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.

 Abandon wrote:
Why would you assume a unit using the rules for deep striking is actually deep striking?

No matter how many times you ask that question, the answer is going to be the same.

Abandon wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
If I attempt to eat a biscuit, and am successful, what did I just do?

If I eat a cookie using the rules for eating biscuits I've still only eaten a cookie. Any rule stating people eating biscuits can't run for a half hour would not effect me because that's not what I did.

Excellent. Now please answer the question I actually asked.

You agreed earlier in the thread that the unit performing the GoI is making a Deep Strike attempt'. So a unit using GoI is attempting to Deep Strike, using the rules for Deep Strike.

So your analogy is flawed. You're not eating a cookie using the rules for eating biscuits. You're attempting to eat a biscuit using the rules for eating biscuits. It's just that in this case the biscuits were in a jar marked 'cookies'.

So, again, if I attempt to eat a biscuit, and am successful, did I just eat a bisciut?

I agreed you had to make a deep strike attempt per the DS rules you are told to use. That attempt is referenced and slightly altered.

Still a cookie.

Note: If the BRB labeled a jar of biscuits 'Cookies' then per RAW they are cookies.

 Abandon wrote:
I agreed you had to make a deep strike attempt per the DS rules you are told to use. That attempt is referenced and slightly altered.

So you agree that you make a deep strike attempt using the deep strike rules... but still think that if that attempt is successful you have done something other than a deep strike?


Yeah, I think we're done here.

 insaniak wrote:

 Abandon wrote:
I agreed you had to make a deep strike attempt per the DS rules you are told to use. That attempt is referenced and slightly altered.

So you agree that you make a deep strike attempt using the deep strike rules... but still think that if that attempt is successful you have done something other than a deep strike?

It's a bit counter intuitive but yes

 insaniak wrote:
Yeah, I think we're done here.

Just responding here, we can be done any time people like. Kind of hungry now anyways.

 Abandon wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 Abandon wrote:
I agreed you had to make a deep strike attempt per the DS rules you are told to use. That attempt is referenced and slightly altered.

So you agree that you make a deep strike attempt using the deep strike rules... but still think that if that attempt is successful you have done something other than a deep strike?

It's a bit counter intuitive but yes

Counter-Intuitive isnt the right word.
Wrong is the word you're looking for.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Abandon wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 Abandon wrote:
I agreed you had to make a deep strike attempt per the DS rules you are told to use. That attempt is referenced and slightly altered.

So you agree that you make a deep strike attempt using the deep strike rules... but still think that if that attempt is successful you have done something other than a deep strike?

It's a bit counter intuitive but yes

Counter-Intuitive isnt the right word.
Wrong is the word you're looking for.

Mistaken would have been the word I would have used on page one, wrong on page 2, now it's just downright frustrating.

 Abandon wrote:

It's a bit counter intuitive but yes

Counter intuitive is a hedge granting the same effective protection as a force field instead of just making you harder to hit.

Your interpretation here isn't counter intuitive. It's just downright illogical.

 insaniak wrote:

 Abandon wrote:

It's a bit counter intuitive but yes

Counter intuitive is a hedge granting the same effective protection as a force field instead of just making you harder to hit.

Your interpretation here isn't counter intuitive. It's just downright illogical.

Considering something that does not use the entirety of the Deep Strike process to be, without question, a Deep Strike would be illogical.
Considering that it tells you to use the rules for Deep Strike evidence that it is a Deep Strike would be illogical.
Considering a reference to the Deep Strike process we are told to use for purpose of alteration as evidence would also be illogical.
Telling us they 'immediately arrive using the rules for Deep Strike' when what is meant is they 'immediately arrive by Deep Strike' would be illogical.
Belief that 'arrive using the rules for Deep Strike' is short for 'arrive by Deep Strike' is illogical.

I have become familiar with many forms of erroneous logic in this thread but did not wish to offend anyone.

So it's a Deep Strike attempt, but its not a Deep Strike.

And you find that 100% logical. That's very interesting.

rigeld2 wrote:
So it's a Deep Strike attempt, but its not a Deep Strike.

And you find that 100% logical. That's very interesting.

Taking two pieces of a logic puzzle and declaring 'they don't fit, it's broken'. Is that logical?

 Abandon wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
So it's a Deep Strike attempt, but its not a Deep Strike.

And you find that 100% logical. That's very interesting.

Taking two pieces of a logic puzzle and declaring 'they don't fit, it's broken'. Is that logical?

No.
But you do realize you're saying exactly that, right? That a Deep Strike attempt is not a Deep Strike?
And that GoI specifically references the Deep Strike attempt?

rigeld2 wrote:

 Abandon wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
So it's a Deep Strike attempt, but its not a Deep Strike.

And you find that 100% logical. That's very interesting.

Taking two pieces of a logic puzzle and declaring 'they don't fit, it's broken'. Is that logical?

No.
But you do realize you're saying exactly that, right? That a Deep Strike attempt is not a Deep Strike?
And that GoI specifically references the Deep Strike attempt?

Yes, it is a necessary part of using the Deep Strike process which they want you to do a little differently. It does not change the wording that tells you only to follow it's rules for Deep Strike, which include the scatter roll it refers to.

Why would they tell you to 'use the rules for Deep Strike' instead of of just telling you to Deep Strike?

 Abandon wrote:
Why would they tell you to 'use the rules for Deep Strike' instead of of just telling you to Deep Strike?

Because they're one and the same thing.

The only way to even begin down your thought process is to start off assuming they're different.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Abandon wrote:
Why would they tell you to 'use the rules for Deep Strike' instead of of just telling you to Deep Strike?

Because they're one and the same thing.

The only way to even begin down your thought process is to start off assuming they're different.

Like using the normal movement rules is always a normal move? Except it's not...

 Abandon wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Abandon wrote:
Why would they tell you to 'use the rules for Deep Strike' instead of of just telling you to Deep Strike?

Because they're one and the same thing.

The only way to even begin down your thought process is to start off assuming they're different.

Like using the normal movement rules is always a normal move? Except it's not...

And when it's not, it's totally left up to you to make illogical assumptions and random connections.

Or it's spelled out. You know, either way.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Abandon wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Abandon wrote:
Why would they tell you to 'use the rules for Deep Strike' instead of of just telling you to Deep Strike?

Because they're one and the same thing.

The only way to even begin down your thought process is to start off assuming they're different.

Like using the normal movement rules is always a normal move? Except it's not...

And when it's not, it's totally left up to you to make illogical assumptions and random connections.

Or it's spelled out. You know, either way.

Correct, so stop assuming 'arrives using the rules for Deep Strike' means the exact same thing as 'arrives by Deep Strike'. It is in fact the lack of assumption that leads towards my line of logic here as you noted. The premise that those two things are equal does not hold up.

 Abandon wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Abandon wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Abandon wrote:
Why would they tell you to 'use the rules for Deep Strike' instead of of just telling you to Deep Strike?

Because they're one and the same thing.

The only way to even begin down your thought process is to start off assuming they're different.

Like using the normal movement rules is always a normal move? Except it's not...

And when it's not, it's totally left up to you to make illogical assumptions and random connections.

Or it's spelled out. You know, either way.

Correct, so stop assuming 'arrives using the rules for Deep Strike' means the exact same thing as 'arrives by Deep Strike'. It is in fact the lack of assumption that leads towards my line of logic here as you noted. The premise that those two things are equal does not hold up.

Except that's not "spelled out".
If you're following the rules for something you're doing that thing unless something says otherwise.
What rule is telling you you're not Deep Striking?

If you eat a cookie and the rules you followed for doing so said to put it in your mouth and then use the rules for eating biscuits. Did you eat a biscuit? No, you ate a cookie.

Following the rules for eating biscuits did not mean you ate a biscuit did it?

Following the rules for Deep strike does not mean you did a Deep Strike.

 Abandon wrote:
If you eat a cookie and the rules you followed for doing so said to put it in your mouth and then use the rules for eating biscuits. Did you eat a biscuit? No, you ate a cookie.

Following the rules for eating biscuits did not mean you ate a biscuit did it?

If the rules I followed said to follow the rules for eating a biscuit and referred to said biscuit eating attempt then yes - I ate a biscuit.

Following the rules for Deep strike does not mean you did a Deep Strike.

So GoI calling it a Deep Strike attempt isn't enough for you to equate the two?
Like I said. That's interesting.

 Abandon wrote:

Following the rules for Deep strike does not mean you did a Deep Strike.

But you're still following the rules for Deep Strike.

Which means no more moving, shooting as normal and no assaulting until your next turn.

This is seriously not that hard to follow.

I'm sure this is fully explored by now so I'll just end by saying that after careful consideration, should anyone I actually play with agree with me on RAW here, I'll suggest a house rule that counts all instances of 'using the rules for Deep Strike' as a deep strike as it would otherwise be unfairly in favor of assault armies.

Thanks to all who commented.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Abandon wrote:
If you eat a cookie and the rules you followed for doing so said to put it in your mouth and then use the rules for eating biscuits. Did you eat a biscuit? No, you ate a cookie.

Following the rules for eating biscuits did not mean you ate a biscuit did it?

If the rules I followed said to follow the rules for eating a biscuit and referred to said biscuit eating attempt then yes - I ate a biscuit.

Of course something most of us silly americans don't realise it that in England a biscuit is a cookie.

? A biscuit gets soft as it goes stale, a cookie goes hard...so not really. Or has 2 days of really aweosme 40k campaign weekend at our local club left me more slow on the uptake than usual?

nosferatu1001 wrote:
? A biscuit gets soft as it goes stale, a cookie goes hard...so not really. Or has 2 days of really aweosme 40k campaign weekend at our local club left me more slow on the uptake than usual?

I dunno. it is one of the only things I remember from Indian in the Cupboard (the book) where at the beginning the author clarifies a few things (such as that biscuit=cookie).

The thing is an English biscuit is nothing like an American biscuit. Leave it out sitting long enough and it will go stale.

A biscuit is hard, snaps when pressure is applied because it has been cooked twice (hence the name!)

Cookies are soft

Both go stale, however a biscuit regains moisture, so goes soft, and a cookie loses moisture, so goes hard.

Not all cookies are soft.

But what does that have to do with gate?

 Abandon wrote:
I'm sure this is fully explored by now so I'll just end by saying that after careful consideration, should anyone I actually play with agree with me on RAW here, I'll suggest a house rule that counts all instances of 'using the rules for Deep Strike' as a deep strike as it would otherwise be unfairly in favor of assault armies.

You will not find anyone that correctly agrees with you on the RAW.

Agreed. RAW is very clear - if you are using the rules for DS, you use *all* the rules for DS unless told otherwise.

Nothing else actually follows the written rules, and so cannot be RAW. This thread should be locked, as there has been no advance in rules debate since the first page.

As we all go spiralling into that section of the Warp labeled "Off-Topic". ( )