thing with the DWSF (one of the first things I noticed when looking at the book was how close these two formations are). And what's crazy is that if they had allowed all deathwing members to be in the force, and allowed terms in transports to be fielded on table instead of DSR then players who play pure DW armies would have a way to actually play the game without almost auto losing Turn 1.

I would absolutely allow my opponent to play all DW with the DWSF by allowing Land Raiders and their occupants to start on table. All dreads and non transport terms would start in deep strike reserve.

Are we certain that the Summoned to war sentence should have read instead "must begin the game in deep strike reserve unless mounted in a land raider"

I just don't know anymore with GW. It just seems crazy that they create this formation that pretty much auto loses if it is played alone.

Yes, because GW don't create auto lose formations, like lost and the damned. Oh, wait.

Spoletta - no, the grav example is not exactly the same. The clear and undeniable reasons why have already been given.

The rule is utterly clear. You may take x models, and the models you choose just be able to deepstrike. Choosing to only follow one rule, well that's plain cheating.

Exactly the same as trying to claim the 6th ed nice dex and rule book let you create a none character army that was force org legal but failed once you got to the game and couldn't select a warlord, and thus the codex was broken

It isn't. The rules must be followed, and you can manage to do so. This is different to grav , no matter how often you try to equate the two.

The most probable scenario is that whoever wrote that rule had in mind that if something is forced to do something it can't then it obviously hasn't to. He could have wrote the whole thing a lot better, but that is most probably the RAI.

This clears all issues, allows Azrael, Ezekiel and Asmodai in their iconic detachment, allows the iconic DW land Raider and those that want to play pure DW can do so.

Yes this is what makes more sense and is the direct and most logical interpretation. I'll propose this to my store.

Those that want to change the detachment rules to ban those models should please explain me why they would propose to their store an interpretation and change to the rules that is much less direct and logical. What advantages would it have? I can tell you it has a lot of drawbacks, first of all being hardest on the new players.

That said, i'm no longer interested in convincing other of this, it is too obvious to make the effort.

well, the thread was asking what you plan to do, not what is RAW/RAI.
I'll wait for GW to be the judge of that (if and when they do).

maceria wrote:


Model is suddenly in impassable, let's say because of vortex. Model cannot move through impassable terrain, and model cannot end a move in impassable terrain. Therefore: model cannot move.

If you don't move then you ended your move, but it's ok, this is not a topic that i want to discuss here.

Spoletta - you are the sole person changing rules. The most reasonable interpretation to make is that, if choosing to do something forces you to break the rules, then maybe you do not choose that action

Not moving != ending your move. So patently obvious the mind boggles.

I find my interpretation fully respecting of the existing rules in a logical and direct manner while yours look unnecessarily complicated and rule warping.

But as i said, I've reached my conclusion, you're free to believe what you want, i'm no longer trying to get my point across, it proved useless.

Spoletta wrote:
I find my interpretation fully respecting of the existing rules in a logical and direct manner while yours look unnecessarily complicated and rule warping.

I'm sorry. I've tried to stay out of this, but this comment blew my mind.

You have literally suggested we break or ignore the rules on this subject. Fling it and Nos are literally telling you not to break the rules.

If you think that purposely forcing a rule into being broken is the logical thing to do, and that not forcing the rules to be broken is unnecessarily complicated and warped, then the rules are not the cause of the problem.......

I find it more logical to interpet "Must" with "Must if able" than to assume that the rule is "You can take models A and B, but only models A".

The second is obviously dumb. Sorry, i'm starting to be honest.

I think that one thing that needs further investigation is why is the Deathwing Redemption Force and Deathwing Strike Force so similar. If we take the majority above, neither can take Deathwing characters out of Terminator armour and neither can take land raiders as dedicated transports. Was creating the Deathwing Redemption Force necessary at all?

They were clearly designed to be different. It's just not clear how so.
Both the strike appear to be there in order to run pure (x)wing armies. The writers to managed to feth it up

It still works for me. Like i said before, the ravenwing hq problem has already been fixed by all TOs in my area.

 bullyboy wrote:
I think that one thing that needs further investigation is why is the Deathwing Redemption Force and Deathwing Strike Force so similar. If we take the majority above, neither can take Deathwing characters out of Terminator armour and neither can take land raiders as dedicated transports. Was creating the Deathwing Redemption Force necessary at all?

There are more differences then similarities.

Spoletta wrote:
I find my interpretation fully respecting of the existing rules in a logical and direct manner while yours look unnecessarily complicated and rule warping.

But as i said, I've reached my conclusion, you're free to believe what you want, i'm no longer trying to get my point across, it proved useless.

Following the rules is rules warping?

Mind. Boggled.

You have two rules which you must follow. So, follow them. It's not that difficult.

I'm not trying to convince you. Just showing how your twisting of rules doesn't fool anyone.

