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.
a) FMCs are described as moving like Jump units, therefore, in accordance with Jump unit rules, they have Deep Strike.
If you have an alternate take on that rule, then we need to argue on that premise. The logic of my argument follows this RAW.
I Deep Strike.
After the fact of Deep Striking, I may or may not be in conflict with the MF rule. If being in Swooping mode puts me in conflict with MF "only use Glide" mode then I use Basic Vs Advanced Rule to resolve conflict since we have a bona-fide conflict between sources.
The MF rule does not say "only use Glide". Using actual rules in your argument is polite.
Yes, the FMC has the Deep Strike rule. Using it, however, breaks the MF rule.
Basic vs Advanced does not allow you to break an Advanced rule.
Deep Striking conflicts with the MF rule AFTER THE FACT of Deep Striking.
I don't have to be Swooping when I Deep Strike. Deep Striking is not dependent on Swooping. I am put in Swooping mode AFTER THE FACT of Deep Striking.
If a Flying Monstrous Creature arrives via Deep Strike Reserve, it always counts as being in Swooping mode.
When that rules is called, the FACT of Deep Strike has happened. The conflict, if you see any, with MF gets resolved via the Basic Vs Advanced Rule AFTER THE FACT of Deep Striking.
Please, what rule actually resolves that conflict?
You must be Swooping.
You cannot swoop.
Cite the rule allowing you to Glide. Basic vs Advanced tells us which rule to reference - the one that says you cannot Swoop.
To Deep Strike, you must end up Swooping. That's what the rule says. Agreed?
After the fact of Deep Striking, you end up Swooping. That is precisely what the rule says. It does not say "in order to", agreed?
Agreed.
Have you formed an argument using actual rules? And are you willing to actually answer questions?
My beautiful wife wrote:Trucks = Carnifex snack, Tanks = meals.
col_impact wrote: [
After the fact of Deep Striking, you end up Swooping. That is precisely what the rule says. It does not say "in order to", agreed?
You still have not shown specific permission to break the MF rule. Neither Deep Strike nor FMC rules reference that rule. Care to cite it?
I am not breaking the MF rule. Deep Strike happens and a basic rule conflicts with an advanced rule AFTER THE FACT of Deep Striking. Basic vs Advanced resolve the conflict.
a) FMCs are described as moving like Jump units, therefore, in accordance with Jump unit rules, they have Deep Strike.
If you have an alternate take on that rule, then we need to argue on that premise. The logic of my argument follows this RAW.
I Deep Strike.
After the fact of Deep Striking, I may or may not be in conflict with the MF rule. If being in Swooping mode puts me in conflict with MF "only use Glide" mode then I use Basic Vs Advanced Rule to resolve conflict since we have a bona-fide conflict between sources.
The MF rule does not say "only use Glide". Using actual rules in your argument is polite.
Yes, the FMC has the Deep Strike rule. Using it, however, breaks the MF rule.
Basic vs Advanced does not allow you to break an Advanced rule.
Deep Striking conflicts with the MF rule AFTER THE FACT of Deep Striking.
Agreed. Timing doesn't matter, however - there's still a rule being broken. Agreed?
My beautiful wife wrote:Trucks = Carnifex snack, Tanks = meals.
I don't have to be Swooping when I Deep Strike. Deep Striking is not dependent on Swooping. I am put in Swooping mode AFTER THE FACT of Deep Striking.
If a Flying Monstrous Creature arrives via Deep Strike Reserve, it always counts as being in Swooping mode.
When that rules is called, the FACT of Deep Strike has happened. The conflict, if you see any, with MF gets resolved via the Basic Vs Advanced Rule AFTER THE FACT of Deep Striking.
Please, what rule actually resolves that conflict?
You must be Swooping.
You cannot swoop.
Cite the rule allowing you to Glide. Basic vs Advanced tells us which rule to reference - the one that says you cannot Swoop.
To Deep Strike, you must end up Swooping. That's what the rule says. Agreed?
After the fact of Deep Striking, you end up Swooping. That is precisely what the rule says. It does not say "in order to", agreed?
Agreed.
Have you formed an argument using actual rules? And are you willing to actually answer questions?
I am the only one who has been actually quoting rules here.
a) FMCs are described as moving like Jump units, therefore, in accordance with Jump unit rules, they have Deep Strike.
If you have an alternate take on that rule, then we need to argue on that premise. The logic of my argument follows this RAW.
I Deep Strike.
After the fact of Deep Striking, I may or may not be in conflict with the MF rule. If being in Swooping mode puts me in conflict with MF "only use Glide" mode then I use Basic Vs Advanced Rule to resolve conflict since we have a bona-fide conflict between sources.
The MF rule does not say "only use Glide". Using actual rules in your argument is polite.
Yes, the FMC has the Deep Strike rule. Using it, however, breaks the MF rule.
