Deathwing Assault

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.

**DeathReaper**

DevianID wrote:
Where, in the DWA rules, do they override the 50%?

Where, in the DWA rules, do they use the Reserve mission special rule in the first place?

Citation needed. Page and Graph please

DWA arrives by deepstrike, DWA are NEVER making a deep strike. Also, they arrive with no need to roll for reserve. Reserve and reserve are different things.

Units making a deep strike must use the Reserve special rule. Units arriving by deep strike but not making a deep strike do not use the Reserve mission special rule.

This all boils down to the anti-DWA side claiming that DWA uses the Reserves mission special rule in order to make a DWA. This has no RAW backing, as you can be placed in reserve with a special rule other than the Reserve special rule. Because we have precedent for codex special rules placing units in reserve without the Reserve special rule being used, and DWA does not use nor need the Reserve mission special rule to be refrenced in the Dark Angels rule writeup, it is crazy to apply a random mission special rule to a self contained codex special rule.

your statements are incorrect.

Arrives by DS = Making a DS.

They arrive from reserve as proven in this thread.

**hyv3mynd**

DevianID wrote:
Where, in the DWA rules, do they override the 50%?

Where, in the DWA rules, do they use the Reserve mission special rule in the first place?

Citation needed. Page and Graph please

DWA arrives by deepstrike, DWA are NEVER making a deep strike. Also, they arrive with no need to roll for reserve. Reserve and reserve are different things.

Units making a deep strike must use the Reserve special rule. Units arriving by deep strike but not making a deep strike do not use the Reserve mission special rule.

This all boils down to the anti-DWA side claiming that DWA uses the Reserves mission special rule in order to make a DWA. This has no RAW backing, as you can be placed in reserve with a special rule other than the Reserve special rule. Because we have precedent for codex special rules placing units in reserve without the Reserve special rule being used, and DWA does not use nor need the Reserve mission special rule to be refrenced in the Dark Angels rule writeup, it is crazy to apply a random mission special rule to a self contained codex special rule.

Is this for real or a troll?

You're saying arriving by deep strike is not deep striking?

Units arriving by deep strike must be placed in reserve. You're saying Reserve and reserve are different?

I can't believe and part of this post is serious.

**Blacksheep8Delta**

Quick question.
Has anyone tried to used dwa to bring an entire army in at an offical setting (tourniment or what not) and got some kind of offical standing? I've read a lot of the forum thread (until it got repeative, no offence to anyone) and just wondered if anyone of any actual compasitiy made a ruling.
Seen the value of both sides, and as someone that wanted a full dwa army I really want to believe it works, but the nay side has very strong footing.
Thanks in advanced.
Ps we should petition gw to post an offical to come in on these hard debates that go dozens of pages like warmachine does.

**DeathReaper**

TO's rulings are not official. so that would not help.

I have seen a TO's rule on it, but again nothing official so it means only as much as our conversation in this thread.

**Blacksheep8Delta**

Well for my own info, how did they rule?

**40k-noob**

rigeld2 wrote:
40k-noob wrote:
rigeld2 wrote:
40k-noob wrote:
As has been demonstrated previously by me and others, there is no 50% rule, it is a false statement, a myth that never existed.

And as has been explained both sides use it as shorthand. Instead of insulting people, how about dropping this part of your "argument"?

When did I insult anyone?

Saying that everyone is perpetuating a myth is insulting. It's tantamount to calling someone a liar. I know that's not your intent.

so being wrong about a rule makes it ok because both sides use it?

No one has been "wrong" about the rule. We just shorten it to the 50% rule because that's a hell of a lot easier than typing "half of your units rounded up".

After reading the Reserves rule umpteen times because of this thread I realize that it just makes things worse because it leads to an incorrect understanding of the rule.

It really doesn't.

No sorry, but I don't accept that.

Calling out where someone is wrong is not insulting them or calling them a liar. It is merely pointing out the flaw in the position.

if it were an insult, then this whole forum is just one insult after another because people are always saying the other person is wrong in this forum.

I mean should I be insulted because you just told me I was wrong?

As for the "50%" rule, just call it what it is, The Reserves Rule. That is just as simple and 100% accurate.