DaPino wrote:

 bullyboy wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
So no examples of models that become unfieldable because of this interpretation? Just bluster once again like your refusal to cite relevant examples and refusal to accept that the rules breaking and you breaking a rule are two entirely different things?

text removed.
Reds8n No need for comments like this.
. You can argue what you think as RAW as long as you want, but at some point you need to see that GW needs to write codexes with the idea that someone has never played before. Heck, people are still making mistakes in list building with the new decurions, auxiliaries and formations, even experienced players.

let's look at a new player perspective at the Deathwing Strike Force.

he looks at the FOC picture, then reads the Restrictions....Deathwing rule unless a dedicated transport. It then talsk about a dreadnought and it's dedicated transport, the drop pod.
So he goes back in the book at sees that the Interrogator Chaplain has the Deathwing rule...COOL, I just bought that model along with the book. he'll be my HQ.
he then looks at elites and sees that only deathwing terms, knights and ven dreads have deathwing rule. But then he sees that each terminator sqd can have a dedicated transport, a mighty Land Raider. Oh yeah, there was a part in the book on pg 53 that talked about Deathwing Land Raiders. Cool.
And so he builds his list with these models, spent good money and readies for a game. he goes on to read the command benefits for his brand new army. he sees a thing called Deep strike reserve...wow, that sounds kind of neat, let me see what that does in the rulebook.
He opens the rulebook and looks for the Deep Strike Reserve rule, he then reads that all models must have the Deep Strike rule, at first he thinks nothing of it as he assumes GW wouldn;t allow him to take a model that contradicts the rules. Hmm, but where does it say if a unit has deep strike. he looks at the chaplain....hmm, no rule about deep strike. He then looks at terminators....no rule for deep strike, same as land raiders. OK, now I'm confused, but again, maybe deathwing gives me Deep Strike since that's what detachment says.
A buddy then tells him about the rules for terminator armour and he checks that. Oh, there is the Deep Strike rule. But what about my chaplain I bought....what about the Land raider? Keeps reading, gets more confused.

Calls friend who informs him he can't play those models as they can't deep strike. Gets all pissed off about the models he bought and wonders why the heck GW would allow him to take a unit in one rule and then not allow him to field it in another right below. Stupid game.

THIS is how it should be looked at. GW should have been specific, and certainly NOT talk about dedicated transports in one line, and then right below talk about dreadnoughts and their dedicated transports (drop pods) in the next sentence. This infers that the first sentence is talking about land raiders since it makes no sense to repeat the line below when discussing dreadnoughts.

It is extremely poor writing and should not be dismissed with contempt as easily as you have been doing throughout this whole thread.

That's just a BS arguement and you know it. Could GW write more clearly? Yeah, definately, I'm totally with you on that. But it doesn't mean that the current rules don't count. You might need to take another detachement field a model, but no model is "unfieldable" as some claim.

Not knowing enough about the rules is your own damn fault. Someone I know bought 3 Nemesis dreadknights, built them and found out he could bring only 2 in a Nemesis strike force when someone pointed it out to himat deployment.

I felt bad for him but even he himself had to admit it was his own damn stupidity that led him to 'waste' money. And I say waste but he can and does run 3 DK's in a regular CAD from time to time.

Actually that was a well thought out and put comment he maid, you may not agree but the general point is sound.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
I find my interpretation fully respecting of the existing rules in a logical and direct manner while yours look unnecessarily complicated and rule warping.

But as i said, I've reached my conclusion, you're free to believe what you want, i'm no longer trying to get my point across, it proved useless.

Following the rules is rules warping?

Mind. Boggled.

You have two rules which you must follow. So, follow them. It's not that difficult.

I'm not trying to convince you. Just showing how your twisting of rules doesn't fool anyone.

Then don't get fooled. I'm not twisting anything, i'm just following rules, but you seem too narrow minded to see it.
If you want to propose a change of rules in your store so that you can solve this issue, be my guest. As i said it's a perfectly valid solution.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
I find my interpretation fully respecting of the existing rules in a logical and direct manner while yours look unnecessarily complicated and rule warping.

But as i said, I've reached my conclusion, you're free to believe what you want, i'm no longer trying to get my point across, it proved useless.

Following the rules is rules warping?

Mind. Boggled.

You have two rules which you must follow. So, follow them. It's not that difficult.

I'm not trying to convince you. Just showing how your twisting of rules doesn't fool anyone.

Its an immutable fact that the rules as written allow you to create a situation for which the rules provide no proper outcome.

 DJGietzen wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
I find my interpretation fully respecting of the existing rules in a logical and direct manner while yours look unnecessarily complicated and rule warping.

But as i said, I've reached my conclusion, you're free to believe what you want, i'm no longer trying to get my point across, it proved useless.

Following the rules is rules warping?

Mind. Boggled.

You have two rules which you must follow. So, follow them. It's not that difficult.

I'm not trying to convince you. Just showing how your twisting of rules doesn't fool anyone.

Its an immutable fact that the rules as written allow you to create a situation for which the rules provide no proper outcome.

And our argument is that, instead of putting yourself in that position and then breaking the rules to suit, you should not put yourself in that position so you have no reason to break anything

Oh, I agree 100%. Its a situation you should not willfully put yourself in, but that fact that its a situation you can legally put yourself in shows there is a problem with the rules as written. An avoidable problem is still a problem.
I think it was Spoletta that drew a comparison to grav weapons. This is a good comparison as both are rules that with out bending or breaking any other rules will lead you into situations the rules as written are not equipped to resolve. We can also avoid the problem of shooting grav weapons at a unit with mixed saved by choosing not to ever do that. Should you, I don't think so.

So lets all take a step back, take a deep breath and admit. The DWSF has a rules flaw, a flaw that is easy to avoid and making an issue out of, but a flaw none the less.

As to how I would play it? I know beyond myself there are at least two other DA players I might run into. I will propose 3 rule adjustments to my group and we will pick 1 and go from there.

1) Amend the restrictions to the detachment and add "A models must have the deep strike special rule or be deployed in a transport with the deep strike special rule."
2) Amend the 1st command benefit and only require models with the deep strike special rule to start the game in deep strike reserves. Instead non deep stirke units must start the game in 'normal' reserves.
3) Amend the 1st command benefit and give permission for models that do not have the deep strike special rule to arrive via deep-strike.

