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.

Chaoslordx13 wrote:I say it can deepstrike in since wings allow it to act as jump infantry even though its not.

It says "move" as Jump Infantry. Deepstriking is a form of deployment. I don't have my book infront of me, or I'd cite paragraphs, but I have RAI: in the Chaos Space Marine codex, models are able to take Wings aswell. Wings allow them to 'move as Jump Infantry,' yet they grant the Deepstrike rule seperately. Why would they give the Deepstrike rule twice? They wouldn't, so given that as a precident the Hive Tyrant can't Deepstrike because it lacks the rule.

DarkHound wrote:

Chaoslordx13 wrote:I say it can deepstrike in since wings allow it to act as jump infantry even though its not.

It says "move" as Jump Infantry. Deepstriking is a form of deployment. I don't have my book infront of me, or I'd cite paragraphs, but I have RAI: in the Chaos Space Marine codex, models are able to take Wings aswell. Wings allow them to 'move as Jump Infantry,' yet they grant the Deepstrike rule seperately. Why would they give the Deepstrike rule twice? They wouldn't, so given that as a precident the Hive Tyrant can't Deepstrike because it lacks the rule.

Under Jump Infantry. Under Movement. May enter the battle via Deep Strike.

Doesn't say anything about deployment. It simply says "may enter the battle by deep-strike." However you want to class deep-strike is up to you, deployment, movement, what have you. Regardless, it says that they may enter the battle via deep-strike. If this was placed under Jump Infantry --> Deployment, then I'd clam up and we'd have an agreement. It is listed under Jump Infantry --> Movement.

If you go completely RaW, then you get another problem: since the Hive Tyrant moves just like jump infantry the first sentence simply states:

"Jump Infantry can use their jump packs (or equivalents) to move up to 12" in the movement phase."

There it is, in RaW, black and white. A Hive Tyrant isn't jump infantry. He's a monstrous creature. It doesn't say anything about "moving as jump infantry". It simply says "Jump infantry may. . ." But he's not jump infantry.

So, therefore, he can't move 12" at all, because he's not jump infantry, right? You can't choose to argue the last sentence that states that "jump infantry may enter the battle via deep strike" and ignore the first sentence that says "jump infantry may move 12" in the movement phase." You either get the whole Movement heading or none of it. You don't pick and choose which parts of the Jump Infantry --> Movement heading you like and don't like.

So, therefore, he can't move 12" at all, because he's not jump infantry, right

I completely agree with you.... right up to the point where he is permitted to move like jump infantry because its an inclusion given to him by the wings war gear. As you said, its in black and white.

It doesnt say that it may move and deploy like jump infantry, which is the point i will always come back to.

Its like saying the ball in my hand is round like the earth. Is that saying that the ball has to satisfy all of the rules applied to the earth? cause surely by your logic the ball can not simply be inches in diametre but rather the same size.

Deep strike is explicitly stated as an exception to the statement "move on" for arriving from reserves. It is an action, eg I deep striked onto the battle field. It is quantified thusly in the BGB in the special mission rules. It is a means of deployment from reserves and that is it. This is why it is not in the movement section of the book and is why it does not say move the model onto the table at the point the deep strike occured, it is explict, it states place the unit there.

I tried :(

Deployment is something done before the first turn is taken. One may leave units in reserve - still deployment still before the game. But once a unit becomes available "When a reserve unit arrives, it must move onto the table from the controlling player’s own table edge (unless it’s deep striking or outflanking)" One does not use ‘deployment’ rules to arrive from reserves, otherwise when out-flanking etc, one could never move on in the opponents deployment zone.

As deepstriking does not occur before the game starts it is not deployment, as much as the rule book may say ‘deploy them as follows’, it’s not ‘deployment’ as it is still arriving from reserves - defined as - 'moving onto the table'. Again Deployment is something we do before the commencement of battle - Arriving from reserves is movement (moving) onto the table through the means available to the unit.

ok, your right, i dont deploy my model on the table when i roll the relevant dice roll as determined by the turn that we are currently playing...

Oh wait, i do, "Once all of the units have been rolled for, the player picks any one of the units arriving and DEPLOYS it, moving it onto the table as described later" (BGB, p.94)

With the moving it onto the table as described later detailed in the arrivng from reserve.

so, arriving from reserves = deploy.

next argument please

Yes and my point was deploy=\=deployment.

Oh i forgot to mention, deployment is not actually a phase in the game, so your argument is moot.