**Happyjew**

Does it really matter if people refer to it as the 50% rule as shorthand? Besides, we cannot call it the "Reserve Rule" as that has a defined meaning and is composed of multiple rules.

**rigeld2**

40k-noob wrote:
Calling out where someone is wrong is not insulting them or calling them a liar. It is merely pointing out the flaw in the position.

There's a difference between saying "This is wrong." And "This is a myth that someone made up."

As for the "50%" rule, just call it what it is, The Reserves Rule. That is just as simple and 100% accurate.

Or how about the people who are involved in the discussion use what's been agreed on and instead of jumping in the middle and calling it a "myth" you understand the reference.

**40k-noob**

rigeld2 wrote:
40k-noob wrote:
Calling out where someone is wrong is not insulting them or calling them a liar. It is merely pointing out the flaw in the position.

There's a difference between saying "This is wrong." And "This is a myth that someone made up."

As for the "50%" rule, just call it what it is, The Reserves Rule. That is just as simple and 100% accurate.

Or how about the people who are involved in the discussion use what's been agreed on and instead of jumping in the middle and calling it a "myth" you understand the reference.

I guess i should be offended, the "yes" side was accused of "making up rules" early on in this thread.

oh well

If I offended anyone, I apologize, that was never my intent.

With that I am done here.

**Nivek5150**

Remember 10 pages ago when you brought it up, and BOTH sides told you we know it's 50% rounded up, but we aren't going to type out the entire rule every time we mention it?

**nosferatu1001**

Devian - the use of the reserves rule has been proven repeatedly. Repeating a false argument isnt helping your credibility in this subject.

**FlingitNow**

rigeld2 wrote:
FlingitNow wrote:

Or Rigelds interpretation which requires using rules at times you are not permitted. Creating definitions that contradict the rules and causing all sorts of sequencing issues.

It really doesn't, no matter what you want to pretend.

For your interpretation (I'm calling it your interpretation because you are the only one on your side who's actually trying to explain your argument using rules):

You have to assume DWA is part of deploying your army with nothing telling you that it is.

And either

Conclude DWA forces first turn
or
Redefine deploying a unit as making a decision on that units deployment which contradicts the rulebook as under that definition putting a unit is reserve is deploying it which the rulebook tells is it is not.

**nosferatu1001**

With the final part of your false dichotomy being that under YOUR interpretation neither side can every finish deploying.

So, going for the one which doesnt result in an unplayable mess AND doesnt let DWA break the "50% rule" seems most sensible.

**FlingitNow**

I've already answered the never finishing deployment argument. The rules tell you that normally you must deploy all your units. The reserves rule breaks this by telling you that some units can do something different instead.

Plus your repeatedly false claim that DWA breaks the 50% rule. As illustrated repeatedly it does not.

Yours breaks the 50% rule as it requires reserves = deploying units which that rule prevents.

**nosferatu1001**

No, as you have claimed repeatedly it doesnt break it. That doesnt make your claim true.

This thread should have been locked a long time ago, when the largest egg hunt since ram-assaults was in its infancy.

**FlingitNow**

Because no one has shown how it breaks the reserves rule. People change the rule and say it breaks that. But no one has shown it breaks the rule as written.

**nosferatu1001**

We have, repeatedly. You just refuse to acknowledge it, and make up annoying rhetorical questions.

You have permission to alter one part of Reserves - the requirement to roll for which turn you turn up. There is no permission to break the other part of Reserves

And no, do not repeat the falsehood that you occasionally return to, that DWA does not use Reserves, because it does do so, as has been proven.

**FlingitNow**

So you are now breaking DWA by saying it only changes the roll. It does not occur during deploy your army. Which is what you require to prove.

So rules citation showing that DWA occurs not when it says it occurs please.

**nosferatu1001**

Which we've already been through, and proven, seeminly every other page now for 19 pages.

Your continued attempts at ignoring arguments is getting tiresome, so at this point, with the point sufficientlyproven in my mind (and importantly our local groups and tournament organisers I liaise with) I will bow out; unless someoen is able to come up with a genuinely new or persuasive argument to the contrary: DWA doesnt get to break the reserves limit.

**reds8n**

19 pages seems sufficient to hash this out, let's hope GW provide some guidance sooner rather than later.