Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Hey there!

Finally the Ravenwing Strikeforce is FAQ'ed and it turned out my interpretation of RAI was 100% accurate.

Now we still have the kinda weird Deathwing Strike Force, specially in terms of Land Raiders as dedicated transports.

As a reminder:
- The formation only allowes units with the "Deathwing" special rule or dedicated transports of such units.
- Every unit must be placed in deepstrike reserve

There are 3 possible rule interpretations:

1) No LR allowed
Pro: since they cannot deepstrike there is no way to put them on the table and they are destroyed at the end of the game.
Cons: This interpretation goes hand in hand with the insta lose turn 1 ravenwing strike force with flyers. Obviously not attended at all and therefore not a real option.

2) LR gaines the Deep Strike Rule
Pro: LRs are clearly allowed in the formation since the rules specificly state, that dedicated transports are allowed. If every unit MUST be deployed as deep strikers, so this also applies to LRs
Pro: It's the interpretation fitting the fluff of the deathwing best. (not the strongest argument, but hey ;-) )
Cons: It does not specificly state, that LRs get the Deep Strike Rule and therefore this would be a very extensive interpretation. Also try to explain that to your opponent...
Cons: Fluffy you say? LRs falling from the sky would most likely shatter them to pieces!

3) LR are deployed as normal, but without their units.
Pro: Not deploying a unit in it's dedicated transport is no rule issue. Also since LRs do not have the DS special rule, they simply can't be placed in DS reserve and therefore have to be deployed as normal. (add "if possible" after the restriction)
Pro: This would also allow other Deathwing units without terminator armor (Ezekiel, Asmodai, Azrael) to join the formation.
Cons: While adding LRs to the formation obviously is intended, the case is not so clear for the above mentioned characters.
Cons: a unit that can not deep strike does not deserve to be in a deathwing strikeforce! The whole concept is to strike hard and fast via deep strike. -> Fluff says no.


How do you play it in your gaming group?
What is your favourite interpretation and why?


How I play it (until convinced of a better interpretation):
I actually prefer option 3 because I try to avoid unintentional restrictions as much as possible without inventing/adding special rules to units.
That's why I also always allowed Bike Characters in Ravenwing Strikeforces, but didn't give them the Ravenwing special rule.
Since Land Raiders are a valid option to take, there MUST be a way to actually deploy them.
Without addind DS to Land Raiders, the only way is to deploy as normal.
I feel, that players should be able to use their models in a fun way, since it's still a game. Fun is priority.
The Rules may be a permissive ruleset, but often they state to keep it fair and fun for everybody. In the same way as handling cover saves (if in doubt, allow cover saves to be taken) I also handle this restriction in the deathwing strike force.

Option #1 is the correct option. This actually makes perfect sense from a fluff standpoint, so I'm sure it's the intention. Deathwing Terminators don't ride into battle in their Land Raiders. They wait for the Ravenwing to identify a Fallen, then teleport in and smash some face.

Option #2 is incorrect because there is no wording granting Land Raiders the Deep Strike rule. If all chosen units must go into Deep Strike Reserves, then you necessarily must choose only from units that have the Deep Strike rule.

Option #3 is incorrect because you'd be violating the requirement that all units start in Deep Strike Reserves.

So... HIWPI? RAW.

Option 2 is RAW, as permission to Deep Strike is implied, and implied permission is still permission in a permissive rule set.

Option 1 is most likely RAI, as the rules appear to be refering only to the Dreadnought's Drop Pod, its just that GW wrote the rule too generally.

Option 3 is just not supported.

SJ

The "RAW" of it is that you are allowed to purchase Land Raiders, but are unable to deploy them or put them into reserves of any kind, resulting in a situation not covered by the rules. The rules only describe how to deploy something, or how to have it start in some kind of zone that isn't on the table (whether it be Deep Strike Reserves, Reserves, or Ongoing Reserves).

