Switch Theme:

dead walk again DG Strat  [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 gb
Been Around the Block





Can you add poxwalkers back using dead walk again strat and string them out from the exisiting unit such that only one of the new models is in coherency of the existing models and the rest string out in coherency of each other to gain a lot of extra distance? Or do the rules specify that all resurrected models must be in coherency of models that were on the table prior to the strat being played meaning that you could only gain 2"+base size advantage using the strat?

I have seen it played on stream in multiple tournaments recently and described in various podcasts and blogs as the first option that you can go as far as you want as long as all models stay in coherency of each other regardless of if they were resurrected but recently was told by my gaming group that was wrong and can only be the second interpretation. Would appreciate your guys opinions on interpretation.

Strat reads; "Use this startagem in your command phase. Select one Poxwalkers unit from your army and roll seven d6s: for each 3+, one of the units destroyed models is added back to it with 1 wound remaining. Models added back to that unit in this way can be set up within engagement range of enemy units that are already within engagement range of that unit. Each unit can only be selected for this stratagem once per battle."

Rulebook under unit coherency:
"Some rules allow you to add models to a unit during the battle; such models must always be set up in unit coherency with the unit they are being added to. Sometimes there will be insufficient room..."

Reanimation protocols appear to work the first way as far out as you want but worded slightly differently.
   
Made in de
Prophetic Blood Angel Librarian






Germany

Yes, you can do that, as long as they remain in unit coherency.
   
Made in gb
Dakka Veteran





The first interpretation is correct. As soon as a new model is placed it is part of the unit, so you can measure coherency to that or any other newly placed model as you continue to place more models.

   
Made in gb
Been Around the Block





Thanks for the replies, the dissenting argument in my gaming group is that unlike reanimation protocols, dead walk again doesn't specify that you place them one at a time, rather that they are effectively returned simultaneously so each model as to be placed in coherency of an exisiting model.
   
Made in gb
Dakka Veteran





Roll the dice individually and for each 3+ add a model to the unit before rolling the next dice.

The strat says “seven d6s” not “7d6”, and you don’t need to roll all seven dice together.
   
Made in de
Prophetic Blood Angel Librarian






Germany

Agreed, roll the dice one at a time. The rule isnt saying that you need to roll them all at once, and that all models are placed at the same time.
   
Made in gb
Fresh-Faced New User




London

Aash wrote:
Roll the dice individually and for each 3+ add a model to the unit before rolling the next dice.

The strat says “seven d6s” not “7d6”, and you don’t need to roll all seven dice together.


"Slow rolling" works only for attacks (or actually fast rolling can only be used for resolving attacks). You roll seven dice and identify how models are added back, then you add them and need to abide by the core rule book unit coherency.

The current wording of the DG stratagem do not provide independent sequencing for each model brought back to the opposite of the Necron reanimation protocol which do permit to chain up.


Edit: 7D6 means roll 7 dice and add the result of all dice together as per page 200.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/04/20 10:58:22


 
   
Made in gb
Smokin' Skorcha Driver




London UK

This is correct as per my understanding. There is no rule for slow rolling anywhere. It is actually only specified in making attacks where it says roll 1 dice to attack then the same one to wound then resolve save. It doesn't say that anywhere else about anything else so the assumption here is that you roll 7 dice and for each 3 then add back the number of 3 ups back. It doesn't instruct you to do so one at a time or simultaneously so I am not sure which way is the correct way but I have been told to play the less advantageous way.
   
Made in gb
Dakka Veteran





 the metil wrote:
Aash wrote:
Roll the dice individually and for each 3+ add a model to the unit before rolling the next dice.

The strat says “seven d6s” not “7d6”, and you don’t need to roll all seven dice together.


"Slow rolling" works only for attacks (or actually fast rolling can only be used for resolving attacks). You roll seven dice and identify how models are added back, then you add them and need to abide by the core rule book unit coherency.

The current wording of the DG stratagem do not provide independent sequencing for each model brought back to the opposite of the Necron reanimation protocol which do permit to chain up.


Edit: 7D6 means roll 7 dice and add the result of all dice together as per page 200.


There is no such thing as “slow rolling” there is rolling and there is fast rolling. It is perfectly within the rules to play the game with one d6 and a measuring tape.

And yes, you are correct that 7D6 means adding the results together. But even here you could roll the same d6 7 times and add the results to get the total.
   
Made in gb
Smokin' Skorcha Driver




London UK

The reanimation protocol rule is not a direct comparison because it is a blanket rule that needs to be specific because it triggers in multiple phases. My feeling is that since the DWA strat triggers specifically in the command phase it allows chaining out as far as possible for capping objectives. It is after all a once per game strat so many people view it as being that powerful.
It says roll 7 D6's which is a simultaneous action and then says for each 3+ one of the units destroyed models is added back...
Doesn't the word one imply its done one at a time?

The rulebook saying must always be set up in unit coherency with the unit they are being added to, doesn't specifically say that each model added isn't part of the unit until the whole effect resolves. So I assume that each time you place a model it becomes part of the unit for coherency measurement for each subsequent model.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/04/20 12:47:25


 
   
Made in gb
Dakka Veteran





“Roll seven d6s” is no more simultaneous than “make 5 pizzas”, there is nothing to suggest the 7 dice are to be rolled at once or in sequence.

That being said, the phrasing “for each 3+, one of these ... added back” does suggest that the models are added one at a time. To be simultaneous the phrasing would be something along the lines of:
“ add back a number of models equal to the number of 3+ rolled”.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/04/20 12:51:12


 
   
Made in gb
Smokin' Skorcha Driver




London UK

This may not carry any weight at all in this discussion but the WTC faq document which is constantly being updated has ruled it as not allowed.

Under core rules general point 5:

When adding models to existing units, models have to be placed in coherency with a model that was there prior to returning a model to the unit.

I don't agree with this and the document doesn't say why they have made that ruling but thought it might add to the discussion.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/04/20 13:14:14


 
   
Made in us
Monster-Slaying Daemonhunter




I could have sworn you can't do the old "Line of chaos daemons/nids/conscripts around the map anymore due to the coherency rules, but I lent my book to my friend, so I can't check right now.

Confirm/deny all models have to be within a certain distance of each other, and you have have a line of units 15 inches long?
   
Made in gb
Decrepit Dakkanaut




They're basing that on 8th edition, and have not realised this rule does not exist in 9th.
   
Made in gb
Fresh-Faced New User




London

 Nithaniel wrote:
The reanimation protocol rule is not a direct comparison because it is a blanket rule that needs to be specific because it triggers in multiple phases. My feeling is that since the DWA strat triggers specifically in the command phase it allows chaining out as far as possible for capping objectives. It is after all a once per game strat so many people view it as being that powerful.
It says roll 7 D6's which is a simultaneous action and then says for each 3+ one of the units destroyed models is added back...
Doesn't the word one imply its done one at a time?

The rulebook saying must always be set up in unit coherency with the unit they are being added to, doesn't specifically say that each model added isn't part of the unit until the whole effect resolves. So I assume that each time you place a model it becomes part of the unit for coherency measurement for each subsequent model.


The "one model" in that part of the stratagem is in relation to how many models are brought back for any result of a 3+ on any of the 7 dice rolled.

The sequencing in the chain of action is, to my understanding, as follow:
1- Roll 7 dice (one at a time or together, with 1 dice or 7 ... doesn't matter)
2- Control how may 3+ result you obtain
3- For each 3+, a destroyed model from the unit is eligible to be brought back.
4- Add the models to the existing unit (can be in engagement range of an enemy unit if already engaged with the targeted unit)
5- Can select only once a poxwalker unit

Between 3 and 4 there is no definition or indication it is done one at a time. The dice roll and the bringing back of the model(s) is not broken into a model by model event. To be able to benefit from being a model by model addition to the unit, you need it to be specifically written.

I would not discard the necron's rule as it is clearly broken down to a model by model event:
Each time a unit's reanimation protocols are enacted, make Reanimation Protocol rolls for that unit by rolling a number of D6 equal to the combined Wounds characteristics of all the reassembling models. Each Reanimation Protocol roll of 5+ is put into a pool. A Reanimation Protocol roll can never be modified by more than -1 or +1.

If the number of dice in that pool is greater than or equal to the Wounds characteristic of any of the reassembling models, select one of those models to be Reanimated. A Reanimated model:
Is added back to its unit with its full wounds remaining.
Can only set up within Engagement Range of enemy units that are already within Engagement Range of the Reanimated model's unit.
Cannot, if it is your Charge phase, be set up closer to any enemy units that are targets of a charge declared by its unit this phase.
No longer counts as having been destroyed for the purposes of Morale tests this turn.



I've underlined the key bit... "select one of those models to be reanimated" there is no such distinction in the dead walk again, unless I have missed it?

Edit:
nosferatu1001 wrote:
They're basing that on 8th edition, and have not realised this rule does not exist in 9th.


Yes there is such a rule, page 198, quoted in the original message - all models added to an existing units have to be in coherency with the existing unit (so you cannot go any further than 2"+base size forward), unless you add one model at a time, and the model M-1 will be part of the unit when you add the model M, thus allowing chaining up.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/04/20 14:13:46


 
   
Made in de
Prophetic Blood Angel Librarian






Germany

 Nithaniel wrote:
This may not carry any weight at all in this discussion but the WTC faq document which is constantly being updated has ruled it as not allowed.


WTC rules are irrelevant here, they are house rules. We discuss GW rules here.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/04/20 14:15:13


 
   
Made in gb
Decrepit Dakkanaut




Teh - there is no rule stating the same as the WTC rule however. Their rules change requires you to note the initial_unit and only add models in coherency with that. The actual rules make no such stipulation

Prove they are added simultaneously. Until so, as the game is sequential , the models are added sequentially
   
Made in us
Monster-Slaying Daemonhunter




I still say Chaining is illegal by intent. Just because they didn't make it illegal on RP, doesn't negate the fact that they clearly wanted to disallow the practice of chained hordes.
   
Made in gb
Smokin' Skorcha Driver




London UK

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
I could have sworn you can't do the old "Line of chaos daemons/nids/conscripts around the map anymore due to the coherency rules, but I lent my book to my friend, so I can't check right now.

Confirm/deny all models have to be within a certain distance of each other, and you have have a line of units 15 inches long?


5 or less models have to be in coherency of only one other model in the unit however 6+ models in the unit have to be in coherency of 2 other models. This goes someway to managing that kind of crazy daisy chaining. However this strat triggers in the command phase and the coherency check is at the end of the turn so you could in theory bring back models and place them in coherency of only 1 model and then you have the movement phase and in theory the charge phase and consolidation and pile ins to get them back to coherency with 2 models. The rules don't require you to place them in coherency of 2 models so you could deliberately do it to cap an objective and then have them removed by the coherency rules at the end of the turn. Plus they are on 25mm so still easy to keep them in coherency of 2 others while in a line.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/04/20 14:40:55


 
   
Made in gb
Fresh-Faced New User




London

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Teh - there is no rule stating the same as the WTC rule however. Their rules change requires you to note the initial_unit and only add models in coherency with that. The actual rules make no such stipulation

Prove they are added simultaneously. Until so, as the game is sequential , the models are added sequentially


I don't look at the WTC rules because too much houserulling in there

Big rule book, page 198, second paragraph:
"Some rules allow you to add models to a unit during the battle; such models must always be set up in unit coherency with the unit they are being added to."

Underlined and bolded the last key bit. Models added to a unit are to be in coherency with the unit they are added to. You do not just to ensure you have coherency overall, but the new models must be in coherency with the existing ones, all of them (all the new ones, with an existing model).

Dead Walk Again tell you to add models (randomly determined), you decide to sequence each D6 as a different sequence, but nowhere it shows it is how the sequence must be done. So far, it says roll 7 dice and after you've rolled the 7 dices, for each 3+ you add a model. But it does not say (unless you can prove it to me) that the stratagem tell you to to roll a d6 then add a model if the result is 3+, then roll a d6 add a model and so on until you have rolled 7 dice.

You can add the models one at a time, but they are all new models added to an existing unit, not 1 model added to a unit then becomes part of the existing unit to chain up the second one and so on.

RP works like that, DWA does not provide such possibility as far as I can see.

@Nithaniel: you cannot add models without following unit coherency because even if you add one model at a time, you need to add it in unit coherency (as per page 198), so the chaining up needs to follow unit coherency all the way.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2021/04/20 14:45:07


 
   
Made in gb
Dakka Veteran





FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
I still say Chaining is illegal by intent. Just because they didn't make it illegal on RP, doesn't negate the fact that they clearly wanted to disallow the practice of chained hordes.


They still comply with all the coherency rules. Nobody is suggesting circumventing the unit coherency rules from what I’ve read, only that as each new model is added that new model is immediately part of the unit so subsequently added models can include the previously placed model when determining unit coherency.
   
Made in gb
Smokin' Skorcha Driver




London UK

 the metil wrote:


@Nithaniel: you cannot add models without following unit coherency because even if you add one model at a time, you need to add it in unit coherency (as per page 198), so the chaining up needs to follow unit coherency all the way.


Oh sorry you're right, I misread the rule, you still have to place in coherency of 2 models for 6+ model units. Still with 25mm bases you can line the unit out quite far.
   
Made in us
Virulent Space Marine dedicated to Nurgle




the metil null wrote:

Big rule book, page 198, second paragraph:
"Some rules allow you to add models to a unit during the battle; such models must always be set up in unit coherency with the unit they are being added to."



Yeah, that would seem to be the answer. The models (plural) being added must be set up with the unit to which they are being added. No one-at-a-time extending coherency, it all has to be coherent with the unit that existed at the time the rule triggered.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/04/20 15:05:10


 
   
Made in gb
Decrepit Dakkanaut




PoorGravitasHandling wrote:
the metil null wrote:

Big rule book, page 198, second paragraph:
"Some rules allow you to add models to a unit during the battle; such models must always be set up in unit coherency with the unit they are being added to."



Yeah, that would seem to be the answer. The models (plural) being added must be set up with the unit to which they are being added. No one-at-a-time extending coherency, it all has to be coherent with the unit that existed at the time the rule triggered.


Except you are creating a distinction that , in the rules, does not exist


I have unit
I add one model to it, I. Coherency
I have unit. It is still the same unit, as nothing tells you otherwise.
I add one model to it, in coherency.
I have unit, it is still the same unit, as nothing tells you otherwise

And so on.

You are creating a rule out of whole cloth: that the unit the p198 rule refers to is the unit as it was at some arbitrary time before you start adding any models at all. Unfortunately for your position, no such rule ever exists.
   
Made in us
Virulent Space Marine dedicated to Nurgle




nosferatu1001 wrote:
PoorGravitasHandling wrote:
the metil null wrote:

Big rule book, page 198, second paragraph:
"Some rules allow you to add models to a unit during the battle; such models must always be set up in unit coherency with the unit they are being added to."



Yeah, that would seem to be the answer. The models (plural) being added must be set up with the unit to which they are being added. No one-at-a-time extending coherency, it all has to be coherent with the unit that existed at the time the rule triggered.


Except you are creating a distinction that , in the rules, does not exist


I have unit
I add one model to it, I. Coherency
I have unit. It is still the same unit, as nothing tells you otherwise.
I add one model to it, in coherency.
I have unit, it is still the same unit, as nothing tells you otherwise

And so on.

You are creating a rule out of whole cloth: that the unit the p198 rule refers to is the unit as it was at some arbitrary time before you start adding any models at all. Unfortunately for your position, no such rule ever exists.


The rule is very clear, models you are adding must be added into coherency with the existing unit. The rule that allows for single model addition is one that YOU have made up out of whole cloth.
   
Made in gb
Fresh-Faced New User




London

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Except you are creating a distinction that , in the rules, does not exist


I have unit
I add one model to it, I. Coherency
I have unit. It is still the same unit, as nothing tells you otherwise.
I add one model to it, in coherency.
I have unit, it is still the same unit, as nothing tells you otherwise

And so on.

You are creating a rule out of whole cloth: that the unit the p198 rule refers to is the unit as it was at some arbitrary time before you start adding any models at all. Unfortunately for your position, no such rule ever exists.


I agree for that distinction on the necron RP as it is called out clearly by the RP that you add one model at a time, but not for DWA - as mentioned by PoorGravitasHandling, you actually force that sequencing to benefit you without any support to do so. Page 198 covers model/models added to an existing unit and prevent that chaining up.
   
Made in gb
Decrepit Dakkanaut




Nowhere is the word "existing" in the rule on p198. That's been made up.

Please show where the models are added simultaneously. Page and graph please.
   
Made in us
Virulent Space Marine dedicated to Nurgle




Please show where it says model by model.
   
Made in gb
Decrepit Dakkanaut




Already done
I can roll a single dice at a time, and each time I get a 3 up,place a model.

Nothing states you roll all dice then work out a poool

If you disagree, you're going to have to find a stipulation that you must have more than one d6 to play the game.
   
Made in us
Virulent Space Marine dedicated to Nurgle




Its clear cut, simple stuff. It says roll seven d6s not roll a d6 seven times, however you wish it otherwise. Then you count the 3+s and grab that many poxwalkers. You are then adding models back to a unit: the BRB requires that models added back be in coherency with the unit.

If you only have one D6 you can still follow the rules by rolling seven times and tallying the results rather than actioning each result as it happens, much like what you would have to do for a charge or psychic test. Sorry that your counter argument fails.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/04/21 22:41:15


 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K You Make Da Call
Go to: