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.

With Tempestus Drop Force revealed, I’m gonna milk it if I can.

The rules for embarking in a transport refer to the end of the unit’s move, it can embark, yes? And with Valkyries, they can drop their embarked models through grav-chute insertion on the same turn, yes?
And that is disembarking, yes?
So, is there anything stopping me from grav-chuting a Scion squad in with the Grav-Chute Commando Warlord, get the +1 to hit, finish that battle round, take my next turn, and immediately having that Scion squad and Warlord hop into the Valkyrie and drop out again, getting +1 to hit again?

I ask as the grab-chute insertion rule in the codex refers to the Valkyrie’s move, and not the embarked units’.

It would help if you could link these revealed rules, we can't help you if we don't have the information. However, the BRB, page 183, states "a unit cannot both embark and disembark in the same turn." You cannot embark and then disembark via Grav-chute Insertion in the same turn, unless something in this new formation says otherwise.

Oh darn. Well, I can upload a crappy pic, but if you have the time, Guerrilla War Gaming, Winters Seo, and those kind of Youtubers have got copies of CA18 and Vigilus Defiant.

It’s in VD, along with the rest of them.

Also, important to note, the Tempestus Drop Force explicitly make the Valkyries in Scion detachments that become Tempestus Drop Forces “Tempestus Drop Force Valkyries.” I know GW is stupid, BCB, but they only hate GK. I think this is the big confirmation that Scions can take units from the Advisors and Auxillia list and keep their doctrine.

These look ok to you?

It's getting extremely frustrating how GW constantly makes the same mistakes again and again. All precedent indicates that you cannot normally use stratagems on embarked units, the latest Ork FAQ included, but the only way this stratagem does anything whatsoever is if you can use it on a unit embarked on a Valkyrie, since it doesn't exempt them from the "cannot both embark and disembark in the same turn" rule.

The only solution is for GW to Special Snowflake that one stratagem to work on embarked units, or for the stratagem to add an exception.

Between this and the Veteran Intercessor stratagems not working either, I am genuinely beginning to wonder if GW has any proofreaders whatsoever.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
It's getting extremely frustrating how GW constantly makes the same mistakes again and again. All precedent indicates that you cannot normally use stratagems on embarked units, the latest Ork FAQ included, but the only way this stratagem does anything whatsoever is if you can use it on a unit embarked on a Valkyrie, since it doesn't exempt them from the "cannot both embark and disembark in the same turn" rule.

The only solution is for GW to Special Snowflake that one stratagem to work on embarked units, or for the stratagem to add an exception.

Between this and the Veteran Intercessor stratagems not working either, I am genuinely beginning to wonder if GW has any proofreaders whatsoever.

It says to use the stratagem on the Tempestus Drop Force Valkyrie, not the unit within. The units benefit.

 Apple Peel wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
It's getting extremely frustrating how GW constantly makes the same mistakes again and again. All precedent indicates that you cannot normally use stratagems on embarked units, the latest Ork FAQ included, but the only way this stratagem does anything whatsoever is if you can use it on a unit embarked on a Valkyrie, since it doesn't exempt them from the "cannot both embark and disembark in the same turn" rule.

The only solution is for GW to Special Snowflake that one stratagem to work on embarked units, or for the stratagem to add an exception.

Between this and the Veteran Intercessor stratagems not working either, I am genuinely beginning to wonder if GW has any proofreaders whatsoever.

It says to use the stratagem the Tempestus Drop Force Valkyrie, not unit within. The units within the benefit

Yeah, my bad I just saw that. I blame the fact it's nearly 6am (that's my story and I am sticking to it ) Still, no exemption from the embark/disembark rule, so you can't use it on the same turn as you embark. So while it works, it's still very limited in it's usefulness, most likely due to whoever wrote the rule forgetting you can't embark and disembark in the same turn.

The Intercessor stratagems are still broken though, so I am salty about that.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Apple Peel wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
It's getting extremely frustrating how GW constantly makes the same mistakes again and again. All precedent indicates that you cannot normally use stratagems on embarked units, the latest Ork FAQ included, but the only way this stratagem does anything whatsoever is if you can use it on a unit embarked on a Valkyrie, since it doesn't exempt them from the "cannot both embark and disembark in the same turn" rule.

The only solution is for GW to Special Snowflake that one stratagem to work on embarked units, or for the stratagem to add an exception.

Between this and the Veteran Intercessor stratagems not working either, I am genuinely beginning to wonder if GW has any proofreaders whatsoever.

