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.

Neronoxx wrote:
This is seriously being debated?
"If he deploys via deepstrike, Mordrak and any unit he accompanies will automatically arrive in your first turn and will not scatter." Page 40, Grey Knights.

Yep. Mordrak may "accompany" one unit.
Hey, you know what that sounds like? It sounds like..."joining a unit!"

Oh, and Sorginak, can you please point out the page that gives you permission to "accompany a unit?" I can't find that rule in my book, is it in yours?

Dakka-daka has gone down hill as a source of good rule debating. This is not the first thread peeps on this forum have gone decidedly against a legal combination (as based on rule as written).

Mordark embarked on a transport is in fact "accompanying" the transport. Rules-wise, the two models are co-located. If the transport had firing ports, Mordrak could legally shoot his Stormbolter from that firing port. If Mordrak was not accompanying the transport, then he would not be able to legally fire his weapon from the port.

If a Strike Squad is embarked on a transport, we measure their Warp Quake from the hull of the vehicle. If the Strike Squad was not legally accompanying the transport, we would not be able to use Warp Quake at all while embarked.

These are to examples of units accompanying a transport. As such, if we follow Mordrak's First to the Frey special rule, all the is required is for Morkrak and every unit he is accompanying to be designated as deep striking. That's it. Mordrak in a Stormraven that are designated as deep striking will, by the rules as written, arrive on turn 1 without scatter. This is legal because the rules make it legal.

Debating what the word "accompany" means is a debating technique to disregard an argument by focuing on a word rather than the actual issue.

SJ

Cite sources please. I've cited what GW means when they say "with" and we've defined "accompany" as "with".

Your assertion is incorrect, and has no rules support.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:


Debating what the word "accompany" means is a debating technique to disregard an argument by focuing on a word rather than the actual issue.

SJ

The definition of the word "accompany" is the center of the debate because it's the only justification of the combination working.... it's far from a distraction.

It's also a silly tactic considering it doesn't really do all that much for you. Getting a flyer on turn one makes you vunerable to other fliers that have to come in after the SR, your opponent will always get first crack at your SR untill it goes back into reserves. At best you get a dread and a unit in the backfield (if you make it there). There are other cheaper ways to do that.

Its odd that you post that jeffersonian000, when it was ORIGINALLY the man trumpeting this tactic that pressed such heavy importance on the word "accompany."
But then, your wrong on a couple of things.
First off, models embarked in a transport are NOT actually in the transport. You only measure to and from the vehicles for other purposes. Go ahead and actually read the rules on pages 78-79. Nowhere does it state that these models "co-exist."

And the strike squad can use warp quake in a vehicle just fine, without "accompanying" it. Page 78 tells us how to perform range checks while a model or unit is embarked. "Accompanying" it is not a requirement, nor is it actually a rule term either. RAW MORDRAK'S RULE DOES NOTHING.
What we are actually arguing here is the RAI, which i have no further interest in.
The FAQ says nothing about Mordrak's rule, other than to clarify the requirement.
If you want to continue this debate, show to me and the dakkadakka community where you have Explicit permission to have Grand Master Mordrak accompany a unit. As it stands, he only has permission to join a unit, as stated such under the rules for independant characters.
Oh, and sorginak? Pg 124 of the BRB does not use the words "accompany." It uses the terms "joining a unit" and "embarked upon."
Neither of these are "accompanying."
Cite your sources.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Dakka-daka has gone down hill as a source of good rule debating. This is not the first thread peeps on this forum have gone decidedly against a legal combination (as based on rule as written).

Mordark embarked on a transport is in fact "accompanying" the transport. Rules-wise, the two models are co-located. If the transport had firing ports, Mordrak could legally shoot his Stormbolter from that firing port. If Mordrak was not accompanying the transport, then he would not be able to legally fire his weapon from the port.

If a Strike Squad is embarked on a transport, we measure their Warp Quake from the hull of the vehicle. If the Strike Squad was not legally accompanying the transport, we would not be able to use Warp Quake at all while embarked.

