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.

In regards to Zagstruck's special ability Swoop Attack, p63 of the new Ork Codex states: "Zagstruck and da Vulcha Boyz must enter the battle via deep strike." What happens when the mission being played does not include Deep Strike as a special rule? Is this squad not allowed to enter play? Discuss.

Seems pretty simple. Or not, try and follow my odd brain line here. You are not actually using the Deep Strike special rule because it does not say the classic line "may use the Deep Strike special rule". In this regard, you are not using it as the Special Rule, instead, you're just using the method that it employs, nothing more. The rule isn't even called Deep Strike for the entry but Swoop Attack. IMHO, all this implies you can use it in any game since their method of entry into the game isn't determined by a the Deep Strike special rule.

You must enter Battle Via DS. You've got no other choice. As the rules don't provide for an alternate way to deploy, you have no choice but to DS.

It doesn't say that the Mob always deep-strikes, just that they can only deep-strike if they are to be on the table (such that they cannot be deployed at the beginning of the game and cannot move on from the board edge, the other two ways).

They "must enter the battle via deep strike." Good luck telling your opponent that his codex rules don't override the BGB because the unit doesn't actually have to enter battle.

My opponents don't seem to have difficulty with English grammar...

You have opponents who are ok with their troops never entering the battle, I presume?

Perhaps I should clarify: I do cede to you the point that the sentence does not mandate that the unit must DS. It mandates that the unit must DS when it enters. It does not say that the unit has to enter battle; ergo, although the rule tells the player how he would bring the unit into battle, it does not allow the unit to ever hit the table in a game without DS.

All I'm saying is that I wish you luck when you try to convince someone that his unit can't ever leave his case.

Y'see the thing about my opponents is that they tend to read the rules and notice things like that. I wouldn't have to convince them. They'd only bring the Vulcha Boyz to games involving missions where they can deep strike.

Before you imply anything more about my opponents, allow me to assure you that I don't have any: I retired from 40k two years ago.

I'm not implying anything about your opponents (or lack thereof). I am relating information about my opponents since we were talking about them.

Nurglitch wrote:I'm not implying anything about your opponents (or lack thereof). I am relating information about my opponents since we were talking about them.

How else are people going to read a comment like:-

"Y'see the thing about my opponents is that they tend to read the rules and notice things like that. I wouldn't have to convince them. They'd only bring the Vulcha Boyz to games involving missions where they can deep strike. "

I read it as "You opponents are stupid and cannot read the rules. Mine can." For some-one who goes on (an on and on) about logic and interpretation etc that wasn't exactly a clever thing to say. I know await a 1000 word post explaining why my reading of your comment was wrong and a logical proof as to how I cannot read either.

Maybe you should learn to read.

Notice something? That sentence was about you. You can tell because I said "you". My sentence was about me. You can tell because I said "my" and "I".

Nurglitch, "Maybe you should learn to read" qualifies as a personal attack. This is a warning.

AHH THE RED MY EYES MY EYES!!!!!!

If I ever played someone who said I couldn't field a unit from the codex in a game because "Deepstrike is not allowed in this mission, and they can only deep strike onto the board," I would stare pretty hard at them for a few moments to see if they started laughing and said "Nah, I am just screwing with you man!" If they didn't, I would proceed to put the rest of my models back into my case, and find someone who wasn't a prick to have a game with.

RAW or not, that's just being a crappy person.

Thank you for the warning. I apologize to bigchris1313 for the misunderstanding.

I did not intend it to be a personal attack, and it was not phrased as one. It was what is often referred to as "constructive criticism". A personal attack would not have been accompanied by advice about how to correct an error. I'd give an example, but I like this board and since I learned a valuable lesson recently I don't wish to be banned again for trying to be helpful.

Part of learning to read is learning to read both critically and charitably. Reading critically means checking to see if the writing means what your first impression of it lead you to believe. Reading charitably means that as a matter of principle you assume that although one's interlocators may be idiots trying to insult or provoke you, that they may also be ordinary people that mean well and want to help (and just come across badly, as people who aren't helped by a team of script-writers usually do).

There's nothing wrong with learning to read, or recommend that people do (especially in a society that values literacy). More people should take the time and effort, since it is a continual process rather than a program we have all downloaded. Likewise it shouldn't be taken as a personal attack or "insult" when accompanied by advice on how to correct the error.

Edit: Ooops, forgot the apology part!

Wehrkind: So given that your opponent should know that fielding Boss Zagstruk and the Vulcha Boyz is against the usual rules, do you agree to amend the rules so that Boss Zagstruk and his Vulcha Boyz can Deep Strike in a mission that does not allow Deep Strike, or do you simply assume that you both play it the same way?

Nurglitch wrote:Thank you for the warning.

I did not intend it to be a personal attack, and it was not phrased as one. It was what is often referred to as "constructive criticism". A personal attack would not have been accompanied by advice about how to correct an error. I'd give an example, but I like this board and since I learned a valuable lesson recently I don't wish to be banned again for trying to be helpful.