It says to use the stratagem the Tempestus Drop Force Valkyrie, not unit within. The units within the benefit

Yeah, my bad I just saw that. Still, no exemption from the embark/disembark rule, so you can't use it on the same turn as you embark.

Have you gotten to hear about the other stratagem yet?

 Apple Peel wrote:
Have you gotten to hear about the other stratagem yet?

No, I am not actively following leaks because I am lazy. I'll get the book when it releases and tear it apart as I always do. Is there something wrong with that stratagem?

No, it’s very good. Aerial Support. I can’t remember if you choose a Valkyrie or the infantry unit that is charged, but if there is a Valkyrie within 6” of a charged Scion unit, it can fire over watch on a 4+. The mechanized specialist detachment gets something similar for Chimeras, I think.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
So while it works, it's still very limited in it's usefulness, most likely due to whoever wrote the rule forgetting you can't embark and disembark in the same turn.

Well it lets you effectively deepstrike within 45" on turn one. You could do that anyway, but now you don't take casualties. The embark/disembark probably won't come up, as they will be dead after that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Can stratagems not be used on things inside transports? That explains the wording on the Rapid Redeploy stratagem:

Use this Stratagem at the end of your movement phase. An Emperor's Blade unit embarked within an Emperor's Blade Chimera or an Emperor's Blade Taurox can disembark. That unit cannot move further in this phase, but can otherwise act normally for the rest of the turn. That unit counts as having moved for any rules purposes, such as shooting Heavy weapons.

I hadn't noticed until you pointed it out, but you don't actually use it on the unit. You just use it, and it gives you the general ability to disembark a single squad.

Wahahahahaha...

They STILL can't get it right...

Drop Forces can't have the Stormtroopers Doctrine if they have a Valkyrie in the force...

Slayer6 wrote:
Wahahahahaha...

They STILL can't get it right...

Drop Forces can't have the Stormtroopers Doctrine if they have a Valkyrie in the force...

If you're really, really, going to insist this is how the rules work, there's nothing to stop you putting the Valkayries in an Air Wing Detachment + 1 CP, and then spending said CP on making that a Tempestus Drop Force too, since the effects arn't restricted to the Stormtroopers dropping from a Valkayrie in the same detachment, just that it has the relevent keyword.

 Trickstick wrote:

Can stratagems not be used on things inside transports?

No.

Transports
Embarked units cannot normally do anything or be affected in any
way whilst they are embarked.

Only if the stratagem were to explicitly allow the targeting of embarked units. Which it doesn't.

It's pretty clear it's supposed to though!

Slayer6 wrote:
Wahahahahaha...

They STILL can't get it right...

Drop Forces can't have the Stormtroopers Doctrine if they have a Valkyrie in the force...

That has never been true. Literally the paragraph after the "all tempetus" rule says that certain units don't stop you getting doctrines. Not really the place to argue it though, and it is an old debate at this point.

 Trickstick wrote:

Slayer6 wrote:
Wahahahahaha...

They STILL can't get it right...

Drop Forces can't have the Stormtroopers Doctrine if they have a Valkyrie in the force...

That has never been true. Literally the paragraph after the "all tempetus" rule says that certain units don't stop you getting doctrines. Not really the place to argue it though, and it is an old debate at this point.

The rule literally says "MILITARUM TEMPESTUS units do not themselves benefit from any Regimental Doctrine unless every unit in that Detachment is from the Militarum Tempestus (in which case they will gain the Storm Troopers doctrine)." I don't see how it could be any more clear, Militarum Tempestus have a different rule regarding Auxillia than other Regiments.

But as it stands the formation actually cannot be applied to a detachment with a Valkyrie in it, period. The rule says "Pick a MILITARUM TEMPESTUS Detachment from your army to be a Tempestus Drop Force Specialist Detachment." Even if the Auxillia rule worked like people want it to work, it doesn't matter because the Auxillia rule doesn't stop the detachment from no longer being a MILITARUM TEMPESTUS Detachment, it just means you still benefit from the Doctrine even though it's no longer a MILITARUM TEMPESTUS Detachment.

Simple analogy, is a patrol detachment that contains a BLOOD ANGELS Captain and an ULTRAMARINE Scout Squad a BLOOD ANGELS detachment? Clearly it is not, and thus the same is true for a detachment that contains both MILITARUM TEMPESTUS and AERONAUTICA IMPERIALIS. Likewise, an Air Wing Detachment with just a Valkyrie in it is in no way, shape, or form a MILITARUM TEMPESTUS Detachment.

