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.

PhantomViper wrote:

Kaaihn wrote:

Razerous wrote:A valkyrie with multiple rocket pods and close-ranged melta veterans is ideally suited to outflanking/deep-striking onto the battlefield. It can fire its entire compliement of weaponary and during the subseuqent turns be in a good position to unload/grav-drop its melta wielding troops.

This is a statement of RAI. By RAW, a deep striking vehicle moves at cruising speed. A Valkyrie is a fast skimmer, which means at cruising speed it may only fire a single weapon plus defensive weapons. RAW in direct conflict to the statement of RAI. You run into the same problem with the Valkyrie embarking and disembarking to flat ground, as well being put on the table because it is longer than six inches.

Actually, multiple rocket pods are Str 4 and thus considered defensive weapons, so that statement is perfectly legal from a RAW standpoint...

Moving at Combat Speed whille deep striking isn't RAW or RAI, its just ignoring the rule altogether.

There are two distinctly separate sentences there, and some people believe you can lift single sentences out of context of their surrounding rules and apply them in a vacuum. The argument would then become that if you take heavy bolter sponsons on your Valkyrie, change rocket pods to hellstrike missiles, and change your multi-laser to a lascannon, you can fire all three weapons (non of which are defensive) on the turn you deepstrike, because "It can fire its entire compliment of weaponry".

You can currently read the terminator armor sweeping advance threads if you want to see perfect examples of people plucking sentences out and trying to apply them in a vacuum. The point is, even if you make that argument it is still a RAI argument and you would need your opponents consent to change the RAW to allow it.

I guess I'm lost in this converstation. Where does it say that vehicles deep striking come in at combat speed? I would really like to know this as it has come up in several games that we have played. Assuming such, the rule clearly states on page 70 (BRB) that vehicles moving at combat speed get to fire all of their weapons as if they remained stationary. But I am lost as to finding a rule that states deepstriking vehicles with regards to movement.

Page 95 in the "deep strike" rules (amazing that we'd find it there...)

"Vehicles count as having moved at cruising speed [emphasis mine]."

Page 95, paragraph 6.
The heading of the section is "Deep Strike"

Bah! Too slow.

Page 95 of the rulebook under the Deep Strike section. Last sentence of paragraph six.

"Vehicles count as having moved at cruising speed"

Edit: Whoops! To slow by two.

I am tha winnah!!

Kaaihn wrote:
There are two distinctly separate sentences there, and some people believe you can lift single sentences out of context of their surrounding rules and apply them in a vacuum. The argument would then become that if you take heavy bolter sponsons on your Valkyrie, change rocket pods to hellstrike missiles, and change your multi-laser to a lascannon, you can fire all three weapons (non of which are defensive) on the turn you deepstrike, because "It can fire its entire compliment of weaponry".

You can currently read the terminator armor sweeping advance threads if you want to see perfect examples of people plucking sentences out and trying to apply them in a vacuum. The point is, even if you make that argument it is still a RAI argument and you would need your opponents consent to change the RAW to allow it.

Ok, now you've lost me completely...

What does all of that has to do with the fact that deepstriking Valks equiped with MRP can fire the ML + the MRP on the turn that they deepstrike?!

PhantomViper wrote:

Kaaihn wrote:
There are two distinctly separate sentences there, and some people believe you can lift single sentences out of context of their surrounding rules and apply them in a vacuum. The argument would then become that if you take heavy bolter sponsons on your Valkyrie, change rocket pods to hellstrike missiles, and change your multi-laser to a lascannon, you can fire all three weapons (non of which are defensive) on the turn you deepstrike, because "It can fire its entire compliment of weaponry".

You can currently read the terminator armor sweeping advance threads if you want to see perfect examples of people plucking sentences out and trying to apply them in a vacuum. The point is, even if you make that argument it is still a RAI argument and you would need your opponents consent to change the RAW to allow it.

Ok, now you've lost me completely...

What does all of that has to do with the fact that deepstriking Valks equiped with MRP can fire the ML + the MRP on the turn that they deepstrike?!

Nothing at all! It's the other half of what you posted I was commenting on.

Kaaihn wrote:
Nothing at all! It's the other half of what you posted I was commenting on.

Ok, nvm then. Its been a long day at work.

Found a fun note in the Dark Eldar FAQ while looking something else up. Relating to the Webway portal:
". . . Units may not partially enter play
using the portal . . ."
This seems to be a rather redundant thing to say if units are NEVER allowed to be partially in play.