Part of learning to read is learning to read both critically and charitably. Reading critically means checking to see if the writing means what your first impression of it lead you to believe. Reading charitably means that as a matter of principle you assume that although one's interlocators may be idiots trying to insult or provoke you, that they may also be ordinary people that mean well and want to help (and just come across badly, as people who aren't helped by a team of script-writers usually do).

There's nothing wrong with learning to read, or recommend that people do (especially in a society that values literacy). More people should take the time and effort, since it is a continual process rather than a program we have all downloaded. Likewise it shouldn't be taken as a personal attack or "insult" when accompanied by advice on how to correct the error.

I secretly love that you can use that many words to make a perfectly simple argument. If you are not currently employed in government, I humbly suggest that there are a number of universities and academic journals who can use your skills. Perhaps in the magazine that ran that wonderful article about the dangers of Dihydrogen Monoxide?

Please forgive me. I am not very smart and thus am quite clumsy with words.

Nurglitch wrote:Wehrkind: So given that your opponent should know that fielding Boss Zagstruk and the Vulcha Boyz is against the usual rules, do you agree to amend the rules so that Boss Zagstruk and his Vulcha Boyz can Deep Strike in a mission that does not allow Deep Strike, or do you simply assume that you both play it the same way?

My point was that so many units are allowed to deepstrike even if deepstriking is not normally allowed, that it seems fairly obvious that they simply didn't include that wording. Further, if someone brings a 1850 point army, and suddenly can't use that unit of some 300 points or so, how is that being a good sport towards them? Even beyond sportsmanship, why purposefully deny your friend's army of that many points for such a silly rule. There is no other unit that can not be used by virtue of the mission type played, so why single them out?

In summary, yes, by the rules it looks like they would not be allowed on the table. If I were playing with someone who absolutely refused to come to an agreement to the extent that they could, I would play someone else.

It is fairly obvious that GW didn't include the words in the text that indicate a unit of Stormboyz led by Boss Zagstruk can always Deep Strike regardless of whether the mission allows that rule. Because the words aren't there.

Given that the words aren't there to say that a unit of Stormboyz led by Boss Zagstruk can always Deep Strike regardless of whether the mission allows that rule, it does not seem reasonable to make an Ork army before you know what sort of rules you'll be playing by. Like any game of 40k one should check the mission before making an army.

If someone brings a 1850 point Ork army including Stormboyz led by Boss Zagstruk, then they should either know that they might not be able to use that unit, or they and their opponent should have opted to play a mission that has the Deep Strike rule in effect so they can.

I would not deny my friend's army a unit worth that many points because they did not like that rule. I would play a mission with them that did allow Deep Strike. Just like my friends and I often play missions with Deep Strike so that units with the option to Deep Strike when allowed have that option.

Suppose, for example, that I brought a unit that could not Deep Strike at all to a mission where units could not enter or exit from the board edge, and I knew about that mission beforehand. It would be quite reasonable for my opponent to refuse to allow that unit to play in a mission specifically for Deep Strike units.

Likewise suppose, for example, that I brought a unit that could not Deep Strike at all to a mission where units could not enter or exit from the board edge, and I did not know about that mission beforehand because I had not read the tournament package well. It would be reasonable for tournament organizers and my opponents to refuse to allow me to use that unit in that mission.

Finally suppose, for example, that I brought a unit...yadda yadda...to a pick-up night down at my local GW. If I secured a pick-up game with some fellow done there it would be reasonable for my opponent to refuse to allow the unit to enter play because we had agreed to play a game that only allowed Deep Strike units and I should have known that I had a unit that could not Deep Strike. Had I a problem with this the reasonable thing would have been to point that out and request that we play a mission where I could use my entire army, rather than make an issue about it once the mission was decided and the board set up.

I would agree, except that the core procedure for mission generation in the rulebook is to randomly select a mission, then randomly select whether to play it at Alpha, Gamma, or Omega. If you happen to roll Alpha (a 1/3 chance), you're not Deep Striking.

When 4th edition came out, random mission levels and thus special rules was seen by many of us as a balancing factor for all-Infiltrating armies (CSM, Kroot), and certain other types of builds. It simulates the (then well-established) fact that in tournament games, whether the game included Deep Strike, Infiltrate, or any other special rule varied from game to game depending on the mission assigned, and thus part of the challenge of building a take-all-comers list was dealing with some percentage of your games not including a given rule that may be of major use to your army or at least certain units.

IME this is still the most common way to generate a mission for a friendly game- to randomly roll between a selection, of which some missions will have DS and some will not.

Within the context of that situation, having a unit which could potentially be completely forbidden from participating in the battle seems bizarre, and my gut reaction is that it's not intended.

None of this is meant as a counter to your basic rules assertion. I agree that the rules don't say that they can DS regardless of mission. I agree that it's a pretty darn common phrase, and the fact that it was left out here seems pretty conclusive from a RAW perspective.

But I'd have a hard time following through and playing it that way in actual practice.

I suspect that (at least some of the) other posters in this thread are accustomed to a similar mission-generation procedure to the one I've described, hence their similar discomfort with/disbelief of the RAW interpretation.