What occurs before turn one in the game is called "Deploy forces".

It is referred to deployment by those who understand that in english when you add the suffix of ment to a word it turns the word into an action or a means to an action. Eg, to deploy using a method. that method of deployment was the deep strike rule.

Seriphis - your argument that Deepstrike is not movement, as it is seperated from "own table edge", fails as Outflanking is still moving.

The brackets are modifying *where* the unit moves on from - their own table edge - it is not stating that Deepstriking and Outflanking are not movement.

Your parsing of the sentence fails as you are altering the position of the bracket - if it was before "own table edge" then it would mean what you say it means.

It *also* fails due to the number of times Deep Strike is referred to as a Deep Strike move.

nos, firstly, i've never said outflanking isnt movement.

secondly, the i do not understand your mention of brackets, you have given no frame of reference for this.

thirdly, my parsing of the statement is according to the logic i have been given in the book, again, referencing to imaginary brackets is not proof.

fourthly, it is a dick move, is not referring to the fact that something has physically moved, it is referring to the fact that an action has occured that is dick in nature. and for the record, "deep strike move" as a statement appears only once to my recolection in my book. So by stating that by sheer numbers, in this case, one, is not weighty enough to use majority rules.

I can cite on the deep strike special rule that "place" as apposed to "move" in reference to the model appearing on the table is referenced 4 times verses the one reference as you have indicated.

Move is only ever referenced in the deep strike rules in the explicit statement to say the model can not move further than the point they have arrived, or to say the action of deep strike.

fixed spelling mistake, thanks nos

Seriphis:

"When a reserve unit arrives, it must move onto the table from the controlling player’s own table edge (unless it’s deep striking or outflanking)" "

Your statement that deep striking has been seperated out from the "move" action is incorrect, as it means Outflanking is also not movement.

The brackets are in the rule you are using to support that deepstrike isnt movement, so they arent imaginary.

So not being able to move [any] further means you can still move? Context states here that Deep strike is a form of movement, otherwise "move any further" would be incoherent.

["Cite", not "site"]

nosferatu1001 wrote:Seriphis:
Your statement that deep striking has been seperated out from the "move" action is incorrect, as it means Outflanking is also not movement.

no, my argument is that it uses special defined rules for each case, eg, outflanking is a move because it is thusly defined as a move specifically move on from the defined edge as by the dice roll, and deep strike is defined as not a move, as it is a placement. The fact that it has been brought up as a distinct exception to the move statement, thereby being the first point where it is flagged as something more complex than simply a movement.

the brackets are actually quoted directly from the rulebook, so please dont think i've added them myself.

context states that while it is the movement phase, and it has only just arrived ie placed on the table, one could believe that it would be able to move because it hasnt moved in the phase yet, the statement removes this expectation.

It even states in the first paragraph under the words "Deep Strike" in the special rules: roll for arrival as specied in rules for reserves and then deploy them as follows...

edit: fixed failed quote tag. :S

Except you parse the sentence incorrectly. I don't think you have added them yourself - it's why I quoted what I did.

You parse the sentence as if the bracket was directly after "move", when its placement after "table edge" means it is modifying *where* you may come on from - it is still a *move*, just not "a move from your own table edge", but a "move" from somwhere else.

To whit, your parsing would mean the sentence shoudl look like:

incorrect Seriphis parsing wrote:
When a reserve unit arrives, it must move (unless it’s deep striking or outflanking) onto the table from the controlling player’s own table edge

This would be stating thAT Deepstriking isnt a move - however as Outflanking IS a move, it would be a nonsensical statement.

WHere the bracket is delineates Deep Strike in terms of *where* you move from, not that it is still movement.

"may not move any further":
If you were correct and it is restricting your ability to move, it cannot then state "any further". Any Further modifies "may not move" to mean "you may not move as you have already moved" - if all it meant to do was restrict you from moving that turn, if Deeepstrike isnt movement, then it can only state "may not move"

By adding the condition "any further" it requires that the action "move", meaning Movement by context, has already taken place.

it cannot then state "any further"

I understand where you are coming from, but i believe it to be an interpretation that could go either way.

My interpretation is that once it is placed, i can not also move. Movement is not allowed in addition to deep striking.

"any further" does not have to have a qualifier of the same type as what what you are describing. So i could logically say, i had a drink but could not move any further. drinking has nothing to do with moving, but it has precluded my ability to move.

Seriphis wrote:Oh i forgot to mention, deployment is not actually a phase in the game, so your argument is moot.

What occurs before turn one in the game is called "Deploy forces".

It is referred to deployment by those who understand that in english when you add the suffix of ment to a word it turns the word into an action or a means to an action. Eg, to deploy using a method. that method of deployment was the deep strike rule.

Thanks for AGAIN for telling me what I've said in my own posts and agreeing with me.

Now to the point of contention, are you saying that moving on from 'the sky' (A deep strike move) while being a way to 'deploy' isn't movement, while it's coupled with outflanking (movement) and moving on (surprise surprise movement)? I find this a hard pill to swallow, and would like to know how you're separating the methods from arriving from reserve into these categories.

Clive Staples Lewis, has covered the 'move more' point quite neatly with the old "Would you like some more tea?" but in either case once is operation from the point of discussion, for one to conclude that one may not move any more one must first have the understanding that movement may have already taken place, as one may have had tea in the past.

Seriphis - does this mean you agree that the placement of the brackets defines Deepstrike as a move?

I believe your clive stable lewis example is flawed and does not resolve the conflict.

You are indicating that you intend to do additional amounts of action x, however the statement of "would you like some more tea?" indicates that tea has definately been supplied. This is not exclusively what 'any further' represents, and why this argument is occuring.

If you apply, and substitute, any further as more which is allowed by definition. Then you are correct in saying that it requires the move to have occured, however any further can also be substituted with also, or in addition, which means that the movement is not required to have occured.

Your interpretation is valid only if you apply this logic:
if you deep strike you can not move more.
This infers, by context, that deep strike is a move.

Equally valid is:
if you deep strike you can not move any more.
this infers that the deep strike action precludes the move
or
if you deep strike you can not also move.
likewise, deep strike precluding movement.

keeping fluff out of it and keeping to RAW, either are valid, but only by taking a perspective on the argument and using our expectations of what should be allowed will always colour our interpretations.

does this mean you agree that the placement of the brackets defines Deepstrike as a move?

no, i dont believe the placement of brackets define it either way, moreso the words used within the deepstrike rules itself.

I believe at this point the only thing we will be able to agree to is to disagree and to apply our individual rulings in the context of what we believe.

Except the placement of the brackets definitely defines Deepstrike and Outflank as a move, as it indicates only an alteration in the location you "move" from, as opposed to redefining them as something other than a move.

The *only* way they can seperate out both Deepstrike and Outflank as not being "moves" is by the brackets being placed where I stated above. As they are not placed theere their effect is to modify placement only.

The wording within the Deepstrike / Outflank rules then follow from this.

You may not believe the placement defines it, but they do.

The *only* way they can seperate out both Deepstrike and Outflank as not being "moves" is by the brackets being placed where I stated above. As they are not placed theere their effect is to modify placement only.

If you want to push the point of the brackets...

As you have said, the brackets can apply to the whole statement from the comma "it must move onto the table edge" or to the location "the table edge"

If you apply the location, then the statement within the outflanking rules of moving on from the rolled edge is redundant, and doesnt explain the use of place instead of move within the deep strike. I can understand if your interpretation is all you do is change the location on the table you've moved the model to. but unfortunately thats not how i see it.

If you use the brackets to replace everything after the comma with the special rule, then outflank still counts as a move on. because it would read, when a reserve unit arrives, they make a wide sweeping movement. Deep strike therefore becomes a placement by, when a reserve unit arrives, first place one model from the unit...

can you understand where i'm coming from?

Mmm, I'm following but I don't understand how you're removing deep strike from outflank etc in the context of moving on from reserves.
Ie how does one 'arrive' without moving?
How does one have the denial of 'moving more' without at least looking at the word as one seems to be 'arriving without displacement'.

Have to pack it in for the night unfortunately~!
Catchs.

I think I understand where you're coming from, but for the context repeatedly talks about "movement" form of "move", and "place" is only used as, well - that is how you arrive, you place the models down.

See this is what pisses me off, no one can agree on two rulings that should be clear.

Can your Tyrant Deep strike with wings - I play Yes he can. This needs to be clarified finally by GW and it kinda has been already since it was stated in the Nid tactica in the White Dwarf by the guy that wrote the damn codex.

Does Hive Tyrants +1 reserve roll bonus for Hive Commander work while he is in reseve? - I play what ever my opponent is happy to play. Most say it doesn't. The way I see it is 100% of other abilities do not affect anything on the table while the the unit with the ability is off the table. But this part of the ability is not affecting anything on the table. It's affecting his fellow reserve units in reserve. It's clearly written completely differently from the Lictors ability on Purpose. If there was any question that this did not work while in reserve they would of written his +1 to reserves exaclty defined the same as the lictors ability.

It's written complelty differently. The Tyrant is alive in reserve. The Tyrant then should give the bonus while in reserve.

I see no point debating this either way, roll a dice, on a high it works for you that game. Cmon GW, get your finger out your ass and give us an FAQ.

L0rdF1end wrote:See this is what pisses me off: GW

fixed

Also, +1 to the above post as words of wisdom for the OP, who's thread has been completely hijacked.

I am taking my white dwarf to every game I play now, and if someone has a problem with it, I will point to the big box on the page that says that hive tyrants with wings can deep strike.

It doesn't really matter what someone says on these forums. Do what you want to do, and always check with the folks that run the place you play before hand on where they stand on "loose" rules.

I'm actually playing a Deep Strike Nid List with Hive Commander and planning to start him in reserve at my local club on Thursday. I've emailed GW for clarification on how the ruling should be played.

I'm expecting a response something inline with "Please expect the Nid FAQ to be available shortly where this will answer all of your questions".

Right on the wings argument please follow the logic:

P1. Wings allow you to move as Jump Infantry (see 'Nid codex)
P2. Deepstriking is movement (see pg 95 of BrB, quotes "deep strike move", "cannot move further" stress mine).
C1. Something with wings can deep strike.

Things causing people confusion are:

Deep strike is deployment. This is true but does not preclude it from also being movement like arriving from reserve or outflank. Thus this has no bearing on this argument.

CSM codex not allowing winged creatures to deep strike - was written for 4th edition when not all Jump Infantry could make a deep strike move. Therefore again this has no bearing on this argument.

P1 and P2 are undisputable so therefore so is C1.

FlingitNow wrote:P1 and P2 are undisputable so therefore so is C1.

The several pages that have come before this, including several other threads, would appear to disagree with you. While I personally agree with your interpretation you must see that there is more than one possible reading of these rules?

The several pages that have come before this, including several other threads, would appear to disagree with you. While I personally agree with your interpretation you must see that there is more than one possible reading of these rules?

Not in this case RaW is 100% clear.

I have not seen anyone come up with rules that disprove P1 or P2 both are written out in plain text in the rules (p1 in the codex p2 BrB page 95).

P2. Deepstriking is movement (see pg 95 of BrB, quotes "deep strike move", "cannot move further" stress mine).

I have provided more than enough to place your interpretation in doubt.

Let me re-iterate:
Deep Strike move. Description of an action, not an explicit definition of Deep strike is a movement. eg. that was a smart move.
can not move any further. 'Any further' is open for interpretation, do you define it as "more", or "in addition"?

If you take it as more, the "would you like more tea?" argument applies, as to have more tea indicates you have had tea.
if you take is as in addition, the action(deep striking) precludes the ability to do another action (moving).

Much like shooting with a non-assault weapon means you can not assault the unit any further.

At this stage, rules lawyering aside and failing a FAQ gets released that directly outlines the moving/counts as moving/inferrs deep strike in this scenario, i am leaning towards agreeing to disagree.

Deep Strike move. Description of an action, not an explicit definition of Deep strike is a movement. eg. that was a smart move.

The smart move phrase originates from chess where it would have applied to an actual movement of a chess peice. Saying that deep strike move does not mean that deep striking is moving is stretching beyond belief. It would be like me saying Deep striking isn't deployment be cause when it says "deploy them as follows" it is describing an act. Assaulting isn't assault just because it says it is...

Have you even read what you've just posted?

if you take is as in addition, the action(deep striking) precludes the ability to do another action (moving).

The sentence also doesn't make any sense if you take this meaning see you own sentence:

"Much like shooting with a non-assault weapon means you can not assault the unit any further."

Does not maske any sense. remove the further and it does make sense. So your interpretation is requiring the sentence to not make sense.

You're arguing 2+2=5, yes it is mathematically impossible to disprove 2+2=5 but it requires such stretches of logic that the notion can be ignored.

Your argument so far demands:

Deep strike move in fact does not mean deep striking is moving.

That a sentence can mean something different it you make it not make sense.

FlingitNow wrote:You're arguing 2+2=5, yes it is mathematically impossible to disprove 2+2=5 but it requires such stretches of logic that the notion can be ignored.

Actually, it can be proven that 2+2=5 for sufficiently large values of 2.