Switch Theme:

Imperial Knights Outflanking  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut




So the Imperial Knights have a 3CP stratagem that allows them to specifically outflank with a single knight. Simple question, is outflanking considered deepstriking and follow the same rules, via the FAQ changes to deepstriking, or is it considered separately because it is outflanking?
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut




Atlanta

Can you post the exact wording of the stratagem, I don’t have my codex handy. I imagine if the knight starts in reserve then it’s effected by the beta rule. If it’s redeployment from on the table then probably no.
   
Made in us
Willing Inquisitorial Excruciator




If you’re deploying the unit from reserves, the beta rules apply to that unit.
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut




It does start off the table, so I suppose it is effected by the beta rule. They really need to just set that as deep striking, not outflanking, it is confusing and if you are trying to figure out whether or not you are actually deep striking it gives pause, and the person I play with is fairly new and was unsure as well.

It is worded that the knight starts outside deployment and outflanks the enemy, set 6" from any table edge and 9" away from any enemy, which essentially is in essence the same, but in the wording it is not. That being the knight does not drop from a teleportarium, from orbit, or from a dropship, it literally runs around and flanks the enemy, just off the board. They just need to be more careful with the words they use and just say its deep striking so new players aren't confused by the wording.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/06/21 19:53:46


 
   
Made in ca
Longtime Dakkanaut






This is a perfect example of why USR’s are key to a well written, organized game. Why they got rid of them is unfathomable.

Square Bases for Life!
AoS is pure garbage
Kill Primaris, Kill the Primarchs. They don't belong in 40K
40K is fantasy in space, not sci-fi 
   
Made in gb
Lord of the Fleet






Deep striking is not a thing any more. You're looking for words that aren't anywhere.

The tactical reserves rule applies to units that "arrive on the battle-field mid-game as reinforcements".

The stratagem says "At the end of any of your Movement phases this unit can join the battle"

At the end of your movement phase is clearly "mid-game". USRs not needed.
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut




 Scott-S6 wrote:
Deep striking is not a thing any more. You're looking for words that aren't anywhere.

The tactical reserves rule applies to units that "arrive on the battle-field mid-game as reinforcements".

The stratagem says "At the end of any of your Movement phases this unit can join the battle"

At the end of your movement phase is clearly "mid-game". USRs not needed.


No you are right, having everyone with a similar rule worded exactly the same without all the fluff wording to confuse new players is clearly working. The FAQ that "fixes" things is also super easy to find and new players definitely go to it immediately to find how the rules they just got into have changed.
I mean MTG have taken rules from years ago that were written out in a full sentence on a card and gave the rule/ability one word and a description in the rules for how that one word works. Those rules are the exact same across all the colors, yet when you have a rule that is the exact same in WH40k, you get a long drawn out fluff, then a quick blurb about the rule instead of just having one word to state what it is, then flavor text, and a section in the book for what that one word actually does with no fluff around it. Really isn't that hard, and if you want to argue that WH40k has way more rules than MTG, that is exactly the problem, there is no reason that 4 factions having the EXACT SAME ABILITY need it worded completely differently.
   
Made in us
Willing Inquisitorial Excruciator




 Brutus_Apex wrote:
This is a perfect example of why USR’s are key to a well written, organized game. Why they got rid of them is unfathomable.


Mostly because OP presumably hasn't read the FAQ and thinks that the Tactical Reserves beta rule is about deep striking. The words "deep strike" don't even appear in the document. No matter what the rules are, if you don't read them you will likely have some confusion on how they work.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




CelticKodiak wrote:
No you are right, having everyone with a similar rule worded exactly the same without all the fluff wording to confuse new players is clearly working. The FAQ that "fixes" things is also super easy to find and new players definitely go to it immediately to find how the rules they just got into have changed.
I mean MTG have taken rules from years ago that were written out in a full sentence on a card and gave the rule/ability one word and a description in the rules for how that one word works. Those rules are the exact same across all the colors, yet when you have a rule that is the exact same in WH40k, you get a long drawn out fluff, then a quick blurb about the rule instead of just having one word to state what it is, then flavor text, and a section in the book for what that one word actually does with no fluff around it. Really isn't that hard, and if you want to argue that WH40k has way more rules than MTG, that is exactly the problem, there is no reason that 4 factions having the EXACT SAME ABILITY need it worded completely differently.


Except even with USR GW couldn't stick to them, so you got USR, USR-1, USR+1and the special rule that prevents USR use.

USR won't work for GW not because USR don't work but because GW rules team would find a reason to be changing them constantly.

GW writer's need to learn technical writing and their layout artists need taken out the backdoor and shot. Solve the big problems before you worry about the would be nice issues.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Guys, there is a whole other thread to pointlessly whine about USRs being good or not. Lets not do it here.
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






Springfield, VA

The problem is caused by the people who want USRs, not by their absence.