As such, the only reasonable option is Option #1, and please don't purchase Land Raiders. My argument here, though not 100% RAW supported, would be that any Land Raiders purchased would be undeployable and not played with, even though you spent points on them.

Option #2 is definitely not RAW, because permission to Deep Strike is definitely not implied. Only units with the Deep Strike special rule can start in Deep Strike Reserves. The rules of the formation place a restriction on a decision that is made after making your army list and starting the game. An implied permission would be something along the lines of "all units in this formation can and must begin the game in Deep Strike Reserves. This would be implying that the Land Raiders have gained the ability to start the game in Deep Strike Reserves without giving them the Deep Strike rule.

Option #3 is definitely not RAW, because of the restriction given by the formation applies to all units, including dedicated transports.


I disagree with Kriswall that the restrictions of a decision made during play constitutes a restriction on dataslate options. It's definitely allowable to take Land Raiders for the Deathwing Terminators. It's just impossible to use them.

In my opinion since land raider were given deep strike in the past via descent of angels rules for the blood angels codex, deep striking a land raider is not out of the question. Also it can be inferred that a landraider may be dropped off by say a thunderhawk kinda like jump troops deep strike. So IMO it does not restrict the land raider in the formation and the formation does say that all units arrive via deep strike EXCEPT dreadnoughts which are required to buy a pod to be included. The land raider gets to deep strike. If they made sure to go out of their way to handle the dreadnought issue imo it is assumed that the land raider IN THIS FORMATION ONLY is given the deep strike rule or it would have been stated as it was that the deathwing squads could NOT bring them as dedicated transports.

Implied permission is not permission. Please cite page and paragraph explicitly permitting me to grant the Deep Strike rule to a dedicated transport without the Deep Strike rule. Assuming you can't... and you can't, since it's not there... there is no permission to do so.

Again, Option #1 is the only option supported by the written text of the rules.

To be honest, I'm not even seeing implied permission. If I was a Tactical Marine and my Captain told me to go requisition a transport BUT that the transport would need to let me Deep Strike onto the battlefield, I wouldn't pick a Rhino. I'd pick a Drop Pod. It's the only thing that fits my Captain's instructions. I'm not going to have a Techmarine retrofit a Rhino for orbital insertion because of an implied permission to do so from my Captain. I was never even given permission to talk to the Techmarine (in much the same way that I'm not being given permission to bestow Deep Strike on a transport that doesn't have it).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Yarium wrote:
The "RAW" of it is that you are allowed to purchase Land Raiders, but are unable to deploy them or put them into reserves of any kind, resulting in a situation not covered by the rules. The rules only describe how to deploy something, or how to have it start in some kind of zone that isn't on the table (whether it be Deep Strike Reserves, Reserves, or Ongoing Reserves).

As such, the only reasonable option is Option #1, and please don't purchase Land Raiders. My argument here, though not 100% RAW supported, would be that any Land Raiders purchased would be undeployable and not played with, even though you spent points on them.

Option #2 is definitely not RAW, because permission to Deep Strike is definitely not implied. Only units with the Deep Strike special rule can start in Deep Strike Reserves. The rules of the formation place a restriction on a decision that is made after making your army list and starting the game. An implied permission would be something along the lines of "all units in this formation can and must begin the game in Deep Strike Reserves. This would be implying that the Land Raiders have gained the ability to start the game in Deep Strike Reserves without giving them the Deep Strike rule.

Option #3 is definitely not RAW, because of the restriction given by the formation applies to all units, including dedicated transports.


I disagree with Kriswall that the restrictions of a decision made during play constitutes a restriction on dataslate options. It's definitely allowable to take Land Raiders for the Deathwing Terminators. It's just impossible to use them.

Wouldn't you be able to take the Land Raiders, but then lose them when you're unable to deploy them? I don't have my rules on me, but I understand that there is wording to the effect that units that can't be deployed are destroyed? So, yes, RaW you can take the Land Raiders, but also RaW, you have no legal way to bring them onto the table.

