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.

njpc wrote:Are there not several examples in the game where Codex > Big Rule Book?

No, that's not how the rules work.
It's specific > general. Not Codex < BRB.

You answered part of my question.
Plus your answer is not accurate ~ Zaggstrukk would have a specific rule. A scenario saying "cannot deep strike" would be a general rule.

Again ~ any screnarios out of the BrB where you cannot deepstrike , i do not have it handy right now, and my memory is failing me right now.

There might be a no Deep Strike rule in one of the 3(?) special missions in the big rule book, however, in all standard missions you can Deep Strike.

njpc wrote:You answered part of my question.
Plus your answer is not accurate ~ Zaggstrukk would have a specific rule. A scenario saying "cannot deep strike" would be a general rule.

It's not the scenario causing this.
It's an IC that cannot deep strike being attached to a unit that must deepstrike.

In general, a unit placed in reserve can either be declared to be deep striking or walking on.
Specifically, Zag must deep strike and cannot walk on.
Attaching a model that cannot deep strike would prevent Zag from entering the board.

Again ~ any screnarios out of the BrB where you cannot deepstrike , i do not have it handy right now, and my memory is failing me right now.

No. Zag (though I don't have the Ork codex) would probably still be able to deep strike - other units like Tyranid Lictors can be in reserves and deep strike even when the scenario prevents it.
I'd bet there is similar wording for Zag.

The rule is not actually Codex beats Rulebook, it is specific beats general.

Very often Codex has more specific rules than BRB though. And usually writers have been smart enough to write the "This unit can always Deep Strike, even if the mission doesn't allow it" blurp for units that must always deploy via Deep Strike.

@rigeld Actually, it only says that he (and his unit) must deep strike, but are able to assault (with some deaths involved). So RAW if he cannot Deep Strike (for any reason), he is killed.

Going back them. People are saying unit is destroyed. There are scenarios where they are not:

Zaggstrukks already on the board. Zogwarts wanders over and attaches. I find no indication there are any rules broken here as both units are on the board. Zogs rolls for psychic power Ere We Go. Zog & his unit must then deep strike. So they do. However, cannot assault. So the units not destroyed and its on the board. At this moment in time all units have the deep strike rule / ability by the psychic ability.

The only reason I was bringing up the prior post, was that it seemed people moved on past attaching Zogs, and were indicating if scenarios happen where they cannot deepstrike they are destroyed. I cannot think of an example where this would happen other then a very specific GT tournment... that's why I am asking. As the only loop hole I can think of is Zogwart only when he rolls Ere We Go, when both he & Zag's Vulchas have rules indicates must deep strike.

Happyjew wrote:@rigeld Actually, it only says that he (and his unit) must deep strike, but are able to assault (with some deaths involved). So RAW if he cannot Deep Strike (for any reason), he is killed.

Awesome. In scenarios that don't allow Deep Strike I could see a TO allowing Deep Strike Zag.

I agree, and if I were playing a special scenario that did not allow Deep Strike, I would make allowances for units that must enter via Deep Strike, even if their rules do not specifically allow it.

I agree that Jidmah is correct on this, and I think his mention of the "Rage" USR backs him up. If you "MUST" do something, but are unable to do the "MUST" action, then you are free to use the other options open to you normally.

For example, Rage:

"In the Movement phase, units subject to rage must always move as fast as possible towards the closest visible enemy."

If we read "Must" in this instance like Insaniak and others are, then a unit with "Rage" is immobile if there are no enemy units on the battlefield, or if enemy units are completely out of LoS. Clearly this isn't how we play the game. If a unit with Rage can't see anything, it simply moves normal and ignores its special rule for that turn until it sees an enemy.

Murrdox wrote:I agree that Jidmah is correct on this, and I think his mention of the "Rage" USR backs him up. If you "MUST" do something, but are unable to do the "MUST" action, then you are free to use the other options open to you normally.

For example, Rage:

"In the Movement phase, units subject to rage must always move as fast as possible towards the closest visible enemy." "Whilst falling back, embarked on a transport, or if no enemy is visible, they ignore this rule."

If we read "Must" in this instance like Insaniak and others are, then a unit with "Rage" is immobile if there are no enemy units on the battlefield, or if enemy units are completely out of LoS. Clearly this isn't how we play the game. If a unit with Rage can't see anything, it simply moves normal and ignores its special rule for that turn until it sees an enemy.

Orange text mine.
Rage doesn't support Jidmah / your position, because it explicitly mentions what to do in special circumstances.
So the reason why Raging units can move when freely when they have no enemies visible has nothing to do how the word "Must" is read in the context of Rage USR.

Luide wrote:

Murrdox wrote:I agree that Jidmah is correct on this, and I think his mention of the "Rage" USR backs him up. If you "MUST" do something, but are unable to do the "MUST" action, then you are free to use the other options open to you normally.

For example, Rage:

"In the Movement phase, units subject to rage must always move as fast as possible towards the closest visible enemy." "Whilst falling back, embarked on a transport, or if no enemy is visible, they ignore this rule."

If we read "Must" in this instance like Insaniak and others are, then a unit with "Rage" is immobile if there are no enemy units on the battlefield, or if enemy units are completely out of LoS. Clearly this isn't how we play the game. If a unit with Rage can't see anything, it simply moves normal and ignores its special rule for that turn until it sees an enemy.

Orange text mine.
Rage doesn't support Jidmah / your position, because it explicitly mentions what to do in special circumstances.
So the reason why Raging units can move when freely when they have no enemies visible has nothing to do how the word "Must" is read in the context of Rage USR.

Exactly. It actually supports the opposite position because it needs to say explicitly what to do when the rule cannot be applied. If we were following the Jidmah reasoning there was no need to do that because it would follow the option on the BRB. Plus Rage would become useless if you say you are allowed to ignore it when it must be applied. What is exactly what Jidmah is claiming.

Spot on.

If Rage was written just as :
"In the Movement phase, units subject to rage must always move 6" towards the closest visible enemy."
...with no further text telling you what to do if that 6" movement is not possible, then it would be a comparable situation. As it is, Rage gives you an out, by telling you that the Rage movement is just an 'as possible' situation, and specifically telling you to ignore the rule if that movement is not possible.

Zagstruk gives you no such out. You simply 'must' Deep Strike. The rule makes no mention of being able to do something else instead if you are prevented from Deep Striking.

Ahh, I see you're right. My bad, I should have read to the end of the paragraph.