The fact that they're using a RAW interpretation might be the problem with that then. It could be the case that Zagstruk's unreliability is the price paid for the opportunity to field a S9 I4 Power Klaw in a unit of Stormboyz. Or it could be the case that interpreting "must" to indicate "can only" is false (something to check).

Amongst my group of friends we agree on the mission before generating armies in order to avoid the randomness of dice-generated missions and to concentrate ourselves on our tactics in the game rather than the strategic material allotted to play with. In part it's because none of us have especially large armies so we generally know what is going to be available, but it's also to avoid the rock-scissors-paper game that affects all-comers armies in those situations. Usually we choose a mission that balances out any imbalances left over after the points values are equal, and that allows us to play without our toys the way we want to.

Quite correct Malfred. If we were randomly rolling up a mission, and got Alpha, and my opponent said "Oh, so sorry, no stormboyz for you" and would not budge, I would say "you win" and walk away. If it were a tournament, I would check with those running it to see where they fell on the issue before writing an army list.
I don't know why Nurgy thought this had any reference to "If I go to a game set up and agreed upon ahead of time as not allowing any deepstriking, and I knew Zagstruck would not be allowed, I would bring him anyway." Maybe he plans his games out months ahead of time, and never plays pick ups. Perhaps he has a whole room set up where he plays against himself long into the night in the manner of brilliant yet slightly unbalanced chess masters.

Or maybe something else.

What is it with all the anal stuck up players arguing every poorly worded detail in the ork codex. Nobs leading shootas cant have klaws, zagstuck cant be used in games where deepstrike isnt allowed. Newsflash-the new ork codex has more logic holes than swiss cheeze. It may be the most poorly worded codex released yet. But I will tell you now, if you are in washington in the auburn supermall having a game at the local GW located there, and you call over a red shirt and tell him your opponent is cheating by deepstriking zagstuck and his boyz, they will laugh at you. We already had one guy try and call foul on a nob with a klaw leading shootas in a friendly game (as the official codex wasent released yet) he dident make any friends that day.

Wehrkind: Yeah, something else. I don't plan games months ahead of time, but I certainly avoid pick-up gaming. I really don't see the point in going and hanging around a GW store trying to play a game with strangers. I like to play with my circle of friends because Warhammer 40k is a game we play when we're hanging out. We also play Carcassonne, Settlers of Catan, Bohnanza, Bloodshot, and a variety of other games (playing 40k is pretty rare since it's such a hassle).

But if I was pick-up gaming I don't see how you could complain about ending up with a mission where you can't use Zagstruk when you should know that in some situations you can't.

Orock: I don't know. It's certainly the case that Nobz can be equipped with Power Klaws, although it is as yet uncertain whether Zagstruk cannot be used in games where the Deep Strike rules is not in effect. I wouldn't say that the new Codex: Orks is poorly worded. Quite the opposite. It's one of the most clearly written documents I've seen out of GW and that's considering the last few codicies (Dark Angels, Blood Angels, Eldar, Chaos Marines) which are quite well done.

Then again I only find these things coming up when I visit Internet chat forums, and 90% of the time the fault seems to lie with people's reading skills.

Speaking of which, I thought I might check the sentence "Zagstruk and Da Vulcha Boyz must enter the battle via Deep Strike." because at first glance it appeared that "must" would mean "can only" but first glances aren't terribly reliable things and I wanted to double-check.

The term "must" is being used as an auxiliary verb in a verb phrase with the term "enter" and is not synonymous with "can only". The former denotes obligation while the latter denotes possibility limited to a single instance. These are not equivalent logical structures and denote different rules.

To say that "I must fall when gravity takes hold of me" is not the same as saying that "I can only fall when gravity takes hold of me", for example. The former is normative while the latter is descriptive, in this case.

Hence my original assessment of the rule was incorrect. Da Vulcha Boyz are merely obligated to Deep Strike if it is possible, rather than it being the case that it is only possible for them to Deep Strike.

Nurglitch wrote:Wehrkind: Yeah, something else. I don't plan games months ahead of time, but I certainly avoid pick-up gaming. I really don't see the point in going and hanging around a GW store trying to play a game with strangers. I like to play with my circle of friends because Warhammer 40k is a game we play when we're hanging out. We also play Carcassonne, Settlers of Catan, Bohnanza, Bloodshot, and a variety of other games (playing 40k is pretty rare since it's such a hassle).

But if I was pick-up gaming I don't see how you could complain about ending up with a mission where you can't use Zagstruk when you should know that in some situations you can't.

Oh, I wouldn't complain. I just wouldn't play them.

And by the way, the phrase you are looking for is "Sorry, I misunderstood the rule when I read it the first time." I can understand your mistake, as it isn't particularly clear, and should have read "must deeptstrike when able." instead. But hey, GW often leaves out verbage that would make their rules much clearer to everyone involved, don't they!

No, that's not the phrase I was looking for. The rule is clear, I just didn't give it the proper attention that it required for my comprehension. GW was perfectly clear and I misread it the first time. It would have been nice if someone besides me had checked though.