FWIW - the current BA codex removed all traces of deep striking Land Raiders.

We also have a terminator only formation: the Orbital Intervention Force (Its in the shield of baal campaign). 3 squads of terminators that must be held in deep strike reserve. No restrictions on upgrades.

So although I originally voted for deploy LRs on table, I think now it should be that we're not supposed to take them.

But if you all decide Deathwing can do it then I'll be doing it too with this particular BA formation! ;-)

Where did games workshop post the ravenwing strike force faq? Can't find it

 chaosmarauder wrote:
Where did games workshop post the ravenwing strike force faq? Can't find it

It's in the Codex: Dark Angels FAQ... since this is a Codex: Dark Angels question.

 chaosmarauder wrote:
Where did games workshop post the ravenwing strike force faq? Can't find it

Here. It looks like they're sitting on a bunch of FAQs to upload this week, as the Black Library FAQ page isn't showing them.

jeffersonian000 wrote:Option 2 is RAW, as permission to Deep Strike is implied, and implied permission is still permission in a permissive rule set.

The contradiction of this statement is strong.

chaosmarauder wrote:Where did games workshop post the ravenwing strike force faq? Can't find it

It is an FAQ that is not currently linked on any Games Workshop site but can only be found by typing the address correctly. Some people have worked it out and provided links.

But until it is linked on the site, I wouldn't consider it official.

Charistoph wrote:

jeffersonian000 wrote:Option 2 is RAW, as permission to Deep Strike is implied, and implied permission is still permission in a permissive rule set.

The contradiction of this statement is strong.

chaosmarauder wrote:Where did games workshop post the ravenwing strike force faq? Can't find it

It is an FAQ that is not currently linked on any Games Workshop site but can only be found by typing the address correctly. Some people have worked it out and provided links.

But until it is linked on the site, I wouldn't consider it official.

Why would you not consider it official...? That's just kinda ridiculous.

Charistoph wrote:

jeffersonian000 wrote:Option 2 is RAW, as permission to Deep Strike is implied, and implied permission is still permission in a permissive rule set.

The contradiction of this statement is strong.

chaosmarauder wrote:Where did games workshop post the ravenwing strike force faq? Can't find it

It is an FAQ that is not currently linked on any Games Workshop site but can only be found by typing the address correctly. Some people have worked it out and provided links.

But until it is linked on the site, I wouldn't consider it official.

It's official if you have a digital codex. Those have already been updated.

 Kanluwen wrote:

Charistoph wrote:
It is an FAQ that is not currently linked on any Games Workshop site but can only be found by typing the address correctly. Some people have worked it out and provided links.

But until it is linked on the site, I wouldn't consider it official.

Why would you not consider it official...? That's just kinda ridiculous.

Because it may be changed again before it is released with a proper link. In addition, it leaves confusion in place when you have one with an updated digital version and one with a dead tree version with no update. I don't consider data-mining something a valid official release.

 Kriswall wrote:

Charistoph wrote:

chaosmarauder wrote:Where did games workshop post the ravenwing strike force faq? Can't find it

It is an FAQ that is not currently linked on any Games Workshop site but can only be found by typing the address correctly. Some people have worked it out and provided links.

But until it is linked on the site, I wouldn't consider it official.

It's official if you have a digital codex. Those have already been updated.

From what I have heard the changes haven't even been activated yet, just downloaded to be released at the proper time. I could be wrong, though.

Being back on topic lets think about this in a reasonable fashion. Do terminator armies REALLY need anymore handicaps?

Will being able to deep strike the land raider take that deathwing list to such heights that it will begin crushing all foes in front of it? No no it wont. Maybe expressed permission is not there but really how bad are things? If you cant see past that then toy soldiers may not be for you.

 namiel wrote:
Being back on topic lets think about this in a reasonable fashion. Do terminator armies REALLY need anymore handicaps?