Talking like "Tactical Reserves should only refer to Deep Strike and not to Outflank" is like saying "Green seventeen haircut aardvark injected hell bloat nunchuck." It has no meaning. Deep Strike and Outflank are terms that no longer exist.

The relevant rules are quite clear, and trying to shoehorn the rules into USRs which don't even exist is the problem here.
   
Made in fi
Locked in the Tower of Amareo





Problem is GW insisting on using different terms and text for same rules.

USR makes game clearer and better if done right. GW has gone for exact wrong direction if they want game clearer.

Lack of unified texts and names for rules is big problem. And just wait until GW changes things in one place and not others where same rule used to be and then we have 2 rules that used to work same way working differently. Say hello to case of smoke launchers working differently for 2 marine chapters.

2024 painted/bought: 109/109 
   
Made in gb
Lord of the Fleet






tneva82 wrote:
Problem is GW insisting on using different terms and text for same rules.

USR makes game clearer and better if done right. GW has gone for exact wrong direction if they want game clearer.


How much clearer than "arrives on the battle field mid-game" do you want?

It is absolutely clear what that rule refers to as long as you actually read the rule rather than just reading people talking about "deep strike" nerfs.

The alternative would be to have at least two USRs (one for position anywhere 9" from enemy and one for position near the edge) and reference those. That then breaks if a unit gets a rule like that or different.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
CelticKodiak wrote:
 Scott-S6 wrote:
Deep striking is not a thing any more. You're looking for words that aren't anywhere.

The tactical reserves rule applies to units that "arrive on the battle-field mid-game as reinforcements".

The stratagem says "At the end of any of your Movement phases this unit can join the battle"

At the end of your movement phase is clearly "mid-game". USRs not needed.


No you are right, having everyone with a similar rule worded exactly the same without all the fluff wording to confuse new players is clearly working. The FAQ that "fixes" things is also super easy to find and new players definitely go to it immediately to find how the rules they just got into have changed.
I mean MTG have taken rules from years ago that were written out in a full sentence on a card and gave the rule/ability one word and a description in the rules for how that one word works. Those rules are the exact same across all the colors, yet when you have a rule that is the exact same in WH40k, you get a long drawn out fluff, then a quick blurb about the rule instead of just having one word to state what it is, then flavor text, and a section in the book for what that one word actually does with no fluff around it. Really isn't that hard, and if you want to argue that WH40k has way more rules than MTG, that is exactly the problem, there is no reason that 4 factions having the EXACT SAME ABILITY need it worded completely differently.


Nice rant but you were confusing yourself with trying to insert USRs where there are none.

Instead of "trying to figure out whether or not you are actually deep striking" you should have just looked at the rule and said "is arriving at the end of my movement phase arriving mid-game? Yes, rule applies."

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/06/22 06:35:59


 
   
Made in es
Crazed Spirit of the Defiler





Isn't having different names for essentially same rules depending on the army part of the flavour? I want terminators to teleport while my striking scorpions can emerge from hiding.

   
Made in de
Longtime Dakkanaut




Abaddon303 wrote:
Isn't having different names for essentially same rules depending on the army part of the flavour? I want terminators to teleport while my striking scorpions can emerge from hiding.


Well, the thing is there are minor differences in the rules as to where you can arrive.

Some "coming from reserve rules" allow you to set up anywhere on the battle-field, just 9" away from enemy units. Other "coming from reserve rules", such as the Knight one above, the Space Wolves one, Eldar War Walkers, come with the additional condition of 6" of a table edge in addition to the 9" from the enemy.

They are still mostly the same type of "coming from reserves" rule for pretty much all other intents and purposes.

Talking about it in 7th-Edition terminology of "deep-striking" and "flanking" actually kinda complicates things, as these two were very different things in 7th, one tied to a random scatter while the other was not, for example. It kinda obscures the fact that in 8th it's actually been simplified to basically a single rule with just an added condition to where you can deploy (9" from enemy vs. 9" from enemy and within 6" from table edge).

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2018/06/22 09:51:40


 
   
Made in fi
Locked in the Tower of Amareo





Abaddon303 wrote:
Isn't having different names for essentially same rules depending on the army part of the flavour? I want terminators to teleport while my striking scorpions can emerge from hiding.


Uuuuhh....You realize don't you that having common terminology for RULES and RULES INTERACTION doesn't forbid, prevent or hinder having DIFFERENT FLUFF TEXT? It just means put fluff text on you know fluff parts and not mess up fluff and rules text like incompetent game designer's parody that GW rule writers are. You can't even call them game designers with straight face.

2024 painted/bought: 109/109 
   
Made in es
Crazed Spirit of the Defiler





tneva82 wrote:
Abaddon303 wrote:
Isn't having different names for essentially same rules depending on the army part of the flavour? I want terminators to teleport while my striking scorpions can emerge from hiding.