Oh not this one AGAIN...

Let it go, man. It’s off topic and I believe you’re wrong. This is a well-beaten dead horse. Let’s not...

If you're going to get all technical on us, why not point out the obvious problem that there is no definition for a Militarium Tempestus Detachment?

 alextroy wrote:
If you're going to get all technical on us, why not point out the obvious problem that there is no definition for a Militarium Tempestus Detachment?

I mean, that is also a fair point, there is no definition like there is for "ASTRA MILITARUM Detachments" (page 132: Codex Astra Copywritum). But then again the game never defines what a Roll is either, so at some point you need to just fall back to English Parsing. But I actually agree with you here they forgot to define it.

It's a classic GW rules oversight. They know what they mean. It doesn't take a genius to infer what they mean. But once again they don't explicitly state what they mean. It should be Astra Militarum Detachment with Regiment of Militarum Tempestus.

 alextroy wrote:
It's a classic GW rules oversight. They know what they mean. It doesn't take a genius to infer what they mean. But once again they don't explicitly state what they mean. It should be Astra Militarum Detachment with Regiment of Militarum Tempestus.

As BGB has pointed out however, that would still be impossible if it had any Valkaryries in it...

How about an Astra Militarum Detachment with the Storm Troopers regimental doctrine?

Just to make things more complicated (since you can pick Storm Troopers as a Doctrine without having Militarum Tempestus still afaik...)

AdmiralHalsey wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
It's a classic GW rules oversight. They know what they mean. It doesn't take a genius to infer what they mean. But once again they don't explicitly state what they mean. It should be Astra Militarum Detachment with Regiment of Militarum Tempestus.

As BGB has pointed out however, that would still be impossible if it had any Valkaryries in it...

Debatable, which this detachment implies is not the correct reading of the rules.

Of course I subscribe to the philosophy that rules are supposed to work and should be interpreted in a way that allows them to work.

 alextroy wrote:

AdmiralHalsey wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
It's a classic GW rules oversight. They know what they mean. It doesn't take a genius to infer what they mean. But once again they don't explicitly state what they mean. It should be Astra Militarum Detachment with Regiment of Militarum Tempestus.

As BGB has pointed out however, that would still be impossible if it had any Valkaryries in it...

Debatable, which this detachment implies is not the correct reading of the rules.

Of course I subscribe to the philosophy that rules are supposed to work and should be interpreted in a way that allows them to work.

The flaw in that logic is that GW have demonstrably proven it false, with numerous errata to "problems" that cause the rules to "not work" (e.g. Single Use Weapons being forced to fire, the difference between keywords and names in Astra Copywritum Stratagems, the Deathwatch Intercessor Sergeant issue, just off the top of my head), thus imho proving that the rules that "don't work" are how GW want the rules to work, otherwise they would have changed them (because they have long been made aware of the issues).

Stop repeatedly posting this fallacy. Please. You’re back to derailing threads and will no doubt get them locked, which benefits no-one.

Lack of errata in no way equals intent. You’d think someone with your signature would know that, but hey, whatever.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
How about an Astra Militarum Detachment with the Storm Troopers regimental doctrine?

Just to make things more complicated (since you can pick Storm Troopers as a Doctrine without having Militarum Tempestus still afaik...)

That would definately not in any way be a millitium tempestus detachment.

AdmiralHalsey wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
How about an Astra Militarum Detachment with the Storm Troopers regimental doctrine?

Just to make things more complicated (since you can pick Storm Troopers as a Doctrine without having Militarum Tempestus still afaik...)

That would definately not in any way be a millitium tempestus detachment.

To be fair, nor is any detachment that includes Valkyries, since not every unit in the detachment would have the keyword.

Can the unit grav shoot deploy more than 9 inches away and then move closer than 9”? Or advance?

 kaiservonhugal wrote:
Can the unit grav shoot deploy more than 9 inches away and then move closer than 9”? Or advance?

Yes a unit dropping from a Valk in this way can move and act normally the rest of the turn.
That's the thing that makes it powerful with Scions, you can disembark at 9", then move closer; into rapid fire range for your hot-shots, and/or into close range for melta-guns. Also good for any close combat units you may use to, get into a turn 1 charge - as the stratagem here does not specify what units may be in the Valkyrie, so you can have anything in there that's allowed (Bullgryns or Crusaders + Priest, or whatever)