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.

"Deepstriking" is the term used to describe placement using the deep strike rules.

The final step of Gate of Infinity is deepstriking.
The final step of Veil of Darkness is deepstriking.
The final step of abilities that fall under the term the 'deep strike' option (Teleporting, for example) is deepstriking.

Locator Beacons and Teleport homers only work for abilities that fall under the term 'deep strike' option.

The key differentiator between an ability that falls under the term 'deep strike' option and an ability that doesn't is whether the model using the ability is doing it from reserves, or if they are doing it from the tabletop.

I run two Librarians both with Gate of Infinity in all my 1500+ lists, and one in my smaller lists. I would love to be able to make use of Teleport Homers or Locator Beacons throughout the game, but they simply don't work with GoI.

Have to disagree with you here Kaaihn.

You seem to be suggesting that units that aren't in reserve can't Deep Strike...

Ok, so a Librarian uses GoI, he's removed from the table. It doesn't say he's put into reserves, he's just removed. So now he uses the deep strike rules. The Deep Strike rules say he's got to be in reserves to Deep Strike. He isn't. He's unable to re-enter play.

A psychic power that simply destroys the user and his squad. Let's not be so obtuse as to assume that's a workable conclusion.

Somehow you've decided that the portion of the Deep Strike rules demanding that the model be in reserves matters when it comes to Locator Beacons, but not when it comes to actually Deep Striking.

The rules don't say "if you weren't in reserves, you can still do the exact same thing as Deep Striking, but it's not called "Deep Striking" anymore." They say you have to be in reserves to Deep Strike. If we take that literally, then nobody that's not in reserves can ever Deep Strike. That breaks VoD, breaks GoI, etc.

In order to make sense of this, we need to remember that the Codex supersedes the BGB. Any rule in the BGB that is incongruent with a rule in a Codex is superseded.

When we look at the rules in the Codex, we are told that the Librarian and squad "are placed." So they're going back on the table. The rules in the BGB which preclude them Deep Striking are superseeded. Now, since they're superseeded and they're allowed to Deep Strike, we're now Deep Striking, and that's subject to Locator Beacon rules.

It doesn't cease to be Deep Striking, and become "Deep Striking (Amended)." It's still Deep Striking. The specific rules in the Codex remove some of the normal requirements for using the rule.

Phryxis wrote:Have to disagree with you here Kaaihn.

You seem to be suggesting that units that aren't in reserve can't Deep Strike...

Ok, so a Librarian uses GoI, he's removed from the table. It doesn't say he's put into reserves, he's just removed. So now he uses the deep strike rules. The Deep Strike rules say he's got to be in reserves to Deep Strike. He isn't. He's unable to re-enter play.

A psychic power that simply destroys the user and his squad. Let's not be so obtuse as to assume that's a workable conclusion.

A unit that uses GoI does not go to reserves. It re-enters play following the GoI rules, with the final placement resolved using the deep strike rules as GoI tells you to. I have no idea how you are coming up with the conclusion that GoI destroys the squad, that's all you.

Phryxis wrote:Somehow you've decided that the portion of the Deep Strike rules demanding that the model be in reserves matters when it comes to Locator Beacons, but not when it comes to actually Deep Striking.

Correct. Because an ability being used such as Teleport which is resolved with the deep strike rules is a different event than the ability Gate of Infinity which is resolved using the deep strike rules. Wargear that benefits Teleport does not benefit Gate of Infinity just because they both resolve using the same rules.

Phryxis wrote:The rules don't say "if you weren't in reserves, you can still do the exact same thing as Deep Striking, but it's not called "Deep Striking" anymore." They say you have to be in reserves to Deep Strike. If we take that literally, then nobody that's not in reserves can ever Deep Strike. That breaks VoD, breaks GoI, etc.

The rules do not state you must be in reserves to deep strike. They state abilities which fall under the definition 'deep strike' option must be in reserves. The distinction matters.

Phryxis wrote:It doesn't cease to be Deep Striking, and become "Deep Striking (Amended)."

This is where the disconnect is. I'm not saying it ceases to be deep striking and becomes deep striking (amended). In the case of Terminator Teleport, it's Teleporting which is resolved via deep strike rules. In the case of Jump troops entry, it is Jump pack entry which is resolved via deep strike, same for lictor, etc. In the case of GoI it is Gating which is resolved via deep strike rules. Various things are 'deep strike' option which are resolved via deep strike rules.

GW uses a catchall phrase called the 'deep strike' option to describe teleport like abilities used during deployment from reserves. The confusion is because that catchall phrase shares a name with a ruleset.

Don't overlook the fact that the quote marks around 'deep strike' option I use are not me quoting something for effect. Those quotes are in the rulebook, they were put there by GW for a reason. The 'deep strike' option and the deep strike placement rules are two separate entities within the rules.

The rules do not state you must be in reserves to deep strike. They state abilities which fall under the definition 'deep strike' option must be in reserves. The distinction matters.

Reread the first paragraph.

"Some units' special rules allow them to enter play via tunelling, teleportation, flying or some other extraordinary means. If you wish to use this 'deep strike' option..."

Here we have the BGB defining a series of powers that qualify as 'deep strike' options. This includes all of the different vectors you list. "Deep Strike" isn't another option, it's the superset containing all options that use these rules.

Tunelling is a form of Deep Strike. Teleportation is a form of Deep Strike. Etc.

A Locator Beacon guides all of these.

A Teleport Homer works only for Deep Striking via Teleportation.

Here's another consequence of your interpretation...

In C:SM, describing the Locator Beacon, it says "If a unit wishes to arrive on the battlefield via deep strike..."

You are arguing that this doesn't apply to GoI. If we accept that as true, than any similar language constructs must also not apply to GoI.

From the BGB: "Models arriving via deep strike treat all difficult terrain as dangerous terrain."

By your logic, this must not apply to GoI.

Phryxis wrote:"Some units' special rules allow them to enter play via tunelling, teleportation, flying or some other extraordinary means. If you wish to use this 'deep strike' option..."

Here we have the BGB defining a series of powers that qualify as 'deep strike' options. This includes all of the different vectors you list. "Deep Strike" isn't another option, it's the superset containing all options that use these rules.

I disagree with you here. The 'deep strike' option is a superset containing certain abilities that use the deep strike rules to resolve. Any others that don't meet that given definition don't qualify. The others are whatever the name of their ability is that use the deep strike rules as a step in their resolution.

Phryxis wrote:In C:SM, describing the Locator Beacon, it says "If a unit wishes to arrive on the battlefield via deep strike..."

You are arguing that this doesn't apply to GoI. If we accept that as true, than any similar language constructs must also not apply to GoI.

From the BGB: "Models arriving via deep strike treat all difficult terrain as dangerous terrain."

By your logic, this must not apply to GoI.

If you ignore context maybe. It's the context that tells you which deep strike they are talking about, just like you have to use context to tell that "Terminators cannot sweeping advance" is referring to any unit in terminator armor, not the specific profile entry of Terminator. Context absolutely matters.

If you are one of those people that like to ignore written relevant pieces of information because they are not in the sentence you are arguing, we are never going to agree on this. That method is absolutely incorrect based on the writing style of the rules.

If you are one of those people that like to ignore written relevant pieces of information because they are not in the sentence you are arguing, we are never going to agree on this.

Well, if I'm not mistaken, you're the one that's saying "arrive on the battlefield vi deep strike" isn't the same as "arriving via deep strike" due to context.

(and, FWIW, we're never going to agree on this, period. It's YMDC.)

Now, don't get me wrong, I fully understand your argument. There's a power called "deep strike" and rules for deep striking, and just because you're using those rules doesn't mean you have the deep strike power (just something that uses its rules).