Uuuuhh....You realize don't you that having common terminology for RULES and RULES INTERACTION doesn't forbid, prevent or hinder having DIFFERENT FLUFF TEXT? It just means put fluff text on you know fluff parts and not mess up fluff and rules text like incompetent game designer's parody that GW rule writers are. You can't even call them game designers with straight face.


But they're different rules. As sunny side up says, there are lots of variations, some just 9", some 9" and near a table edge, some are even 1"! (Mawlocs)

They all fall under 'tactical reserves' but they're different with different rules. I think it's you that is complicating things by trying to broad stroke everything as 'deepstriking' a term I don't think actually exists in 8th.

   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut




 Unit1126PLL wrote:
The problem is caused by the people who want USRs, not by their absence.

Talking like "Tactical Reserves should only refer to Deep Strike and not to Outflank" is like saying "Green seventeen haircut aardvark injected hell bloat nunchuck." It has no meaning. Deep Strike and Outflank are terms that no longer exist.

The relevant rules are quite clear, and trying to shoehorn the rules into USRs which don't even exist is the problem here.


If Outflanking doesn't exist, then why are the words used in the Knights stratagem "you send on of your knights to OUTFLANK the enemy", if it doesn't exist, then the words shouldn't be used, end of story. If it is the same as every other deep striking rule, and yes, I will call it deep striking because that is what it is, and has been called in every batrep I have ever seen ever, then all they have to do is put, "pick a unit to deep strike", HOLY gak, its like I used 6 words to say what the stratagem does instead of an entire paragraph used by GW. Then in the rules, they have a section about the ability Deep Strike and how it works in more detail, man, if only they had a book that shows the basic rules that every army uses, like the different phases, how shooting works, how melee works, and then special rules.
   
Made in gb
Grim Dark Angels Interrogator-Chaplain





Cardiff

Play 7th if you want that. No point soapboxing as USRs won't happen in this edition, and as others have pointed out its not unclear how to handle this anyway.

 Stormonu wrote:
For me, the joy is in putting some good-looking models on the board and playing out a fantasy battle - not arguing over the poorly-made rules of some 3rd party who neither has any power over my play nor will be visiting me (and my opponent) to ensure we are "playing by the rules"
 
   
Made in gb
Lord of the Fleet






CelticKodiak wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
The problem is caused by the people who want USRs, not by their absence.

Talking like "Tactical Reserves should only refer to Deep Strike and not to Outflank" is like saying "Green seventeen haircut aardvark injected hell bloat nunchuck." It has no meaning. Deep Strike and Outflank are terms that no longer exist.

The relevant rules are quite clear, and trying to shoehorn the rules into USRs which don't even exist is the problem here.


If Outflanking doesn't exist, then why are the words used in the Knights stratagem "you send on of your knights to OUTFLANK the enemy", if it doesn't exist, then the words shouldn't be used, end of story. If it is the same as every other deep striking rule, and yes, I will call it deep striking because that is what it is, and has been called in every batrep I have ever seen ever, then all they have to do is put, "pick a unit to deep strike", HOLY gak, its like I used 6 words to say what the stratagem does instead of an entire paragraph used by GW. Then in the rules, they have a section about the ability Deep Strike and how it works in more detail, man, if only they had a book that shows the basic rules that every army uses, like the different phases, how shooting works, how melee works, and then special rules.


Outflank is a word in English being used as a normal word. It's not a rules term and isn't used as one anywhere in the rules. Are you actually suggesting that using standard English words shouldn't be permitted unless they are rules terms? You'll notice that GW is now pretty diligent about using formatting to indicate keywords vs. regular words.

Move round the side of (an enemy) so as to outmanoeuvre them.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2018/06/30 18:33:37


 
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut




 Scott-S6 wrote:
CelticKodiak wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
The problem is caused by the people who want USRs, not by their absence.

Talking like "Tactical Reserves should only refer to Deep Strike and not to Outflank" is like saying "Green seventeen haircut aardvark injected hell bloat nunchuck." It has no meaning. Deep Strike and Outflank are terms that no longer exist.

The relevant rules are quite clear, and trying to shoehorn the rules into USRs which don't even exist is the problem here.


If Outflanking doesn't exist, then why are the words used in the Knights stratagem "you send on of your knights to OUTFLANK the enemy", if it doesn't exist, then the words shouldn't be used, end of story. If it is the same as every other deep striking rule, and yes, I will call it deep striking because that is what it is, and has been called in every batrep I have ever seen ever, then all they have to do is put, "pick a unit to deep strike", HOLY gak, its like I used 6 words to say what the stratagem does instead of an entire paragraph used by GW. Then in the rules, they have a section about the ability Deep Strike and how it works in more detail, man, if only they had a book that shows the basic rules that every army uses, like the different phases, how shooting works, how melee works, and then special rules.