Basic vs Advanced does not allow you to break an Advanced rule.
Deep Striking conflicts with the MF rule AFTER THE FACT of Deep Striking.
Agreed. Timing doesn't matter, however - there's still a rule being broken. Agreed?
A conflict between Basic and Advanced Rules happen, agreed?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/11/25 05:47:38
col_impact wrote: [
After the fact of Deep Striking, you end up Swooping. That is precisely what the rule says. It does not say "in order to", agreed?
You still have not shown specific permission to break the MF rule. Neither Deep Strike nor FMC rules reference that rule. Care to cite it?
I am not breaking the MF rule. Deep Strike happens and a basic rule conflicts with an advanced rule AFTER THE FACT of Deep Striking. Basic vs Advanced resolve the conflict.
As asked before, please cite the rule that resolves the following conflict, and explain how it does so.
Simply quoting Basic vs Advanced isn't advancing your argument.
If you Deep Strike, you must be Swooping.
You are forbidden from Swooping.
My beautiful wife wrote:Trucks = Carnifex snack, Tanks = meals.
col_impact wrote: [
After the fact of Deep Striking, you end up Swooping. That is precisely what the rule says. It does not say "in order to", agreed?
You still have not shown specific permission to break the MF rule. Neither Deep Strike nor FMC rules reference that rule. Care to cite it?
I am not breaking the MF rule. Deep Strike happens and a basic rule conflicts with an advanced rule AFTER THE FACT of Deep Striking. Basic vs Advanced resolve the conflict.
As asked before, please cite the rule that resolves the following conflict, and explain how it does so.
Simply quoting Basic vs Advanced isn't advancing your argument.
If you Deep Strike, you must be Swooping.
You are forbidden from Swooping.
a) FMCs are described as moving like Jump units, therefore, in accordance with Jump unit rules, they have Deep Strike.
A conflict between Basic and Advanced Rules happen, agreed?
Yes, the conflict that says you cannot DS because you would be swooping, which is a codex rule. Codex rules in general trump BRB rules, which the DS rule is.
col_impact wrote: [
After the fact of Deep Striking, you end up Swooping. That is precisely what the rule says. It does not say "in order to", agreed?
You still have not shown specific permission to break the MF rule. Neither Deep Strike nor FMC rules reference that rule. Care to cite it?
I am not breaking the MF rule. Deep Strike happens and a basic rule conflicts with an advanced rule AFTER THE FACT of Deep Striking. Basic vs Advanced resolve the conflict.
As asked before, please cite the rule that resolves the following conflict, and explain how it does so.
Simply quoting Basic vs Advanced isn't advancing your argument.
If you Deep Strike, you must be Swooping.
You are forbidden from Swooping.
a) FMCs are described as moving like Jump units, therefore, in accordance with Jump unit rules, they have Deep Strike.
So you decide not to actually explain how Basic vs Advanced resolves this conflict?
Cool. Again, an FMC has Deep Strike. I won't argue that in this thread.
But Deep Striking when you are forbidden from Swooping breaks an Advanced rule.
My beautiful wife wrote:Trucks = Carnifex snack, Tanks = meals.
A conflict between Basic and Advanced Rules happen, agreed?
Yes, the conflict that says you cannot DS because you would be swooping, which is a codex rule. Codex rules in general trump BRB rules, which the DS rule is.
No conflict happens until AFTER THE FACT of Deep Striking. And then you have a BRB to resolve the conflict.
col_impact wrote: [
After the fact of Deep Striking, you end up Swooping. That is precisely what the rule says. It does not say "in order to", agreed?
You still have not shown specific permission to break the MF rule. Neither Deep Strike nor FMC rules reference that rule. Care to cite it?
I am not breaking the MF rule. Deep Strike happens and a basic rule conflicts with an advanced rule AFTER THE FACT of Deep Striking. Basic vs Advanced resolve the conflict.
As asked before, please cite the rule that resolves the following conflict, and explain how it does so.
Simply quoting Basic vs Advanced isn't advancing your argument.
If you Deep Strike, you must be Swooping.
You are forbidden from Swooping.
a) FMCs are described as moving like Jump units, therefore, in accordance with Jump unit rules, they have Deep Strike.
So you decide not to actually explain how Basic vs Advanced resolves this conflict?
Cool. Again, an FMC has Deep Strike. I won't argue that in this thread.
But Deep Striking when you are forbidden from Swooping breaks an Advanced rule.
Nothing is in conflict until AFTER THE FACT of Deep Striking.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/11/25 05:53:03
Why is that relevant?
By Deep Striking, you've created a conflict. Agreed?
And there's no rule allowing the Deep Strike to happen completely according to the rules. Agreed?
So how is it okay to break a rule again?