While I understand your logic, I don't think there's anything in the rules that forces you into that position. On the contrary, there's a section in the rules where it's stated that numerous different powers will qualify as the 'deep strike option.'

There's no captial "Deep Strike" vs. "deep strike." There's no indication whatsoever that the rules and the power are distinct concepts, but you're insisting that they have to be.

Furthermore, your assumption demands that the user be attuned to "context" to know when "deep strike" means the power, and when "deep strike" means the rules. You can be sarcastic about how easy it is to identify context, but it's actually a much fuzzier concept than you're allowing for.

I'm arguing that "deep strike" is a term that applies to a whole set of powers that use the "deep strike rules." This interpretation is the simplest, most consistent and most supported by the fluff text.

Ultimately your conclusion depends on us accepting that "deep strike" does not mean the same thing as "deep strike."

I'd argue that given this sort of conflict, the burden of proof is on you to find where the rules demand that we understand "deep strike" to mean two different things in different contexts.

I don't think you've found that support. You've just decided on your conclusion, and then insisted that it's true.

Phryxis' sentiments mirror my own.

Although I appreciate any attempt at choosing the path of lesser return in ambiguous rules situations, I feel this attempt to disjoin deep striking and arriving via deep strike does not fit with either the rules as written or the game mechanics involved.

Phryxis wrote:I don't think you've found that support. You've just decided on your conclusion, and then insisted that it's true.

Fail. Utter and complete fail. I don't care what kind of coherent sentence you can string together to make an argument if you then conclude it with insults. That automatically makes anything you have to see irrelevant to me.

We have different points of view. The fact you have to resort to insults because you can't prove your point is pathetic, and definitely ceases any further interest I have in trying to discuss it further with you.

All the various points have been stated, this became a circular argument a couple posts ago. Maybe you can find someone else to argue with that isn't disgusted by your attitude.

Good luck.

Kaaihn wrote:"Deepstriking" is the term used to describe placement using the deep strike rules.

The final step of Gate of Infinity is deepstriking.
The final step of Veil of Darkness is deepstriking.
The final step of abilities that fall under the term the 'deep strike' option (Teleporting, for example) is deepstriking.

Locator Beacons and Teleport homers only work for abilities that fall under the term 'deep strike' option.

I think I see the problem here. You're not letting something worded with an active verb work under a rule with passive wording. *sarcasm* Really though, the locator beacon says it works for anything arriving via deep strike, it does not say that the unit has to have the deep strike option. It's the action the rule recognizes, not the special ability.

Also, going to side with Phryxis on the reserves issue. The rule says that you 'remove the unit from play and immediately place them anywhere within 24" using the deepstrike rules'. You can't separate the placement of the unit from the use of the deep strike rules, you use the deep strike rules to immediately place the unit. So if you can't use the deep strike rules because you didn't meet the pre-requisites (starting in reserve), you get zoinked into the etherium.

This is... unreasonable. If it's placed using the deep strike rules, scatters a la the deep strike rules, and mishaps by way of the deep strike rules then its probably a deep strike and would gain all the benefits and suffer all the negatives of such actions.

I don't care what kind of coherent sentence you can string together to make an argument if you then conclude it with insults.

Where's the insult?

I'm reading your posts. As I make sense of what you're arguing, I realize that you're saying that having the power "deep strike" isn't the same as using the rules for deep strike.

Took me a couple reads, but I got that.

The problem is that I don't see you actually explaining why that has to be the interpretation. I'm not trying to insult you, I'm saying I see nothing in your posts but you restating that it must be that way. Never stating why.

I wasn't trying to insult you, I was trying to solicit an explanation as to why the rules demand that we draw a distinction as you have.

Please reread this page. You'll notice that you call me "pathetic." You find me disgusting. I never used such adjectives toward you. I simply stated a fact regarding the content of your posts. The only person being insulting here is you.

I think it's an unfounded assumption to say that a unit can only enter play once per game. It's a matter of opinion.

When a unit has been removed from the table, is it still "in play?" If you read "remove from table" as meaning that the model is (temporarily) removed from play, then they re-enter play when they're placed back on the table.

Where's the rules support for this alternate reading? It's not in the rulebook--it's an assumption. Exactly like the reading that says a unit can only enter play once per game (if I'm wrong, please show me the rule).

That's why "RAI" is not especially useful for questions like this. One opinion of what the rules "intend" is just as authoritative as another.

Kaaihn wrote:

Phryxis wrote:I don't think you've found that support. You've just decided on your conclusion, and then insisted that it's true.

Fail. Utter and complete fail. I don't care what kind of coherent sentence you can string together to make an argument if you then conclude it with insults. That automatically makes anything you have to see irrelevant to me.

I think you're overreacting. I don't see the disjunction of deep strike and Deep Strike either, and think you need more support in your camp before making such a claim conclusively work.

You can't separate the placement of the unit from the use of the deep strike rules, you use the deep strike rules to immediately place the unit.

I disagree with this statement. The rule itself is written in two parts. 1. Remove the unit from play, and 2. place using the deep strike rules. The 'remove the unit from play' is what allows GoI to break a unit from combat. It's not movement, it's not any of the things that would normally prevent a unit from leaving combat, it's simply a direction as to what to do; the unit is removed. The unit then is placed via deep strike rules. Just as we have a very clear direction on part 1. (remove from play, prety unambiguous), we now have a very clear direction on part 2. (use the deep strike rules within 24"). Again, pretty unambiguous. All the rules normally associated with deep strike (dangerous terrain, scattering onto another unit, count as moving, ... locator beacons) apply as normal.

I think it's an unfounded assumption to say that a unit can only enter play once per game. It's a matter of opinion.

Agree. GW rules writing is not nearly technical enough to assume that their words have been chosen with "perfect communication" in mind. Any arguments that hinge on the exact wording of "arriving via deep strike" or some such are made weaker as a result.

Kaaihn wrote:

Phryxis wrote:I don't think you've found that support. You've just decided on your conclusion, and then insisted that it's true.

Fail. Utter and complete fail. I don't care what kind of coherent sentence you can string together to make an argument if you then conclude it with insults. That automatically makes anything you have to see irrelevant to me.

We have different points of view. The fact you have to resort to insults because you can't prove your point is pathetic, and definitely ceases any further interest I have in trying to discuss it further with you.

All the various points have been stated, this became a circular argument a couple posts ago. Maybe you can find someone else to argue with that isn't disgusted by your attitude.

Good luck.

That was hardly an insult.

Kaaihn wrote:

Phryxis wrote:I don't think you've found that support. You've just decided on your conclusion, and then insisted that it's true.

Fail. Utter and complete fail. I don't care what kind of coherent sentence you can string together to make an argument if you then conclude it with insults. That automatically makes anything you have to see irrelevant to me.

We have different points of view. The fact you have to resort to insults because you can't prove your point is pathetic, and definitely ceases any further interest I have in trying to discuss it further with you.

All the various points have been stated, this became a circular argument a couple posts ago. Maybe you can find someone else to argue with that isn't disgusted by your attitude.

Good luck.

Kaaihn, you are the one being rude here. Please take a deep breath, re-read the posts, and keep your responses polite.

Thank you.

You know, I can't find the news report online right now, but I read an interesting study about political opinions. It seems that the people who conducted the study found that people who held a strong political opinion, regardless of their party or ideological orientation, clung firmly to that belief regardless of the amount of contrary evidence presented to them. The more overwhelming the evidence presented to them that was in opposition to their opinion, the more strident became their criticism of that information.

I think the same thing can be said of people and their opinions concerning GW rules debates....

I agree with Phyrxis.

G