1 is the only way to play without changing any rules. It basically just clarifies what you are already limited to. It's definitely hiwpi

Spoletta is trying to argue that just because it is possible to not have deep strike and still end up in the detachment that has to deep strike, that you must change the rule on having to deep strike, instead of just taking things that have the rule. Again, it's a case of "change the rules" vs "dont change the rules"

The graviton situation is something different due to the idea of intent.
Nobody takes graviton to break the game, and anyone that takes an archon with the crap armour but 2++ in a 3+ unit is trying to break the game and should not be played

Anyone who has written a list that tries to force rule changes in their favour is a cheat and TFG.

Not that i think taking azrael or a pure deathwing list is in anyones favour but their opponents. But thats beside the point lol

So everyone is playing RWSF with just sammael right? That's the only way to play it within the rules

I actually have been, yes.

A TO has told me that in his tournaments, giving an HQ a bike confers the RW rule. But i won't write a list for pick up games like that

to me, it's clear that the Deathwing Redemption Force is terminators and dreadnoughts only. It's not clear to me that this is the case with the Deathwing Strtike Force. This is supposed to be the formation where you can take your whole Deathwing army, same as Ravenwing. I do not believe the error is in the Restrictions part of the rules, but in fact in the Summoned to War part of the formation. There is no reason to have almost two identical strike forces in the codex.

I have been playing it that the bike confers the Ravenwing Special rule so a Libby or IntChap can join Sammael on his raids. Funny enough, hasn't broken the game. Who would have thought?

RandomNoob wrote:
I have been playing it that the bike confers the Ravenwing Special rule so a Libby or IntChap can join Sammael on his raids. Funny enough, hasn't broken the game. Who would have thought?

Might be because that was the intention

Well the RW part of the problem is easier. The RAW is not inherently flawed, the game is perfectly playable whatever you do. It is really up to your group to decide based on the fluff who should be added as a RW HQ.

@DJGietzen

Thanks for summing up what i was trying to say the last 3 pages of this thread. Looks like i'm not good at explaining things.

 bullyboy wrote:
So everyone is playing RWSF with just sammael right? That's the only way to play it within the rules

If that's what the rules say (which they do), then everyone has to and should, unless given permission by their group/opponent. If you don't have their permission to do so, though gak, because your thoughts on the matter don't mean anything when the RAW is clear as day.

Would I allow someone to do it if they asked me? I probably, no, I most definitely would. I've allowed and played far crazier things. The thing is, there's a big difference between asking to do something and assuming you can do it because you think that's how it should be..

 DJGietzen wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
I find my interpretation fully respecting of the existing rules in a logical and direct manner while yours look unnecessarily complicated and rule warping.

But as i said, I've reached my conclusion, you're free to believe what you want, i'm no longer trying to get my point across, it proved useless.

Following the rules is rules warping?

Mind. Boggled.

You have two rules which you must follow. So, follow them. It's not that difficult.

I'm not trying to convince you. Just showing how your twisting of rules doesn't fool anyone.

Its an immutable fact that the rules as written allow you to create a situation for which the rules provide no proper outcome.

No, the rules dont allow you to get there. You have a requirement known at list building that you must comply with - all models must be put into DSR.

Failing to follow that rule is EXACTLY the same as claiming that just because in 6th ed you could build a legal Nid army with no characters in it, that somehow the BRB rule requiring your Warlord to be a Character should be changed.

There is no need to change a single rule here. I am certainly not going to propose an unneeded rules change just to saisfy somes inability to just follow the plain, basic rules

this is not comparable to grav. The reasons why have been explained.

 FlingitNow wrote:
. If you get to the game anything you take that can't be put in DS reserve so can't be legally deployed and is destroyed according to the deployment rules.

Which deployment rule is that? The only rule I saw that destroyed models during deployment is immobile models that can't be deployed during deployment and are thus forced into reserves.

The formation tells you that you have to put everything in DS reserve

My electronic BRB with a pop-up for Deep Strike says: "Some Units Must Arrive by Deep Strike. They always being the game in Reserve and always arrive by Deep Strike.
So if you're conceding the formation says it must be put into Deep Strike, the Deepstrike USR does cover that.

The issue that brings it full circle is the first sentence of the USR, In order to Deep Strike, the model in the unit must have the Deep Strike USR....

nosferatu1001 wrote:



No, the rules dont allow you to get there. You have a requirement known at list building that you must comply with - all models must be put into DSR.

Would you please point me at where in the restriction for detachment does it say something like that? I really don't see it.

Spoletta wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:



No, the rules dont allow you to get there. You have a requirement known at list building that you must comply with - all models must be put into DSR.

Would you please point me at where in the restriction for detachment does it say something like that? I really don't see it.

Please point out that that is the only place any restriction or requirement may be found. Page and graph

Or, for example, does the points limit rule still get invoked, even thougjh this is not a limit on the detachment?

I thought you were done trying to convince? I'm not the one breaking the rules, I can happiuly follow them all. Or can models now assault after running, when theyre on a waaagh!, even if they arrived from reserves?

How does Sableclaw works?
That is, does the Raven Sword listed for it does something? Other then to give Sammael something to occupy his hands?

Read the sable claw rules, the answer is in there.

I was hoping to get DS'ing Land Raiders back. Used be thing once. I mean the Imperium does have massive teleporters.

It was a thing in one codex, for one edition, that was widely ridiculed at the time...