It's like moving after a Deep Strike - you're forbidden from doing so. But according to your argument, it's okay because it happens after the Deep Strike? The timing of when the conflict occurs isn't relevant - there's a conflict that results from the choice to Deep strike.
My beautiful wife wrote:Trucks = Carnifex snack, Tanks = meals.
rigeld2 wrote: Why is that relevant?
By Deep Striking, you've created a conflict. Agreed?
And there's no rule allowing the Deep Strike to happen completely according to the rules. Agreed?
So how is it okay to break a rule again?
It's like moving after a Deep Strike - you're forbidden from doing so. But according to your argument, it's okay because it happens after the Deep Strike? The timing of when the conflict occurs isn't relevant - there's a conflict that results from the choice to Deep strike.
We are allowed to Deep Strike. We do so. After we Deep Strike a conflict arises between sources. What flight mode is the Flyrant in? The rules DO NOT allow us to undo steps. The rules TELL US to resolve the conflict by privileging Advanced over Basic. Any conflicts are resolved with the Advanced ruleset.
It's like moving after a Deep Strike - you're forbidden from doing so. But according to your argument, it's okay because it happens after the Deep Strike? The timing of when the conflict occurs isn't relevant - there's a conflict that results from the choice to Deep strike.
That's a strawman argument. Spare us all these silly attempts.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/11/25 06:02:36
rigeld2 wrote: Why is that relevant?
By Deep Striking, you've created a conflict. Agreed?
And there's no rule allowing the Deep Strike to happen completely according to the rules. Agreed?
So how is it okay to break a rule again?
It's like moving after a Deep Strike - you're forbidden from doing so. But according to your argument, it's okay because it happens after the Deep Strike? The timing of when the conflict occurs isn't relevant - there's a conflict that results from the choice to Deep strike.
We are allowed to Deep Strike. We do so. After we Deep Strike a conflict arises between sources. What flight mode is the Flyrant in? The rules DO NOT allow us to undo steps. The rules TELL US to resolve the conflict by privileging Advanced over Basic. Any conflicts are resolved with the Advanced ruleset.
Please quote from the advanced rules the rule that allows you to opt to switch to gliding mode when Deep Striking.
It doesn't exist. So you're asserting that it's okay to break a rule as long as there's no rule saying you can't do it? Because that's what your argument amounts to.
It's like moving after a Deep Strike - you're forbidden from doing so. But according to your argument, it's okay because it happens after the Deep Strike? The timing of when the conflict occurs isn't relevant - there's a conflict that results from the choice to Deep strike.
That's a strawman argument. Spare us all these silly attempts.
It's not a Strawman. It's a representation of what your argument sounds like.
It's not a silly attempt - you've asserted the timing matters, but refuse to explain why. Instead of calling it a "silly attempt" perhaps you could address it?
As far as I can tell your argument consists of 1-2 rules (of dubious relevance) that you've copy/pasted repeatedly, you assuming that we're saying that FMCs can't Deep Strike at all (that was good for at least a page), and an assertion that it's okay to arrive at, and break, a rule as long as you didn't break any rules getting there.
My beautiful wife wrote:Trucks = Carnifex snack, Tanks = meals.
rigeld2 wrote: Why is that relevant?
By Deep Striking, you've created a conflict. Agreed?
And there's no rule allowing the Deep Strike to happen completely according to the rules. Agreed?
So how is it okay to break a rule again?
It's like moving after a Deep Strike - you're forbidden from doing so. But according to your argument, it's okay because it happens after the Deep Strike? The timing of when the conflict occurs isn't relevant - there's a conflict that results from the choice to Deep strike.
We are allowed to Deep Strike. We do so. After we Deep Strike a conflict arises between sources. What flight mode is the Flyrant in? The rules DO NOT allow us to undo steps. The rules TELL US to resolve the conflict by privileging Advanced over Basic. Any conflicts are resolved with the Advanced ruleset.
Please quote from the advanced rules the rule that allows you to opt to switch to gliding mode when Deep Striking.
It doesn't exist. So you're asserting that it's okay to break a rule as long as there's no rule saying you can't do it? Because that's what your argument amounts to.
It's like moving after a Deep Strike - you're forbidden from doing so. But according to your argument, it's okay because it happens after the Deep Strike? The timing of when the conflict occurs isn't relevant - there's a conflict that results from the choice to Deep strike.
That's a strawman argument. Spare us all these silly attempts.
It's not a Strawman. It's a representation of what your argument sounds like.
It's not a silly attempt - you've asserted the timing matters, but refuse to explain why. Instead of calling it a "silly attempt" perhaps you could address it?
As far as I can tell your argument consists of 1-2 rules (of dubious relevance) that you've copy/pasted repeatedly, you assuming that we're saying that FMCs can't Deep Strike at all (that was good for at least a page), and an assertion that it's okay to arrive at, and break, a rule as long as you didn't break any rules getting there.
