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.

Ok so my poor downtrodden Salamanders were playing this horribly cheesey Ghazkill Thrakka list (I get points right off the bat right?)
Anyways, my Liberarian decides to use Gate of Infinity and home in on a Locator Beacon and drag the remnants of a squad within 6" of the beacon--Is it RAW legal?

My read on the locator beacon is that it will support deep striking units etc. My buddy's read was that they had to be "arrinving" to the battlefield and not already on the battlefield. I countered that Gate states the movers are removed from the table top. What do you guys think?

As a side note we diced for it. I won the dice off but even this bit of rules manipulation on my behalf was insufficiant in the face of ork cheese. I still lost the game.

Oh god not this again. Use the Search button and find the lengthy discussions already had about this.

Short Answer: No one knows as it can be read both ways.

From a literal reading of the rules GoI+Locator Beacons work just fine. They are removed, they arrive, done.

From a RAI perspective, John Spencer and the GW askyourquestion guys say it's fine.

From the perspective of 'it's good so I don't want you to be able to use it' (re. Lash, Deffrollers, Vulkan/Allies) it's suddenly not fine and you can't do it.

I can see no argument against it.

And does the search function even work anymore? I swear it never gives me any results when I use it.

The argument against (which I support) is that they are not Arriving by Deep Strike at all, but are just using the Deep Strike Rules, which is a subtle but important difference.

To the OP: There's the two sides of the debate. It won't be FAQed. Good luck with your game.

The dictionary defines the word arrive as:

1 a: to reach a destination b: to make an appearance <the guests have arrived>


Therefore, there is no, none, zero way to say they are not arriving on the battlefield using the deepstrike rules with the Gate power unless you use a definition other than the dictionaries for what arrive means. In which case you would be incorrect.

Cute.

But if you 'arrive' at a party, then go outside for a smoke, when you come back in, they don't say you have 'arrived' again....

Normally, the word arrived deals with showing up the first time, stepping on the porch, and "immediately" stepping back in, does not define 'arriving' a second time.

sourclams wrote:From a literal reading of the rules GoI+Locator Beacons work just fine. They are removed, they arrive, done.

From a RAI perspective, John Spencer and the GW askyourquestion guys say it's fine.

From the perspective of 'it's good so I don't want you to be able to use it' (re. Lash, Deffrollers, Vulkan/Allies) it's suddenly not fine and you can't do it.

Sourclams hits the nail on the head. It's actually quite clear, but the disdain that people have for the ruling spawns many specious arguments that would have you believe otherwise.

Gwar! wrote:Oh god not this again. Use the Search button and find the lengthy discussions already had about this.

NO! Don't! Your head will implode!

Normally, the word arrived deals with showing up the first time, stepping on the porch, and "immediately" stepping back in, does not define 'arriving' a second time.

Actually, you are inferring something that is not there. And yes, if you leave and immediately come back, you are returning but you are also arriving, again. Read the definition of the word, it is exactly that, to reach a destination. Distance and sequence do not come into play at all, you are bringing in your opinion to the definition of the word which has no bearing on its actual meaning.

Every time you come home from work and walk in your home you have arrived at your destination, regardless of repetition.

This is all silly anyway, the dictionary (unless people no longer use that to define tlanguage) states that it means to reach a destination. Period. No other modifications to it.

Any implication someone thinks it has is irrelevant. The word means what it means. Arriving does not in any way have a sequential definition attached to it. You can arrive in a place a million times.

This is utterly cut and dry, any argument against it defies what GW says about the rule, and what the words mean.

And from a non logical stand point, its not exactly overpowering anyway, it requires the coordination of two units and only mildly improves the effect the power has. Saying no to this, besides being totally wrong, is petty.

QFT

Wow...you know an argument is getting old when:
-People bring up the same 2 points again and again
-People have to bring up a DICTIONARY to strengthen their (same 2) points

That said, this has been argued to death already, and anyone (you) are arguing against won't listen to reason anyways, so this is kinda pointless...

I missed the first discussion.

And why is bringing up the dictionary a bad thing? It defines the words used in a rule. And when the counter argument hinges on the meaning of a word in the rule, I would say looking up the meaning of said word would be obviously important.

Or do you just use a magic eight ball, eight ball, to make a call on a rules discrepancy? It would seem so as you apparently feel that it is pointless to try and discern a rule's real meaning using logic and definitions.