These are to examples of units accompanying a transport. As such, if we follow Mordrak's First to the Frey special rule, all the is required is for Morkrak and every unit he is accompanying to be designated as deep striking. That's it. Mordrak in a Stormraven that are designated as deep striking will, by the rules as written, arrive on turn 1 without scatter. This is legal because the rules make it legal.

Debating what the word "accompany" means is a debating technique to disregard an argument by focuing on a word rather than the actual issue.

SJ

"the unit". The SR is anotehr unit. Point proven without going anywhere near "accompany"

rigeld2 wrote:
Cite sources please. I've cited what GW means when they say "with" and we've defined "accompany" as "with".

Your assertion is incorrect, and has no rules support.

Pages 78, BRB, under “Transports”, there are several references to transports "carrying" units (1st paragraph, 3rd paragraph, as well as the 2nd paragraph under Dedicated Transports), units being "aboard" (last paragraph), and units shooting from inside (the entire Fire Point entry).

I ask you, how is a unit that is "inside", being "carried", and "aboard" a transport not accompanying that transport? An embarked unit is, per GW, considered to be physically present inside the transport, and even becomes Fearless while inside.

Then we have on page 80 rules detailing how passengers are affected by vehicle damage. How are passengers not accompanying the transport if they can be affected by damage the transport receives?

On page 40 of the GK codex, "First to the Frey" specifies that any unit accompanied by Mordrak is affected by that special rule. People on this thread are arguing over what "accompany" means. Common usage of "accompany" is:

Verb
1. Go somewhere with (someone) as a companion or escort.
2. Be present or occur at the same time as (something else).

Embarked, per GW's usage, means: to board a ship, aircraft, or other vehicle, as for a journey.

So, we have Mordrak embarked on a Stormraven. Wherever the Stormraven goes, Mordrak goes too, because he is accompanying the Stormraven that is carrying him inside, Stormravens have the ability to deep strike (pg. 37, GK codex). Page 32 of the BRB tells us that special rules in a codex override general rules in the BRB. If, at the start of the game, you inform you opponent that the Stormraven with Mordrak on board will be deep striking (pg. 36 BRB), all criteria for "First to the Frey" has been met. On turn 1, Mordrak as well as the Stormraven his is embarked on will arrive without scatter per the deep strike rules.

SJ

Using you definitions of accompany:
Definition 1 is relevant. Definition 2 makes no sense and is therefore irrelevant.

So lets looks at the rules and find out what GW means when they say "go somewhere with".
Oh, look - the IC rules say that an IC joins a unit by saying he's with the unit.
Therefore accompany means anyone in Mordrak's unit. Is the Stormraven or Dread in Mordrak's unit?

That's ignoring the fact that FttF refers to a single unit, and therefore could never apply to a transport as it would be an additional unit.

By your wording i could easily twist the word "accompany" and argue that my ARMY IS BEING ACCOMPANIED BY MORDRAK.

Of course you still haven't cited a BRB page giving you permission to accompany, or how mordrak is capable of bringing multiple units.
So, can i bring my ENTIRE ARMY INTO PLAY TURN 1 WITH FIRST TO THE FRAY?

By your definition, yes. Which is why we use rule number 6.

My army is going to fight a battle on the board. Mordrak is going to fight a battle on the board. Therefore my army must be accompanying Mordrak and can therefore use his rule. YAY... I love these rules twists.......

 jeffersonian000 wrote:



If a Strike Squad is embarked on a transport, we measure their Warp Quake from the hull of the vehicle. If the Strike Squad was not legally accompanying the transport, we would not be able to use Warp Quake at all while embarked.


SJ

Actually the rules tell us how to use powers like warp quake for embarked passengers. It has nothing to do with them "accompanying" the vehicle.

It seems like kind of a bad idea anyway. Mordrak won't be able to disembark first turn, leaving him vulnerable to crash and burn. The only benefit you get is a having a storm raven shooting first turn. Kind of a meager thing to attempt to bypass numerous restrictions for.