Outflank is a word in English being used as a normal word. It's not a rules term and isn't used as one anywhere in the rules. Are you actually suggesting that using standard English words shouldn't be permitted unless they are rules terms? You'll notice that GW is now pretty diligent about using formatting to indicate keywords vs. regular words.

Move round the side of (an enemy) so as to outmanoeuvre them.


So what you are saying is as long as it is used outside of the main set of rules, even though it is in the actual description of the rule, not the in flavor text above it, that it is okay to continuously use different ways to explain the same ability? That is asinine at best, and white knighting GW's poor rules management at worst.
   
Made in gb
Lord of the Fleet






No, I'm saying that just because a word had a special rule significance in previous editions doesn't mean that it's regular English usage should be prevented now. The word "outflank" is no more significant in the current ruleset than the word "send" - you are ascribing a significance to it that isn't there.

It just means go around the side. Nothing more than that. It does not denote a particular rule or game effect.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2018/07/01 15:20:57


 
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut




 Scott-S6 wrote:
No, I'm saying that just because a word had a special rule significance in previous editions doesn't mean that it's regular English usage should be prevented now. The word "outflank" is no more significant in the current ruleset than the word "send" - you are ascribing a significance to it that isn't there.

It just means go around the side. Nothing more than that. It does not denote a particular rule or game effect.


Yet again, you prove the point that one or two words, with a separate section to describe what it does would work significantly better than fluff bs. There are very few armies that use a separate style of ability, and those can be described differently in their codex, as how some abilities negate the penalty to assault weapons after advancing, some vehicles can move and fire heavy weapons, Adeptus Mechanicus get an infiltration ability instead of deep strike, and Genestealers get Ambush. All of them can be put into their codex, with the main rulebook describing a more generalized deep strike rule, like From Golden Light They Come, Teleportation, Orbital Drop, Dropship, Flanking around the enemy, that is only 5 different ways they name the same ability. If they are so intent on having deep strike become "tactical reserves" then just put that in the stratagem or unit datasheet ability, just that, and leave it alone, no fluff, no different words to call the same ability, "tactical reserves" and a page number where the abilities fluffless description is put with flavor text below or above it.

Not sure how this is a difficult thing to do, if you continue to want to come at me with 40k having too many rules to be able to do that, or saying they are using plain english to describe the ability so everyone should know what it does automatically, then I welcome you to tell me why there has to be a distinction between RAW and RAI, because other tabletop games I play don't have that crisis of identity.
   
Made in gb
Lord of the Fleet






Maybe you should just try reading what the rules actually say instead of trying to insert USRs where they don't exist?

The rules do clearly and simply describe all of these abilities (including all of the variations) with a simple phrase "arrives on the battlefield mid-turn as reinforcements". That encapsulates all of the variations (9", 1", edge of the table, etc.) without having to list them.

The question is - why was this too complicated for you?

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/07/04 19:40:57


 
   
Made in gb
Bounding Assault Marine




United Kingdom

Bring it in turn 2. Problem solved.

40k: Space Marines (Rift Wardens) - 8050pts.
T9A: Vampire Covenants 2060pts. 
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut




 Scott-S6 wrote:
Maybe you should just try reading what the rules actually say instead of trying to insert USRs where they don't exist?

The rules do clearly and simply describe all of these abilities (including all of the variations) with a simple phrase "arrives on the battlefield mid-turn as reinforcements". That encapsulates all of the variations (9", 1", edge of the table, etc.) without having to list them.

The question is - why was this too complicated for you?


So essentially you just dislike simplifying things and are offended by people who like streamlined rule sets. I mean it shows as you jump to attacking peoples intelligence when they put forward an obviously superior way of writing rules, which is tried and tested to work, but you prefer to have as many different descriptions of the same rule as possible, which is fine, just sort of dumb. It isn't like there are entire forums debating how rules work for this game because GW struggles with writing them coherently, but keep being wrong, it is working.
   
Made in gb
Lord of the Fleet






You started this thread because you couldn't work this out. It's crystal clear that the tactical reserves rule applies to the knight stratagem. I can only assume that you didn't actually read it. I'm not sure how you think that introducing USRs will make rules you didn't read any clearer?

How is specifying that the tactical reserve rule applies to the 9" from the enemy USR, the 1" from the enemy USR, the 9" from the edge USR and any other variations simpler than specifying that it applies to anything that arrives mid-game as reinforcements? That is a simpler and clearer rule that won't need to be amended to accomodate future special rules.

Are you asserting that it isn't clear whether the knights stratagem falls under "arrives on the battlefield mid-game as reinforcements"?

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2018/07/08 16:34:22


 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: