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.

Here is the text from the index

"There are a number of Astra Militarum datasheets that can be used by the ElysianDropTroops– presented in the box on the left.
Those that do replace the <REGIMENT> keyword on their data sheet in all instances with ELYSIAN DROP TROOPS .If an Astra Militarum unit does not appear on the list to the left, it cannot be used by models with the ELYSIAN DROP TROOPS keyword, and so can not have the ELYSIAN DROP TROOPS Faction key word. Models in the list that have the AERONAUTICA IMPERIALIS keywords replace them with ELYSIAN DROP TROOPS.

All ELYSIAN DROP TROOPS models gain the Aerial Drop ability. TAUROS units on the list opposite will also benefit from the Drop Troop Assault ability.

Spacebar, sir. SPACEBAR!

(Copy/pasting from the PDFs doesn't format nicely - needs some re-editing.)

Does it have the ELYSIAN DROP TROOPS keyword? If so it has the Aerial Drop ability, it's not rocket science.

The rule "All ELYSIAN DROP TROOPS models gain the Aerial Drop ability." is crystal clear.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Does it have the ELYSIAN DROP TROOPS keyword? If so it has the Aerial Drop ability, it's not rocket science.

The rule "All ELYSIAN DROP TROOPS models gain the Aerial Drop ability." is crystal clear.

All ELYSIAN DROP TROOPS models gain the Aerial Drop ability. TAUROS units on the list opposite will also benefit from the Drop Troop Assault ability.

If everything on the chart to the left gets it from having regiment changed to ELYSIAN DROP TROOPS why did they specify the Tauros also gets it?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Spacebar, sir. SPACEBAR!

(Copy/pasting from the PDFs doesn't format nicely - needs some re-editing.)

It sensed I was on my phone and didn't have access to a keyboard.

Yep, everything that can have the Elysian Keyword can "deep strike". You're reading it right. Reflects their fighting style... you interpret it as being dropped by a support flyer directly into the battle zone.

The Taurox thing is odd. The errata changes it to 'Aerial Drop' as 'Drop Troop Assault' isn't mentioned anywhere else in the Index. Seems like a sloppy FW job, sadly. Either tautologous, or they forgot to exclude some models from aerial dropping.

For extra clarity? There isn't actually any need for that rule come to think of it. Perhaps they meant to not include Cyclopses in the Aerial Drop list, but RaW that isn't the case. Nothing in the Errata has changed this, so all models on that list get Aerial Drop.

It explicitly says "All", not "All except for Cyclops" or "All except for VEHICLES".

Also it's Forge World. Not only have they never written rules well, they had about 6 seconds to write these books to begin with, hence the errata that's almost longer than the book itself.

Yea it seems kind of clear. Everything on that list either has regiment or AERONAUTICA IMPERIALIS. And then they add that stupid "TAUROS units on the list opposite will also benefit from the Drop Troop Assault ability line" when the Tauros already has regiment. I guess it's just totally redundant.

I assume Aerial Drop and Drop Troop Assault aren't the same thing? Because it seems to me like Tauros are meant to have both?

 Cream Tea wrote:
I assume Aerial Drop and Drop Troop Assault aren't the same thing? Because it seems to me like Tauros are meant to have both?

That's a typo, they errata'd the Tauros line to read "TAUROS units on the list opposite will also benefit from the Aerial Drop ability."

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Cream Tea wrote:
I assume Aerial Drop and Drop Troop Assault aren't the same thing? Because it seems to me like Tauros are meant to have both?

That's a typo, they errata'd the Tauros line to read "TAUROS units on the list opposite will also benefit from the Aerial Drop ability."

Fair enough. Then it just seems redundant, as said.

Then again, the Drukhari Venom can transport up to 5 "Incubi or Drukhari Infantry", and all Incubi are Drukhari Infantry...

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Cream Tea wrote:
I assume Aerial Drop and Drop Troop Assault aren't the same thing? Because it seems to me like Tauros are meant to have both?

That's a typo, they errata'd the Tauros line to read "TAUROS units on the list opposite will also benefit from the Aerial Drop ability."

The frustrating thing is that FAQ didn't change or clarify anything because the Tauros already has <Regiment>.

They wrote the books in a lunchbreak and the FAQ in a cigarette break, sadly :-/

Yes, RAW this is really weird. That one sentence says that literally every Elysian units gets to deep strike, but this is obviously not intended. It makes the Tauros sentence redundant, for example, and also ends up giving deep strike to several Elysian-only units with new datasheets which don't have the ability listed on their sheet (whereas most of them do have it). Including the flyers.

As far as I can tell, the only unit that this sentence is supposed to apply to is the Officer of the Fleet, since surely it's not supposed to apply to Valkyries.

Dionysodorus wrote:
Yes, RAW this is really weird. That one sentence says that literally every Elysian units gets to deep strike, but this is obviously not intended. It makes the Tauros sentence redundant, for example, and also ends up giving deep strike to several Elysian-only units with new datasheets which don't have the ability listed on their sheet (whereas most of them do have it). Including the flyers.

As far as I can tell, the only unit that this sentence is supposed to apply to is the Officer of the Fleet, since surely it's not supposed to apply to Valkyries.

The rules as intended are the same as RaW, otherwise it would have been errata'd.

How can you possibly say that an VTOL Aircraft is not supposed to be able to deep strike in a regiment dedicated to such tactics?

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Dionysodorus wrote:
Yes, RAW this is really weird. That one sentence says that literally every Elysian units gets to deep strike, but this is obviously not intended. It makes the Tauros sentence redundant, for example, and also ends up giving deep strike to several Elysian-only units with new datasheets which don't have the ability listed on their sheet (whereas most of them do have it). Including the flyers.

As far as I can tell, the only unit that this sentence is supposed to apply to is the Officer of the Fleet, since surely it's not supposed to apply to Valkyries.

The rules as intended are the same as RaW, otherwise it would have been errata'd.

How can you possibly say that an VTOL Aircraft is not supposed to be able to deep strike in a regiment dedicated to such tactics?

This is an absurdly implausible criterion. No one believes that GW -- and especially FW -- has erratta'd literally everything to work the way they intend it to work. I mean, how do you think GW intends for shooting with pistols to work?

Anyway, my specific reasoning here is that no other flyer deep strikes, the Elysian-exclusive flyers are not given Aerial Drop on their datasheets, and it is not very clear how you even go about deep striking a flyer (is it destroyed immediately because it can't make its minimum move?). I'm also supposing that the sentence about the Tauros is actually supposed to do something.

Dionysodorus wrote:
the Elysian-exclusive flyers are not given Aerial Drop on their datasheets.

Because it would be redundant, and Forge World literally wrote these rules in between smoke breaks. You're reading far too much into a cocked up rule and ignoring the crystal clear RaW.

BaconCatBug,
While it is irrelevant to the question at hand, how can you state these two things back to back without realizing the problem:
The rules as intended are the same as RaW, otherwise it would have been errata'd.
Because it would be redundant, and Forge World literally wrote these rules in between smoke breaks.


If Forge World was time pressed as you constantly claim, and I honestly believe to be the case as Game Workshop dropped all this last minute on them, it is plausible that could make a mistake. It is actually highly probable that any human being would make a mistake when put under an unreasonable time restraint, and Authors are still human. Additionally, they would then be just as hard pressed to correct all their errors within that very tiny window. Such time restraints decreases the probabilities of them finding and correcting every error within their book, after all.

Taken together, these two probabilities lead to the very situation we find ourselves in:
Where people have questioned just how competent at writing Rules both ForgeWorld and Game Workshop actually are, and one where I am firmly on the side of 'they **** up a lot....'


Back on topic:
Dionysodorus concerns about how you go about "Deep Striking" flyers are quite justified, as on the list are the following flyers that are granted the ability to "Deep Strike:"
VENDETTA GUNSHIP, VULTURE GUNSHIP, AVENGER STRIKE FIGHTER, LIGHTNING STRIKE FIGHTER, THUNDERBOLT HEAVY FIGHTER

Not all those craft have a hover Special Rule, so they must Move during the Movement Phase or else, and even those which do contain a Hover rule it is wording along the lines of:
Before this model moves in your Movement phase, you can declare it will hover.

This becomes a little problematic as they have been set up at the end of the Movement phase, past the point they can then be selected to Move themselves....

It's not problematic and they don't crash because the were set up at the end of the Movement Phase. They weren't on the board to make a move during the Movement Phase, and the Movement Phase concludes as/before they are deployed. So this isn't a RAW mess as you're claiming and they don't crash because they haven't made a minimum move. It works just fine.

The first is the model’s minimum speed – in the Movement phase, all parts of
the model’s base must end the move at least that far from where they started.
The second is its maximum speed – no part of the model’s base can be moved
further than this. If a model cannot make its minimum move, or is forced to move
off the battlefield because of its minimum speed, it is destroyed and removed from
the battlefield – the model has either stalled and crashed or been forced to
abandon the battle.
-Minimum Move.

I could be sarcastic here and ask when they put the end of the Movement Phase outside of the Movement Phase itself, but I think that would just send us into an argument that misses the point entirely. The Rule I quoted above requires any Model with a Minimal movement to have started on the board in order for us to be able to confirm that the base has moved the minimal distance away from this point. The authors clearly intended for this Basic Rule to be superseded by more specific Rules concerning Flyers that might do something odd, but that doesn't mean the follow up Authors followed this intended format. That leave us with several aircraft that have been set up on the board during the Movement Phase, at the very end of it after selection occurs in order to prevent them from simply moving but still during the Movement Phase, means they fall under a Restriction which requires them to have made a minimal move or be destroyed.

Entirely possible the Authors have provided us with a simple way to ensure these Aircraft will 'stall out...' but was this the intent?

Page 177 right hand side in the column, reinforcements count as moving when arriving.

How far have they moved as part of that counts as movement?

You're looking for a penalty that isn't there. Flyers don't crash because of being deployed from Tactical Reserves. There's no point in a quantum level discussion over exactly when the Movement Phase ends. It's colloquial wording for "after you've moved/chosen not to move your units currently on the board" to prevent sequencing shenanigans and force tactical thought.

If you wanna rationalise it then as per their rules fluff they've zoomed in from outside the battlefield's airspace, or dropped from low orbit... in either case probably quite a big move, eh?

I disagree JohnnyHell,
While it is good and all to say they are simply using the word 'move' colloquially, incorrectly using terminology is a very big problem that Game Workshop has always had issues with, all that does is underline the fact this problem exists!

We have a rule that applies itself during the Movement Phase, the whole movement phase as nothing says to exempt the start and end point of said phase, which requires physical movement to function
We have another Rule that allows this Model to be Set Up, specific wording used in order to avoid using the word move colloquially and contains a counts as clause to address the fact it did not move as far as the game was concerned
These two Rules do not mesh well together, and look at how much twisting and bending your having to do just to make a Restriction vanish so one unique and likely unforeseen rule-interaction doesn't lead to aircraft falling out of the sky....

As far as the Game is concerned, we must be able to prove that the Model has moved a specific number of inches and that is impossible to do so if the model Deep Strikes.
So the only real answer to this problem is to avoid deep striking anything with a minimal movement rate until they clarify how they are meant to play out, or at least talk to your opponent about this oversight.


Still, I want one last chance to see if I can convince you why your 'end of phase is not within the phase' solution causes a lot more problems then it fixes:
I have a hypothetical Rule that allows me to make a unique shooting attack at the end of the shooting phase, likely from a Stratagem....
Can I target a Character?



Oh, in addition, to make it even more cloudy for people reading this thread:
Units that are set up in this manner cannot
move or Advance further during the turn they arrive
- Reinforcements

This is a restriction that forbids you from Moving for the entire Turn if you are set up from Reserves.
Remember back to the Rule I quoted, what did it say to do if the Model is unable to make this Move?

Changing the question changes the answer and doesn't illuminate anything about the first question. Let's stick to the question at hand?

I'd imagine any reasonable opponent is going to treat it at face value just fine and not quibble that every unit coming down from orbit auto-crashes. YMMV.

I covered the last bit in my reasoning upthread so I shan't repeat why it isn't an issue.

I'm sure most players will put it down to 'Game Workshop can not write Rules' and discuss the problem with their opponents as well, but don't be surprised if others bring up the problem as well:
The Authors have made the assumption that, during the Movement Phase, Models with a minimal movement requirements will have a starting point on the board for us to measure from... clearly not!

Your conclusion that the Restriction does not apply as 'in the movement phase' does not include the end point is noted... I just don't think it has much credibility.
Pointing out that Game Workshop **** up at times, thus could have used the word "Move" colloquially and we can safely disregard the restriction.... that did carry weight with me.

 JinxDragon wrote:
I'm sure most players will put it down to 'Game Workshop can not write Rules' and discuss the problem with their opponents as well, but don't be surprised if others bring up the problem as well:
The Authors have made the assumption that, during the Movement Phase, Models with a minimal movement requirements will have a starting point on the board for us to measure from... clearly not!

Your conclusion that the Restriction does not apply as 'in the movement phase' does not include the end point is noted... I just don't think it has much credibility.
Pointing out that Game Workshop **** up and could have used the word "Move" incorrectly, and thus we can safely disregard the restriction.... that did carry weight with me.

Sure wouldn't have hurt the to have put a caveat aboutvthe Flyer not crashing, for sure!

Agreed,
Though I think people reading these Rules always should keep in mind one simple little truth that Game Workshop has been proud of in the past - Game Workshop don't write Rules good.
We have never had a well structured, made for a strictly controllable tournament situation, system... the colloquial use of otherwise rule-defined words is sort of par for the course.

 JinxDragon wrote:

Oh, in addition, to make it even more cloudy for people reading this thread:
Units that are set up in this manner cannot
move or Advance further during the turn they arrive
- Reinforcements

This is a restriction that forbids you from Moving for the entire Turn if you are set up from Reserves.

Actually, no. Models that arrive from Reinforcements are considered to have been moved. This rule you quoted is only about moving further, as in addition to.

So, they moved once to arrive from Reserves, and they cannot move any more. That is no indication of "forbidding to Move for the entire Turn".

Correct that it uses the word further, but can you provide me with a in-game situation where the Model will have moved at some point during that turn, prior to it being set up via Reserves?
I was never on the side that believe the use of the word 'further' somehow turned this 'Deployment/Set up' into movement, that 'counts as having moved' clauses exists for a reason!

 JinxDragon wrote:
Correct that it uses the word further, but can you provide me with a in-game situation where the Model will have moved at some point during that turn, prior to it being set up via Reserves?
I was never on the side that believe the use of the word 'further' somehow turned this 'Deployment/Set up' into movement, that 'counts as having moved' clauses exists for a reason!

1) It has been said to have been moved, as has been pointed out and referenced above.
2) It is no longer off the table, so being on the table requires some modicum of movement. Staying in place is the only way a model cannot move, and if it goes from off the table to on the table, it has indeed moved. This is a literal statement of what occurs rather than the abstract of which "deployment/set up" relies on.

To the point, with those two things in mind, how can you demonstrate no movement has actually occurred?