 Fafnir13 wrote:
It seems like kind of a bad idea anyway. Mordrak won't be able to disembark first turn, leaving him vulnerable to crash and burn. The only benefit you get is a having a storm raven shooting first turn. Kind of a meager thing to attempt to bypass numerous restrictions for.

Just because a option is legal does not mean the option is a good idea. The reverse is true, as just because an option is a bad idea, it doesn't make its illegal. There is nothing in the BRB nor in this thread that would disallow FttF from working with a Stormraven. People can get hung up over the meaning of "accompany" and throw around exagerations to discredit arguments they don't like. But in the end, GW has not FAQ'd FttF to not work with vehicles, plain English does allow FttF to work with any unit accompanying Mordrak not limited to those units attached to him. Arguments against are not supported in the rules as written. Rules as Written favors this combo. Even if its a bad idea.

SJ

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

 Fafnir13 wrote:
It seems like kind of a bad idea anyway. Mordrak won't be able to disembark first turn, leaving him vulnerable to crash and burn. The only benefit you get is a having a storm raven shooting first turn. Kind of a meager thing to attempt to bypass numerous restrictions for.

Just because a option is legal does not mean the option is a good idea. The reverse is true, as just because an option is a bad idea, it doesn't make its illegal. There is nothing in the BRB nor in this thread that would disallow FttF from working with a Stormraven. People can get hung up over the meaning of "accompany" and throw around exagerations to discredit arguments they don't like. But in the end, GW has not FAQ'd FttF to not work with vehicles, plain English does allow FttF to work with any unit accompanying Mordrak not limited to those units attached to him. Arguments against are not supported in the rules as written. Rules as Written favors this combo. Even if its a bad idea.

SJ

You're either purposely ignoring posts or just unable to read.

Plain English defines the word accompany as "to go with". Therefore plain English does not allow FttF to work with anything but his unit, as I've proven. You're also ignoring the Plain English requirement that his ability work on only a single unit.

Please address these 2 points instead of ignoring them.

 Sorginak wrote:

1st: Mordrak does not contain the IC special rule, but since when he is apart of a unit of Ghost Knights or by the very fact that he can be apart of them should allow that you can join any IC to him and/or his squad. I similarly join a Tyranid Prime to a unit of Carnifex for a great combined effect.

You can't join an IC to a unit that consists of a single Carnifex, because if chosen as an individual it will 'always consist of a single model'
Mordrak is a bit hazier, to be true.

 Che-Vito wrote:

 Sorginak wrote:

1st: Mordrak does not contain the IC special rule, but since when he is apart of a unit of Ghost Knights or by the very fact that he can be apart of them should allow that you can join any IC to him and/or his squad. I similarly join a Tyranid Prime to a unit of Carnifex for a great combined effect.

You can't join an IC to a unit that consists of a single Carnifex, because if chosen as an individual it will 'always consist of a single model'
Mordrak is a bit hazier, to be true.

That's actually an incorrect statement. IC's cannot join units that always consist of 1 model. Carnifex Broods (units) do not always consist of 1 model.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

 Fafnir13 wrote:
It seems like kind of a bad idea anyway. Mordrak won't be able to disembark first turn, leaving him vulnerable to crash and burn. The only benefit you get is a having a storm raven shooting first turn. Kind of a meager thing to attempt to bypass numerous restrictions for.

Just because a option is legal does not mean the option is a good idea. The reverse is true, as just because an option is a bad idea, it doesn't make its illegal. There is nothing in the BRB nor in this thread that would disallow FttF from working with a Stormraven. People can get hung up over the meaning of "accompany" and throw around exagerations to discredit arguments they don't like. But in the end, GW has not FAQ'd FttF to not work with vehicles, plain English does allow FttF to work with any unit accompanying Mordrak not limited to those units attached to him. Arguments against are not supported in the rules as written. Rules as Written favors this combo. Even if its a bad idea.

SJ

Seriously?
RAW doesnt support this at all, because there are no rules for accompanying. How can you even confuse this? Once again, find me a section in the BRB that discusses the rules for "accompanying."
Oh yeah, i already asked you this. And you failed to address this, because you actually can't. There are no rules supporting ANY of your claims. Yet thats what you are accusing others of?
Maybe they don't need rules to support their side of the argument because the sheer lack of rules kills your argument? You haven't even addressed the fact that Mordrak's rule only allows him to bring in ONE UNIT!
This is over and you need to acknowledge it. I mean for cryjng out loud, YOU HAVE TO TWIST AND INVENT RULES TO SUPPORT YOUR ARGUMENT!!

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

 Fafnir13 wrote:
It seems like kind of a bad idea anyway. Mordrak won't be able to disembark first turn, leaving him vulnerable to crash and burn. The only benefit you get is a having a storm raven shooting first turn. Kind of a meager thing to attempt to bypass numerous restrictions for.

Just because a option is legal does not mean the option is a good idea. The reverse is true, as just because an option is a bad idea, it doesn't make its illegal. There is nothing in the BRB nor in this thread that would disallow FttF from working with a Stormraven. People can get hung up over the meaning of "accompany" and throw around exagerations to discredit arguments they don't like. But in the end, GW has not FAQ'd FttF to not work with vehicles, plain English does allow FttF to work with any unit accompanying Mordrak not limited to those units attached to him. Arguments against are not supported in the rules as written. Rules as Written favors this combo. Even if its a bad idea.

SJ

Please stop ignoring the posts in the thread proving you wrong, it is irritating.

How many units does FTF allow you to bring along? ONE. How many units are you claiming this allows? TWO. Currently, using accepted axioms, 1 != 2

Last time I checked, "any" does not mean "pick one". "Any unit" that accompanies Mordrak can mean his Ghosts, each attached Independent Character, and/or a deep striking transport + passengers. The rule does not say "attached units", nor does it say "only Mordrak and his Ghost Knights". The rule says "any unit", which means form one up to all from a group. "Any" does not mean "every", yet "all" came be included in "any" just as easily as "one".

I am not ignoring past posts in the thread, I simply disagree with the assertion that First to the Frey disallows transports based on the word "accompany" being defined by people on this thread to exclude the possibility of the vehicle Mordrak is in. GW does not write "tight" rules, and their use of English as a language is quite poor for an English company. Yet until GW publishes an FAQ that specifically disallows First to the Frey from including the Stromraven currently transporting Mordrak, there is not a single set of rules you can point to that disallow this option. And hinging your argument on the meaning of the work "accompany" is not acceptable until you can point out where in the BRB "accompany" is defined is only attached units.

Per Raw, embarked models are considered to be inside the transport. Wherever the transport goes, the models inside go with it. One can even say that the embarked models are "accompanying" the transport since they are, per RAW, consider to be co-located. No new rules were invented, no existing rules were twisted. If Mordrak is placed in reserved and is designated as deep striking, First to the Frey allows him to arrive on the first turn without scatter. If Mordrak has Ghosts, they go with him. If Mordrak was any attacked ICs, they go with him. If Mordrak is inside a Stormraven, the Stormraven goes with him. If there is a Dreadnought grappled to the Stormraven, the Dreadnought goes with him. Because they are all co-located with him, deep striking with him, accompanying him is a single unit for the purpose of reserves. All criteria for First to the Frey are met. And if you think "to go with" does not include every unit he is lumped together with in reserve, which arrive at the same time, in the exact same place, then you need to reexamine your own argument!

SJ

No, they cannot be considered to "accompany" their embarked passengers. We know that because of the definition of the word accompanying. And I didn't define that word - people on your side did, I'm merely using the provided definition to prove you wrong. Would you care to provide another one?

And please find the citation that says units are co-located when embarked. It's irrelevant to the discussion, but I'm curious.

I already asked him to cite where it states that units and vehicles are co-located in the BRB, and he wasn't able to.
He provided a bunch of other rules, but no concrete RAW rule.

And i rest my case, as jeffersonian wasn't able to actually provide any support for his argument other than whats been stated. He cited no pages, no rules and no faqs, yet insists that by RAW it is acceptable. He clearly either doesn't understand RAW, or is simply trolling. He also doesnt understand the argument, insisting that it is those against the combo that are making definitions and such....
Its like he didn't even read the thread.

Jeffersonian - so, still no rules to back your assertion up?

Good, then its a houserule.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
GW does not write "tight" rules, and their use of English as a language is quite poor for an English company:

...If Mordrak is placed in reserved and is designated as deep striking, First to the Frey allows him to arrive on the first turn without scatter. If Mordrak has Ghosts, they go with him. If Mordrak was any attacked ICs, they go with him...

SJ

Isn't it just the pot calling the kettle black when you use the wrong tense and verb in your own post?

Also, where about in the rulebook does it say that transports and embarked units are "Co-located"? (genuine question).

I love how you guys say I'm ignoring your post, or that I didn't read your posts, when you have failed to read mine. I have posted each page and paragraph for every rule I cited.

And how is pointing on an error in tense supposed to invalidate an example? The "D" is right next to the "S" on a standard QWERTY keyboard. My apologies for fat-fingering a tense related typo.

Co-located is term that means in the same space. The BRB points out in several passages in the transport section that passengers are considered to be inside, being carried, and aboard. So, if you are inside, being carried, and/or aboard, you are sharing the same location, hence my use of the term co-located. My apologies for using a term that the educated masses in this thread are unfamiliar with. I endeavor to avoid further terms such as deconflicted, discommended, and that big doozy interpenetrated.

SJ

How do you reconcile the singular "unit" which is allowed to benefit from FttF? If the Stormraven could also benefit, that would be two units, plural.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
I love how you guys say I'm ignoring your post, or that I didn't read your posts, when you have failed to read mine. I have posted each page and paragraph for every rule I cited.

You've cited 2 page numbers - BRB 78 and GK 40. Neither defines "co-located" or "accompany".

Co-located is term that means in the same space. The BRB points out in several passages in the transport section that passengers are considered to be inside, being carried, and aboard. So, if you are inside, being carried, and/or aboard, you are sharing the same location, hence my use of the term co-located. My apologies for using a term that the educated masses in this thread are unfamiliar with. I endeavor to avoid further terms such as deconflicted, discommended, and that big doozy interpenetrated.

For someone who entered the thread saying that Dakka had lost its debating skills, your continued patronization isn't really helping.
Its not that we don't know the definition, its that when you discuss rules and make rules based assertions, you should be able to back those assertions up with, you know, actual rules.

Do you have any rebuttal to my posts proving that accompany must mean Modrak's unit?

I never said Dakka lost their debating skills, I stated that Dakka has lost their ability to discuss rules in an objective manner. The single minded focus on debate and the debating skills of posters is only an added benefit when the outcome is positive. It becomes a detraction when a rule question turns into an argument over why the poorly written rule set creates loopholes that exclude options printed in other books. It is as if the mind set of this forum is to disprove all possibilities that exist outside of a very narrow point of view.

For example, the OP asked for advice on the legality of using a Special Character's special rule to set up a neat combo. Per the rules as written, the combo is doable. Per some of the posters, the combo is not. This could be a value added debate as to the merits of both arguments for or against, but it isn't. What we have is one side using strict adherence to classic debating model as a method to drive the other point of view out of existence. In a debating class, that is a good thing. In a court of law, it’s a required thing. In a public forum, it generates a negative atmosphere that borders on hostile.

GW does not write rules that can stand up in a court of law. Debating from a position that the rules must adhere to such a strictly legal venue is pointless, especially when GW has gone out of their way in this rule set to point out the need to take a step back and look at the story rather than follow the rules blindly (see "Spirit of the Game" and "Forging a Narrative").

We have one side focused on the words "accompany", "any", and "unit" to mean "only those units attached following the rules for attached units". Yet, nowhere in the current rule set does it state that “accompany", "any", and "unit" strictly means "only those units attached following the rules for attached units". In 6th edition, GW has loosely defined how multiple units can be clustered together and treated as a single unit for specific actions, such as Independent Characters joining other units, how passengers are treated when embarked on transports, and how attached units are treated while in reserve. GW has also printed a rule that states, "special rules in codices override general rules in the main rule book." Taken in a vacuum, a logical argument can be made against First to the Frey working with any models other than Mordrak and his attached Ghost Knights. However, the 6th edition rule set is not a vacuum. There are several loosely defined concepts at work within this body of rules. First to the Frey does not specify which units are affected beyond "Mordrak and any unit he accompanies". From this the Dakka Debating Society reduces the interactions down to Mordrak, his Ghost Knights (if present), and any attached ICs (if present). A broader reading of the rules, which is apparently needed due to the loose nature of the rule set, shows that there are additional units that can be affected, such as transports and other accompanying units such as passengers in that transport. Did GW envision this usage? Who knows other than GW, but I doubt if.

The Stormraven is a unique unit in (non-Apocalypse) 40k in that it can legally carry more than one unit, up to 12 models in the passenger compartment as well as one Dreadnought grappled to its rear. Stormravens also include special rules that make them Flyers with the ability to Deep Strike. This nets us a complex unit that while placed in reserve counts as a single unit when deploying on to the table, despite being upwards to 14 separate units given enough points (up to 12 ICs, 1 Dread, and the ‘Raven).

Now we have Mordrak, a Special Character that is not an Independent Character, who may be treated as an Upgrade Character when accompanied by Ghost Knights. Mordrak also has this pesky special rule that lets him as well as any unit he accompanies to arrive on turn 1 via deep strike, but only if you reserve him with the express purpose of deep striking from reserve.

The OP suggests taking Mordrak, a small unit of Ghosts, and an attached Librarian, and placing them inside a Stormraven that is designated to deep strike when deployed.

Mordrak is in reserve and designated to deep strike. Check!
He is being accompanied by his Ghost Knights. Check!
He is being accompanied by a Librarian. Check!
He is inside a Stromraven. Check!

Per the reserve rules, Mordrak+Ghosts+Libby+Raven are considered a single unit for deployment. First to the Frey is a special rule that overrides the normal sequence of events at deployment. As Mordrak is literally attached, aka accompanying, aka grouped together into a single unit for deployment purposes, the entire group deploys on turn 1 via deep strike without scatter. No rules are broken. No rules are twisted. The logic chain followed started at placing those units together in reserve, designating them for deep strike, First to the Frey kicks in, the combined unit arrives together per the reserve rules, the deep strike rules, and modified by First to the Frey. All criteria are met.

SJ

 jeffersonian000 wrote:


Now we have Mordrak, a Special Character that is not an Independent Character, who may be treated as an Upgrade Character when accompanied by Ghost Knights. Mordrak also has this pesky special rule that lets him as well as any unit he accompanies to arrive on turn 1 via deep strike

SJ

However, Mordrak's rule states that he and the unit that he accompanies. Not "any".

Would this not suggest that he could only ever "accompany" one unit and therefore, could not affect the Stormraven?

Yet again, they are not the same unit. Ever.

You are allowed a single unit with Mordrak, you are trying to bring two. That is cheating. Not RAW, no matter how many times you claim so, your continued inability to actualy post ANY rules as written shows the problem with your argument

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
As Mordrak is literally attached, aka accompanying, aka grouped together into a single unit for deployment purposes, the entire group deploys on turn 1 via deep strike without scatter. No rules are broken. No rules are twisted. The logic chain followed started at placing those units together in reserve, designating them for deep strike, First to the Frey kicks in, the combined unit arrives together per the reserve rules, the deep strike rules, and modified by First to the Frey. All criteria are met.

Absolutely and demonstrably false.
You're ignoring the absolute fact that GW has defined what "to go with" means.
GW doesn't define all words, so we have to look at the English language definition of "accompany".

What you're trying to do is analyze the rules for Intent - which is fine. But that's not Rules as they are Written. Mordrak is not - in the context of GW rules - accompanying the vehicle he's embarked in. You've refused to cite any rules supporting that assertion, and I've cited multiple rules demonstrating that "to go with" means to be joined to a unit in the context of GW rules.