I didnt think the imperium used teleporters for much more than terminator sized objects. They have massive transporters, and this is what they repreented her e- a thunderhawk transporter dropping the land raider off at some height - but it was never, in fluff, teleported in. At least, to my knowledge

nosferatu1001 wrote:

I thought you were done trying to convince?

For the first time since the start of this post, you are right! Good day to you.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Survivor19 wrote:
How does Sableclaw works?
That is, does the Raven Sword listed for it does something? Other then to give Sammael something to occupy his hands?

If you read his fluff section it mentions him using that sword for his vector strikes. In fact those attacks are S4Vp2, the same as his sword.

it's pretty sad that the only way to play with Deathwing Land Raiders is to take a CAD.

 bullyboy wrote:
it's pretty sad that the only way to play with Deathwing Land Raiders is to take a CAD.

It's not the only way. Unbound still exists. It can also use formations, so you can use a Redemption Force and keep all your spiffy run and shoot stuff.

 DarknessEternal wrote:

 bullyboy wrote:
it's pretty sad that the only way to play with Deathwing Land Raiders is to take a CAD.

It's not the only way. Unbound still exists. It can also use formations, so you can use a Redemption Force and keep all your spiffy run and shoot stuff.

Only if you don't go full DW, else that formation spells auto lose.

Edit: Oh you meant unbound with formations...yeah if it is allowed where you play i guess it works.

yeah, I think that's how we'll probably play it.

Spoletta wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:



No, the rules dont allow you to get there. You have a requirement known at list building that you must comply with - all models must be put into DSR.

Would you please point me at where in the restriction for detachment does it say something like that? I really don't see it.

I don't know whether this is plain stupidity or are malicious intent for cheating.

Formations puts them in DS reserve but they need the deepstrike USR to actually deep strike because the rules for deep strike say so.

Similar example:
Skitarii maniple gives my entire detachment scout, can you please show me the restriction for the detachement that prevents me from scouting them 120 inches and charging turn 1?

DaPino wrote:

Spoletta wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:



No, the rules dont allow you to get there. You have a requirement known at list building that you must comply with - all models must be put into DSR.

Would you please point me at where in the restriction for detachment does it say something like that? I really don't see it.

I don't know whether this is plain stupidity or are malicious intent for cheating.

Formations puts them in DS reserve but they need the deepstrike USR to actually deep strike because the rules for deep strike say so.

Similar example:
Skitarii maniple gives my entire detachment scout, can you please show me the restriction for the detachement that prevents me from scouting them 120 inches and charging turn 1?

going around in circles, but I do suggest you look at the restrictions in the Deathwing redemption Force and compare to the Deathwing Strike Force? In the former it strictly indicates that all ICs must be in terminator armour. They completely omitted this in the Deathwing Strike Force. Why? If the intent was to have all units in deep strike reserve, then why not put in this restriction? yes, I know we're talking about GW here, but was the intent really to have the Deathwing Strike Force playable without it's full complement of assets, such as Land Raiders or members of the Deathwing not in terminator armour. I just don't know.

 bullyboy wrote:
... I do suggest you look at the restrictions in the Deathwing redemption Force and compare to the Deathwing Strike Force? In the former it strictly indicates that all ICs must be in terminator armour. They completely omitted this in the Deathwing Strike Force. Why? If the intent was to have all units in deep strike reserve, then why not put in this restriction? yes, I know we're talking about GW here, but was the intent really to have the Deathwing Strike Force playable without it's full complement of assets, such as Land Raiders or members of the Deathwing not in terminator armour. I just don't know.

And thats the point. The differences raise the question to what is the RAI. If the RAI was for the entire DWSF to deep strike, why are we not limited to deep strike capable models as we are in the DWRF? Is it possible the use of 'deep strike reserve' was a mistake? Did they not realize that we could have models that fit within the restrictions that cannot deep strike?

nosferatu1001 wrote:
No, the rules dont allow you to get there. You have a requirement known at list building that you must comply with - all models must be put into DSR.

You are off base here. The Command benefits section "lists any special rules or benefits that apply to some or all of the models in that Detachment." This means they have to be in the detachment for the rules to apply. By that definition the command benefits section cannot be used to bar units from inclusion in the detachment. Thats why we have a restrictions section and frankly "All units must begin the game in deep strike reserve" is a restriction. Its in the wrong spot and because of that they have created a situation where I can create a legal list that cannot be deployed with the rules as written.

Spoletta wrote:

Edit: Oh you meant unbound with formations...yeah if it is allowed where you play i guess it works.

Heaven forfend people play by the rules.

This is exactly the kind of thing Unbound is for.

DJ - and in sixth you needs to pick a char as warlord, which was after list building. Didn't make a no char nid list any less legal.

Since Codex rules trump BRB rules when they conflict, wouldn't the Command Benefit forcing everything to start in Deep Strike Reserve trump the BRBs rule of having to have the Deep Strike USR in order to come from reserves via the Deep Strike method?

Wouldn't that be following the RAW?

No. All the Command Benefit would do is allow the unit to be placed in Deep Strike Reserve even though they can't Deep Strike. It doesn't provide them the rules that allows them to Deep Strike.

 Ghaz wrote:
No. All the Command Benefit would do is allow the unit to be placed in Deep Strike Reserve even though they can't Deep Strike. It doesn't provide them the rules that allows them to Deep Strike.

Then your Codex: Space Marine drop pods do not Deep Strike? The Drop Pod Assault special rule is worded almost exactly the same as this formation vis-à-vis "must enter play via Deep Strike" and Drop Pods do NOT have the Deep Strike USR.

False. Read the rules for Drop Pod Assault:

Drop Pod Assault: Drop Pods and units embarked upon them must be held in Deep Strike Reserve. At the beginning of your first turn, half of your Drop Pods (rounding up) automatically arrive from Reserve. The arrival of remaining Drop Pods is rolled for normally.

The white text tells us how the unit arrives. Where does Command Benefit tell us how the unit arrives from Deep Strike Reserve?

Breton wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:
No. All the Command Benefit would do is allow the unit to be placed in Deep Strike Reserve even though they can't Deep Strike. It doesn't provide them the rules that allows them to Deep Strike.

Then your Codex: Space Marine drop pods do not Deep Strike? The Drop Pod Assault special rule is worded almost exactly the same as this formation vis-à-vis "must enter play via Deep Strike" and Drop Pods do NOT have the Deep Strike USR.

I kind agree
The wording must enter play via Deep Strike is signifying a condition and also, via the BRB, is also a permission.
The exact wording is called out in the BRB: "Sometimes a unit must arrive by Deep Strike. They always begin the game in Reserve and always arrive by Deep Strike."

BRB defines Deep Strike Reserve as "telling your opponent that it (read-> units in reserve) will be arriving by Deep Strike (sometimes called Deep Strike Reserve)."

It doesn't matter if they have the rule or not, if they are in Deep Strike Reserve they WILL BE arriving by Deep Strike.

Normally you can't put something without Deep Strike in Deep Strike Reserve. However, the detachment explicitly gives you permission to put dedicated transports in the formation, ergo, placed into Deep Strike Reserve.

Land Raider is a dedicated transport -> satisfies Restrictions
Land Raider must be placed in Deep Strike Reserve breaks down into two categories: "must be"-->condition and "Deep Strike Reserve" -->classification. doesn't care about permission, says "must"
Deep Strike Reserve -> WILL BE arriving by Deep Strike --> permission, again doesn't care about unit rules, explicitly says it will.

Holy rambling, Batman...

 Ghaz wrote:
False. Read the rules for Drop Pod Assault:

Drop Pod Assault: Drop Pods and units embarked upon them must be held in Deep Strike Reserve. At the beginning of your first turn, half of your Drop Pods (rounding up) automatically arrive from Reserve. The arrival of remaining Drop Pods is rolled for normally.

The white text tells us how the unit arrives. Where does Command Benefit tell us how the unit arrives from Deep Strike Reserve?

The same deep strike usr that tells us how (not when) the drop pods arrive. It's worded the same basic way. Where do you see the deep strike usr or permission for drop pods that isn't there for this formation?

 bullyboy wrote:
I'm actually not too concerned about the Deathwing rules as I'd take all termies or a few dreads in pods, won't have to worry about buying a Land Raider now.

The Ravenwing is still an annoyance to me as I don't want to take Sammael, that should never be a requirement...not with the new way lists are built.

I agree. You shouldn't have to take the master to field something in the size of the detachment.

That's how I figure it: the land raiders may be placed into deep strike reserve but they don't have the Deep Strike rule so they can never arrive and remain ~in limbo~ in the warp.

No I don't have a good argument for that, just intuition.

 Brillow80 wrote:

Breton wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:
No. All the Command Benefit would do is allow the unit to be placed in Deep Strike Reserve even though they can't Deep Strike. It doesn't provide them the rules that allows them to Deep Strike.

Then your Codex: Space Marine drop pods do not Deep Strike? The Drop Pod Assault special rule is worded almost exactly the same as this formation vis-à-vis "must enter play via Deep Strike" and Drop Pods do NOT have the Deep Strike USR.

I kind agree
The wording must enter play via Deep Strike is signifying a condition and also, via the BRB, is also a permission.
The exact wording is called out in the BRB: "Sometimes a unit must arrive by Deep Strike. They always begin the game in Reserve and always arrive by Deep Strike."

BRB defines Deep Strike Reserve as "telling your opponent that it (read-> units in reserve) will be arriving by Deep Strike (sometimes called Deep Strike Reserve)."

It doesn't matter if they have the rule or not, if they are in Deep Strike Reserve they WILL BE arriving by Deep Strike.

Normally you can't put something without Deep Strike in Deep Strike Reserve. However, the detachment explicitly gives you permission to put dedicated transports in the formation, ergo, placed into Deep Strike Reserve.

Land Raider is a dedicated transport -> satisfies Restrictions
Land Raider must be placed in Deep Strike Reserve breaks down into two categories: "must be"-->condition and "Deep Strike Reserve" -->classification. doesn't care about permission, says "must"
Deep Strike Reserve -> WILL BE arriving by Deep Strike --> permission, again doesn't care about unit rules, explicitly says it will.

Holy rambling, Batman...

That's how i've read it the first time. Now i'm not so sure. I'm more inclined to think that if a "must" applies to a rule you don't have then you are not eligible for that "must". You either deploy or start in normal reserves.

Spoletta wrote:


That's how i've read it the first time. Now i'm not so sure. I'm more inclined to think that if a "must" applies to a rule you don't have then you are not eligible for that "must". You either deploy or start in normal reserves.

I wouldn't be surprised if that's how they meant it. I also wouldn't be surprised if they actually meant for Land Raiders to deep strike from invisible Thunderhawk Transporters.

If you give the writers any benefit of the doubt, the wording is too similar to Drop Pods to be accidental. Of course, the issues with the Ravenwing rule and HQ's make me question why one would give these writers the benefit of the doubt.

I wonder if they know what they meant, because I wonder if they knew what the were writing and how we would read it.

 Brillow80 wrote:

Breton wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:
No. All the Command Benefit would do is allow the unit to be placed in Deep Strike Reserve even though they can't Deep Strike. It doesn't provide them the rules that allows them to Deep Strike.

Then your Codex: Space Marine drop pods do not Deep Strike? The Drop Pod Assault special rule is worded almost exactly the same as this formation vis-à-vis "must enter play via Deep Strike" and Drop Pods do NOT have the Deep Strike USR.

I kind agree
The wording must enter play via Deep Strike is signifying a condition and also, via the BRB, is also a permission.
The exact wording is called out in the BRB: "Sometimes a unit must arrive by Deep Strike. They always begin the game in Reserve and always arrive by Deep Strike."

BRB defines Deep Strike Reserve as "telling your opponent that it (read-> units in reserve) will be arriving by Deep Strike (sometimes called Deep Strike Reserve)."

It doesn't matter if they have the rule or not, if they are in Deep Strike Reserve they WILL BE arriving by Deep Strike.

Normally you can't put something without Deep Strike in Deep Strike Reserve. However, the detachment explicitly gives you permission to put dedicated transports in the formation, ergo, placed into Deep Strike Reserve.

Land Raider is a dedicated transport -> satisfies Restrictions
Land Raider must be placed in Deep Strike Reserve breaks down into two categories: "must be"-->condition and "Deep Strike Reserve" -->classification. doesn't care about permission, says "must"
Deep Strike Reserve -> WILL BE arriving by Deep Strike --> permission, again doesn't care about unit rules, explicitly says it will.

Holy rambling, Batman...

So you're quoting half the rules for DS, trying to make an arguement, ignoring the other half of the rule literally saying you need to have the DS USR in order to DS.
Codex: space marine also specifically gives drop pods the permission to arrive from DSR, even tough they don't have the DS USR. DA Land Raiders do not get this permission. So your arguement is invalid.

DaPino wrote:


So you're quoting half the rules for DS, trying to make an arguement, ignoring the other half of the rule literally saying you need to have the DS USR in order to DS.
Codex: space marine also specifically gives drop pods the permission to arrive from DSR, even tough they don't have the DS USR. DA Land Raiders do not get this permission. So your arguement is invalid.

It does? Where? Drop Pods do not have the DS USR. Drop Pod Assault says they must arrive by deep strike, but it does not confer the rule, nor does it specifically give more "permission" to be in DS Reserve than the almost identical phrasing for this formation. Just about the only difference is that it specifies drop pods in one rule, and the entire formation in another.

If someone tired to deep strike a land raider against me, id laugh in there face, not allowe them to and that would be that. You can't deep strike anything if you don't have anyone to play. Plain and simple. And also it's pretty clear that if you don't have the DS USR then you can't deep strike. Black and white, now for the love of god end this stupid discussion before it turns into the whole skyhammer IC bullcrap.

Dman137 wrote:
If someone tired to deep strike a land raider against me, id laugh in there face, not allowe them to and that would be that. You can't deep strike anything if you don't have anyone to play. Plain and simple. And also it's pretty clear that if you don't have the DS USR then you can't deep strike. Black and white, now for the love of god end this stupid discussion before it turns into the whole skyhammer IC bullcrap.

Agreed. People trying to make the da codex that much better cause they dealt with crap for so long

Pain4Pleasure wrote:

Dman137 wrote:
If someone tired to deep strike a land raider against me, id laugh in there face, not allowe them to and that would be that. You can't deep strike anything if you don't have anyone to play. Plain and simple. And also it's pretty clear that if you don't have the DS USR then you can't deep strike. Black and white, now for the love of god end this stupid discussion before it turns into the whole skyhammer IC bullcrap.

Agreed. People trying to make the da codex that much better cause they dealt with crap for so long

Actually I'm Devil's Advocating the rules. I don't have a DA land raider, and probably won't. I'm hoping the idea was to allow some of the force to deploy normally i.e. in Land Raiders. But the phraseology is very similar to the Drop Pod. Which also doesn't have the DS USR. And that's close enough I'm not sure what they intended, or if they even contemplated this coming up, as such I'm not sure we can impartially RAI until the RAW is revisted.

I'd allow deep striking Land Raiders. Look how awesome they worked for the Bangels! As in, they were terribad, and no one ran them.

SJ

Breton wrote:

DaPino wrote:


So you're quoting half the rules for DS, trying to make an arguement, ignoring the other half of the rule literally saying you need to have the DS USR in order to DS.
Codex: space marine also specifically gives drop pods the permission to arrive from DSR, even tough they don't have the DS USR. DA Land Raiders do not get this permission. So your arguement is invalid.

It does? Where? Drop Pods do not have the DS USR. Drop Pod Assault says they must arrive by deep strike, but it does not confer the rule, nor does it specifically give more "permission" to be in DS Reserve than the almost identical phrasing for this formation. Just about the only difference is that it specifies drop pods in one rule, and the entire formation in another.

This is a compelling argument. It does explicitly say that half the pods automatically arrive, but the remaining arrivals are "rolled for normally".

Breton wrote:

Pain4Pleasure wrote:

Dman137 wrote:
If someone tired to deep strike a land raider against me, id laugh in there face, not allowe them to and that would be that. You can't deep strike anything if you don't have anyone to play. Plain and simple. And also it's pretty clear that if you don't have the DS USR then you can't deep strike. Black and white, now for the love of god end this stupid discussion before it turns into the whole skyhammer IC bullcrap.

Agreed. People trying to make the da codex that much better cause they dealt with crap for so long

Actually I'm Devil's Advocating the rules. I don't have a DA land raider, and probably won't. I'm hoping the idea was to allow some of the force to deploy normally i.e. in Land Raiders. But the phraseology is very similar to the Drop Pod. Which also doesn't have the DS USR. And that's close enough I'm not sure what they intended, or if they even contemplated this coming up, as such I'm not sure we can impartially RAI until the RAW is revisted.

We may be on to something.
It is indeed a case where the "must" overrides the model inability to do something. And it is on this very rule we are debating.
I don't wanna say case closed...but this is getting dangerously close to it. Too bad, DW players out there will never get a chance it seems.

Actually the Drop Pod example has changed my mind. All units deep strike regardless of whether they have the DS USR. I was wrong DSing PA marines and Landraiders available to DAs.

The must sets a requirement. It does not grant permission

Cf to requirements to place units into reserve , even when not normally allowed by the mission. Requirement followed by permission.

Must is not a permission.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
The must sets a requirement. It does not grant permission

Cf to requirements to place units into reserve , even when not normally allowed by the mission. Requirement followed by permission.

Must is not a permission.

So, no more drop podding for anyone?

Spoletta wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
The must sets a requirement. It does not grant permission

Cf to requirements to place units into reserve , even when not normally allowed by the mission. Requirement followed by permission.

Must is not a permission.

So, no more drop podding for anyone?

That's correct! No more pods

Pain4Pleasure wrote:

Spoletta wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
The must sets a requirement. It does not grant permission

Cf to requirements to place units into reserve , even when not normally allowed by the mission. Requirement followed by permission.

Must is not a permission.

So, no more drop podding for anyone?

That's correct! No more pods

This is like the happiest day in my life!

My orks are very happy. The next time the black templar player in my group grabs his pods, I'm going to tell him that they automatically exploded, killing all units inside, via them not knowing to make sure the drop pods could even deepstrike. To think I USE to run a full drop pod crimson fist army

Breton wrote:

DaPino wrote:


So you're quoting half the rules for DS, trying to make an arguement, ignoring the other half of the rule literally saying you need to have the DS USR in order to DS.
Codex: space marine also specifically gives drop pods the permission to arrive from DSR, even tough they don't have the DS USR. DA Land Raiders do not get this permission. So your arguement is invalid.

It does? Where? Drop Pods do not have the DS USR. Drop Pod Assault says they must arrive by deep strike, but it does not confer the rule, nor does it specifically give more "permission" to be in DS Reserve than the almost identical phrasing for this formation. Just about the only difference is that it specifies drop pods in one rule, and the entire formation in another.

I'm pretty sure you haven't even laid eyes on the Drop Pod Assault rules if you say that's "the only difference" because you're ignoring about 2/3 of what's written in that rule.

In order to deploy via DS, you need: 1) Permission to go into DSR 2) Permission to leave DSR (USR or specific permission overriding the need for DS USR) and 3) a method of deployment. You automatically fulfill all 3 by having the DS USR.

Drop pod assault rule says that all drop pods have to be in DSR (condition 1), this is the same with the formation, that's not all it says however. Here you stopped reading, if you even read it at all.
Then it goes on, saying that half of the drop pods automatically arrive from DSR on turn one and finally tells us how the other drop pods arrive, by rolling a dice as you would for a model with the DS USR. (Condition 2)
Rulebook provides us with a method of deployment because units that come from DSR deploy by placing 1 model, then scattering, etc. (condition 3)


Noweher does your Deathwing formation give you permission to leave DSR. The wording isn't NEARLY as comparable as you make it out to be.

Deathwing Assault: All units in this Formation must be placed in Deep Strike Reserve. Immediately after determining Warlord Traits, make a secret note of which of your turns you would like each Deathwing Redemption Force in your army to arrive: your turn 2, 3 or 4. All units in this Formation automatically arrive by Deep Strike at the start of the chosen turn.

Summoned to War: All units in this Detachment must begin the game in Deep Strike Reserve. If your army includes a Ravenwing Attack Squadron or a Ravenwing Strike Force (see below), you can choose to automatically pass or fail any Reserve Rolls you make for units in this Detachment; there is no need to roll.

Looks like they do meet conditions 1 thru 3.

SJ

To be completely honest, no they shouldn't be coming down in DS, and neither pods should be able. They do not have the DS rule, like for example the Tyrannocite which has the same rule but also DS.

To disallow that though you really have to enter the realm of intensive nitpicking, where you can't find fault even in the rule author if something doesn't work till the last gear. This is a game, not a legal contract.

For that reason we always allowed to pods to work and for that reason it is correct to say that DW cannot deploy normally in any case and should always DS.

I think everyone should reread the first paragraph of the deep strike rule.

"In order for a unit to be able to Deep Strike, all models in the unit must have the Deep Strike special rule and the unit must start the game in Reserve. When placing the unit in Reserve, you must tell your opponent that it will be arriving by Deep Strike (sometimes called Deep Strike Reserve). Some units must arrive by Deep Strike. They always begin the game in Reserve and always arrive by Deep Strike"

The way I see it the DWRF does not allow Land Raiders to deep strike, But the DWSF does because it allows dedicated transports other that drop pods in to the formation.

The deep strike rule tells us a unit must have the deep strike USR. Then goes on to tell us that when placing a unit in reserve we must tell our opponent it will be arriving by deep strike (sometimes called Deep Strike Reserve).
Command benefit: summoned to war tells us all unit in formation must start in deep strike reserve.
then the deep strike rule reinforces this by stating "Some units must arrive by Deep Strike. They always begin the game in Reserve" (or sometimes called deep strike reserve). then says "and always arrive by Deep Strike".

the deep strike rule gives us an exception to it's self, which the command benifit: summoned to war uses. It then allows you arrive by deep strike.

I think its silly, but I can see no reason to not allow it with out breaking drop pods in the process.
will GW faq it probably?
For now we just have to wait.

DaPino wrote:

Then it goes on, saying that half of the drop pods automatically arrive from DSR on turn one and finally tells us how the other drop pods arrive, by rolling a dice as you would for a model with the DS USR. (Condition 2)

No. At least in the new DAngle codex it says "rolled for normally". It does not say "as you would for Deep Strike" nor does it explicitly grant them anything. This is significant.

so we are now basically at the junction of if Drop Pods can deep strike, so can power armoured DW and land raiders in a DWSF? Grand

I'd be fine with letting the Dark Angels player deepstrike all the models in the formation, but I'm pretty sure RAW they just get stuck in reserves for infinity. Anyways thats HIWPI

edit. I'd also let any models that purchased bikes automatically gain the Ravenwing rule.

charactec on bike gain Ravenwing and lose Deathwing if they had it.

Now can the Land Raiders Deep Strike without scatter if they're within 6" of (right next to) a Drop Pod's Locator Beacon?

axisofentropy wrote:
Now can the Land Raiders Deep Strike without scatter if they're within 6" of (right next to) a Drop Pod's Locator Beacon?

Only if the beacon was on the table at the start of the turn, and if the Land Raider is arriving by Deep Strike.

SJ

Dman137 wrote:
If someone tired to deep strike a land raider against me, id laugh in there face, not allowe them to and that would be that. You can't deep strike anything if you don't have anyone to play. Plain and simple. And also it's pretty clear that if you don't have the DS USR then you can't deep strike. Black and white, now for the love of god end this stupid discussion before it turns into the whole skyhammer IC bullcrap.

Read what you wrote again and then tell me your interpretations of all things 40k are so infallible that it would allow you to behave in such a...friendly...manner. I'm not even sure I'd want to play toy soldiers with such an individual...correct or not.

And if there is precedent for additional lines of thought, as per the Drop Pod Assault, Ghostwalk Mantle or Deep Strike USR then the discussion will continue. If you are no longer a fan of the discussion, you don't have to partake.

Pain4Pleasure wrote:
Agreed. People trying to make the da codex that much better cause they dealt with crap for so long

It's bad form to judge the motivations of others when you have no clue of their true intent. We risk coming across as armchair experts of human emotion.

For my part I am also playing devil's advocate and have no intentions to use a land raider in such a manner. A 250 point AV14 box is better spent on 5 more terminators or Dread/Pods. IMHO it's cheese. Still, your blanket statement holds little truth to why I'm working to clarify the rules. Further, it doesn't add to the discussion.

Back on topic, Ghostwalk Mantle also has the same wording as DPA, specific wording "enter play using the Deep Strike rules." As long as we are getting rid of non Deep Strike USR unit abilities that is another example.

With respect to DPA, being "in Reserves" and "enter play using Deep Strike rules" is pretty much the definition of Deep Strike Reseves. I don't see a clearer precedent.

I also find it odd the restrictions call out Dedicated transports. In that force you can only ever take Drop Pods or Land Raiders. Why not just say Drop Pods? Seems too general.

On the RW side, our group will allow IC on bike to conference RW rule. Removing the DW rule seems interesting and a good tradeoff.

This thread makes my head hurt.

HIWPI - Ravenwing Strike force can take 3 HQs, only 1 has Ravenwing special rule. Seems pretty clear the intent was to confer Ravenwing special rule. I would ask my opponent, however.

Deathwing - If I was playing against this, Land Raiders in normal reserves or normal deployment seems to make the most sense to me. I know this is not in the rules, but the OP asked for how they would play. Again, I would ask my opponent.

For IC's, No terminator armor, no deepstrike. Deploy normally or in normal reserve, but I would allow that as part of the formation. As always, I'm going to ask my opponent.

That's HIWPI, worth as much as it costs

Great news! http://www.blacklibrary.com/Downloads/Product/PDF/Warhammer-40k/7th-faq/Dark_Angels_v1.0_Dec15.pdf

Page 159 – Ravenwing Strike Force, Restrictions
Replace this with the following:
‘All units in this Detachment must have the Ravenwing
special rule (pg 148) or be a Dark Angels Character
equipped with a Space Marine bike.’

P.S. those land raiders can deep strike if it works for drop pods *crosses arms*

axisofentropy wrote:
P.S. those land raiders can deep strike if it works for drop pods *crosses arms*

Drop Pods come with the Deep Strike rule, Land Raiders do not. Not a valid comparison.

*Edit: Just double checked, and apparently they do not come with it natively. How interesting.

Charistoph wrote:

axisofentropy wrote:
P.S. those land raiders can deep strike if it works for drop pods *crosses arms*

Drop Pods come with the Deep Strike rule, Land Raiders do not. Not a valid comparison.

*Edit: Just double checked, and apparently they do not come with it natively. How interesting.

Yeah read back through the previous page. The "Drop Pod Assault" and "Summoned to War" rules are so similar.

Well the ravenwing issue is fixed in the newest FAQ stating it has to have the ravenwing special rule, or it has to be a Dark Angel character mounted on a Space Marine Bike for the formation.