Will being able to deep strike the land raider take that deathwing list to such heights that it will begin crushing all foes in front of it? No no it wont. Maybe expressed permission is not there but really how bad are things? If you cant see past that then toy soldiers may not be for you.

I thought this was a rules as written discussion. If you want to make this a house rule, fine, mark your posts as HIWPI. If you don't think this is how the rules actually work, but would like it if they did, take this to the Proposed Rules sub-forum.

To be clear, whether or not something is "over powered" or "fair" or "really that bad" has no impact whatsoever on a rules discussion. It might impact a house rule, but we're not talking about house rules.

Also, this isn't "anymore handicaps". Nobody is trying to impose an additional restriction here. These rules have been in place for some time. Option #1 was RaW this morning, last week and last month.

 Kriswall wrote:

 namiel wrote:
Being back on topic lets think about this in a reasonable fashion. Do terminator armies REALLY need anymore handicaps?

Will being able to deep strike the land raider take that deathwing list to such heights that it will begin crushing all foes in front of it? No no it wont. Maybe expressed permission is not there but really how bad are things? If you cant see past that then toy soldiers may not be for you.

I thought this was a rules as written discussion. If you want to make this a house rule, fine, mark your posts as HIWPI. If you don't think this is how the rules actually work, but would like it if they did, take this to the Proposed Rules sub-forum.

To be clear, whether or not something is "over powered" or "fair" or "really that bad" has no impact whatsoever on a rules discussion. It might impact a house rule, but we're not talking about house rules.

Also, this isn't "anymore handicaps". Nobody is trying to impose an additional restriction here. These rules have been in place for some time. Option #1 was RaW this morning, last week and last month.

Read my original post. The words "IN MY OPINION" are repeated several times there. I don't care to argue with rules lawyers they annoy the crap out of me. SO my opinion on the matter has been clearly stated and how I would play it is whichever makes the game more fun because for me that supersedes the rules EVERYTIME

No land raiders allowed. The Deathwing is famous for teleporting into combat in fluff and this is actually decently reflected in the rules.

Even Blood Angels had to modify their Land Raiders to be dropped from Thunderhawks to get the Deepstriking thing, and since the Deathwing just teleports in, it would be rather weird that they would send in Thunderhawks to drop empty Raiders and then have the occupants teleport in.

I have a feeling this would be a lot less of an issue of the Deathwing Strikeforce had an errata saying "may deepstrike on the first turn" since every single "ruling" that goes into them is to somehow find a way to field the army as a standalone force.

 namiel wrote:
Read my original post. The words "IN MY OPINION" are repeated several times there. I don't care to argue with rules lawyers they annoy the crap out of me. SO my opinion on the matter has been clearly stated and how I would play it is whichever makes the game more fun because for me that supersedes the rules EVERYTIME

Awesome. I'm happy for you. I also make changes routinely to the core rules to make for a more enjoyable game with my friends. BUT, to be fair to other users of this forum, I always clearly mark any house rule related posts with a HIWPI marker. I don't want to create a situation where someone shows up, doesn't read the entire thread and thinks I'm advocating that we should let an interpretation slide because it's not that big a deal. This forum is specifically for debating how the rules actually work versus an author's intentions, etc. Proposed rules (house rules) should really go in the Proposed Rules section.

Kriswall wrote:

 namiel wrote:
Read my original post. The words "IN MY OPINION" are repeated several times there. I don't care to argue with rules lawyers they annoy the crap out of me. SO my opinion on the matter has been clearly stated and how I would play it is whichever makes the game more fun because for me that supersedes the rules EVERYTIME

Awesome. I'm happy for you. I also make changes routinely to the core rules to make for a more enjoyable game with my friends. BUT, to be fair to other users of this forum, I always clearly mark any house rule related posts with a HIWPI marker. I don't want to create a situation where someone shows up, doesn't read the entire thread and thinks I'm advocating that we should let an interpretation slide because it's not that big a deal. This forum is specifically for debating how the rules actually work versus an author's intentions, etc. Proposed rules (house rules) should really go in the Proposed Rules section.