Not that the rules are not redundant on occation, but this seems to be rather pointed, as the other options it may imply seem absurd. ("We had to tell them that because otherwise models will claim to be partially off the table - while in the center of the table." or "We had to specify this was not legal because everyone knows it already but we have not put enough words in the FAQ yet." or maybe "We can hide this really important part of the main rules we never had the chance to specify until we wrote a FAQ for the Dark Eldar - Everyone will read that!" etc.)

Or it could just be a reminder that even tho the Webway Portal allows certain things diferent from normal reserve entry, it still doesn't allow units to enter partially...............
Don't know one way or the other personally.

It specifies that they are treated as a board edge though, then goes on to add restrictions, that being one.

kirsanth wrote:Found a fun note in the Dark Eldar FAQ while looking something else up. Relating to the Webway portal:
". . . Units may not partially enter play
using the portal . . ."
This seems to be a rather redundant thing to say if units are NEVER allowed to be partially in play.

Not that the rules are not redundant on occation, but this seems to be rather pointed, as the other options it may imply seem absurd. ("We had to tell them that because otherwise models will claim to be partially off the table - while in the center of the table." or "We had to specify this was not legal because everyone knows it already but we have not put enough words in the FAQ yet." or maybe "We can hide this really important part of the main rules we never had the chance to specify until we wrote a FAQ for the Dark Eldar - Everyone will read that!" etc.)

Good find! Unfortunately it doesn't conclusively answer the question about table edge one way or the other :(

We have no idea why the writer felt it necessary to include that. Is it creating an exception? Or is it a pointed reminder that the behaviour for coming through a webway portal is the same as coming on the table? We have no way of knowing. There are other examples in the books where something is allowed by RAW, and they went and clarified it explicitly anyway. Is this one of those times, or not? Not enough information to say.

As I have said, I allow it based on my view of RAI, but I believe the answer to the pure RAW question is that it is not allowed. With the lack of ironclad conclusive information available, I think the best solution would be to send an email and ask GW what the actual rules allow, and how they recommend handling models longer than six inches if their answer is that the rule currently is that you must put your entire model in play and on the battlefield.

To frame the question fairly, remember you have to ask if you are allowed to keep a portion of a Land Raiders hull voluntarily off the table so you may fire more weapons than you could if you moved completely on. That needs to be asked in the same place as asking if you can leave some portion of a Valkyrie extended off the table so you may fire more weapons than you could if you moved completely on.

And finally, if you are allowed to leave models hanging off the table edge, where is the guidance telling us for how long they could be left off? Can I leave part of my model off table the entire game? That is the follow-up question that needs an answer if we are allowed to leave them hanging off on the turn they come in. If I never move them past their arriving on table move, what makes me ever bring them fully on the table? We are told we can't move off the table, but if you follow the logic that partially on equals on, then what stops me from intentionally driving half a tank over the table edge in turn three to get around an enemy model that would otherwise block my route past them? That tank is technically on the table by the argument you don't have to be fully on to be considered on, so you have not violated the no moving off the table rule.

It is the logic and context of dealing with this last set of issues that convince me that my comprehension of "model" in this case to be inclusive by language is the correct usage of the given text.

Oh, I am actually ambivalent on this ruling. Like many others where my comments seem random.

I am not really trying to pick a side, so much as pick apart flaws I see in other posts. Ussually it helps me decide, and sometimes helps others.

Other times, not so much.

kirsanth wrote:It specifies that they are treated as a board edge though, then goes on to add restrictions, that being one.

Yeah, the question is, is it adding or reminding? I'll admit I don't know. Remember how in 4th the only place we could find a rule about tanks not being able to move through their own troops was a "reminder" in the tank shock rules.......................

A reminder in a codex FAQ? Of a "rule" from the main book that is never mentioned?

I guess I have seen stranger things.

shrug

The clarification in the DE portal rule may be there because the portal is sitting entirely on the table, so some DE players (being the evil minded types) would argue that a unit sitting on the portal IS on the table.


Sliggoth

Also, with regards to the portal, it seems like the reminder would be necessary because having a unit that's in the middle of the table, whilst partially being 'off' the table (through the portal) would cause a heck of a lot of headaches. I mean, it would be great if I could draw a line through my vehicle and say 'you're only allowed to shoot this half of it, and not from that direction', but it'd be kind of silly.

No idea what this contributes to the debate (in fact, it seems suspiciously like RaI, may I burn forever for mentioning it) but I thought I'd share it.