namiel wrote:In my opinion since land raider were given deep strike in the past via descent of angels rules for the blood angels codex, deep striking a land raider is not out of the question. Also it can be inferred that a landraider may be dropped off by say a thunderhawk kinda like jump troops deep strike. So IMO it does not restrict the land raider in the formation and the formation does say that all units arrive via deep strike EXCEPT dreadnoughts which are required to buy a pod to be included. The land raider gets to deep strike. If they made sure to go out of their way to handle the dreadnought issue imo it is assumed that the land raider IN THIS FORMATION ONLY is given the deep strike rule or it would have been stated as it was that the deathwing squads could NOT bring them as dedicated transports.

hmmm

 namiel wrote:
Being back on topic lets think about this in a reasonable fashion. Do terminator armies REALLY need anymore handicaps?

Will being able to deep strike the land raider take that deathwing list to such heights that it will begin crushing all foes in front of it? No no it wont. Maybe expressed permission is not there but really how bad are things? If you cant see past that then toy soldiers may not be for you.

hmmmm

I'm not worried about your earlier posts. I was commenting on this one. Please highlight the "in my opinon" or "HIWPI" markers for me. I'll wait.

You don't need to tell me that this game isn't for me because I don't think Land Raiders should be able to magically deep strike when nothing in the background lore would indicate this is something the Dark Angels do.

Just to note - you could play a homebrew mission or some tournament could publish a mission where forces not normally allowed to deep strike can then do so. In this case, you still retain the option to purchase Land Raiders as part of this formation :-)

 Yarium wrote:
Just to note - you could play a homebrew mission or some tournament could publish a mission where forces not normally allowed to deep strike can then do so. In this case, you still retain the option to purchase Land Raiders as part of this formation :-)

Like Planetstrike? Oh, wait, that doesn't work for Vehicles...

We had a thread about this; I'll find it.

Nobody here has brought up the Drop Pod example. Drop Pods do not explicitly have the Deep Strike rule. It's granted by the Drop Pod Assault rule, much like a Deathwing Strike Force's Dedicated Transports Deep Strike per the detachment's Summoned to War rule.

I did once try a gimmick army with Drop Pods, Locater Beacons, and a deep striking land raider that didn't scatter within 6" of the pod. It was not very effective; far too slow.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Two threads, first here: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/654141.page

then here: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/657010.page

The Drop Pod example is crucial.

That is the best Argument so far!
I'm convinced - they ds

Aeri wrote:
That is the best Argument so far!
I'm convinced - they ds

Well... As much as Drop Pods do, anyway...

Permissive rule set. You can't deep strike a Land Raider without any permission to do so. The Drop Pod example isn't relevant as Drop Pods have permission to use a Deep Strike process. Deathwing Land Raiders don't.

 Kriswall wrote:
Permissive rule set. You can't deep strike a Land Raider without any permission to do so. The Drop Pod example isn't relevant as Drop Pods have permission to use a Deep Strike process. Deathwing Land Raiders don't.

Drop Pods have as much permission to as Dedicated Transports in the Deathwing Strike Force. Drop Pods do not natively have Deep Strike, but must start the game in Deep Strike Reserves. So, too, every unit in the detachment must start in Deep Strike Reserves.

So, you can Deep Strike Land Raiders as much as Drop Pods. Unless you can identify the key differences in the rules to separate them?

For those codex-impaired:

 Kriswall wrote:
Permissive rule set. You can't deep strike a Land Raider without any permission to do so. The Drop Pod example isn't relevant as Drop Pods have permission to use a Deep Strike process. Deathwing Land Raiders don't.

No, Drop Pods do not have permission to use a Deep Strike process. I know, I had to double check my codex too! (Also, did you know the Baneblade is not a Tank? who writes this stuff lololololol)

The Drop Pod example is mind blowing. I'm changing my stance. Given the same wording, Land Raiders should be able to Deep Strike.