The problem with your counter-argument is that you are trying to prevent the Deep Strike from happening with a conflict that arises AFTER the Deep Strike has happened. Nothing prevents the player from Deep Striking. So it isn't until AFTER THE FACT of Deep Striking that a conflict can be acted upon. The rules don't let us undo steps that have happened to repair the game state. The rules TELL US to resolve conflicts with Advanced over Basic Rules.
And AvB doesn't actually tell is how to resolve this conflict. Because the Advanced rule is simply being broken.
It's like if you move a Tac Squad model 7". You've chosen to do something that leads to a rule being broken. The game is now in an unresolvable state - according to you that's okay?
My beautiful wife wrote:Trucks = Carnifex snack, Tanks = meals.
There is nothing preventing me from Deep Striking, so I go ahead and Deep Strike, correct?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
nosferatu1001 wrote: Incorrect. In order to use the ds usr, you must break a rule. As you have no permission to break a rule, you may not do it.
And we know you don't have permission, otherwise you would have shown it by now.
What rule do I break by Deep Striking?
For reference, here are the Deep Strike Rules. What rule do I break when I perform them?
Spoiler:
DEEP STRIKE
Some units make their way to battle via tunnelling, teleportation, flying, or some other
extraordinary means which allows them to appear in the thick of the fighting.
In order for a unit to be able to Deep Strike, all models in the unit must have the Deep
Strike special rule and the unit must start the game in Reserve. When placing the unit in
Reserve, you must tell your opponent that it will be arriving by Deep Strike (sometimes
called Deep Strike Reserve). Some units must arrive by Deep Strike. They always begin
the game in Reserve and always arrive by Deep Strike.
Arriving by Deep Strike
Roll for the arrival of all Deep Striking units as specified in the rules for Reserves and
then deploy them as follows:
• First, place one model from the unit anywhere on the table, in the position where you
would like it to arrive, and roll for scatter to determine the model’s final position. If a
vehicle scatters when arriving via Deep Strike, do not change its facing – it must
continue to face the same direction as it did before you rolled for scatter.
• Next, the unit’s remaining models are arranged around the first one. Models must be
placed in base contact with the first model and begin to form a circle around it. When
the first circle is complete, a further concentric circle must be placed with each model
touching the circle inside it. Each circle must include as many models as will fit.
• Models deploying via Deep Strike treat all difficult terrain as dangerous terrain.
In the Movement phase during which they arrive, Deep Striking units may not move any
further, other than to disembark from a Deep Striking Transport vehicle if they are in one.
Units Deep Striking into ruins are placed on the ground floor. Deep Striking units count
non-ruined buildings (except for their battlements) as impassable terrain.
In that turn’s Shooting phase, these units can fire (or Run, Turbo-boost or move Flat Out)
as normal, and count as having moved in the previous Movement phase. Vehicles, except
for Walkers, count as having moved at Combat Speed (even Immobilised vehicles). This
can affect the number of weapons they can fire with their full Ballistic Skill.
In that turn’s Assault phase, however, these units cannot charge. This also applies to
units that have disembarked from Transports that arrived by Deep Strike that turn.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/11/25 17:28:47
That you must be in swoop. Are you allowed to be in swoop? No, unless you break the formation rule. What allows you to break either ds or the formation rule? Page and graph.
nosferatu1001 wrote: That you must be in swoop. Are you allowed to be in swoop? No, unless you break the formation rule. What allows you to break either ds or the formation rule? Page and graph.
Quote the rule that you are having trouble with and let's discuss when that rule is called.
You're processing the rules like a computer instead of a human. You know Deep Strike will cause a conflict in the rules. It is plain to see. But like following the script of a computer you do it anyway.
So the question is, do you follow rules like a script (where the order matters) or do you use the knowledge that following a rule will break (or conflict) with another rule and therefore don't do it?
I'm not sure how the rules are supposed to be read but there's 2 valid ways:
1) As a script. You follow each rule which 'calls' other rules while remaining ignorant of any potential rules that could be called in the future.
2) Non-sequential. You follow each rule knowing the consequences and knowing what other rules it may effect in the future.
col_impact is using method 1. Everyone else seems to be using method 2.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/11/25 18:16:54
Zimko wrote: You're processing the rules like a computer instead of a human. You know Deep Strike will cause a conflict in the rules. It is plain to see. But like following the script of a computer you do it anyway.
So the question is, do you follow rules like a script (where the order matters) or do you use the knowledge that following a rule will break (or conflict) with another rule and therefore don't do it?
This is a game. We follow the rules and we follow them step by step.
Zimko wrote: You're processing the rules like a computer instead of a human. You know Deep Strike will cause a conflict in the rules. It is plain to see. But like following the script of a computer you do it anyway.
So the question is, do you follow rules like a script (where the order matters) or do you use the knowledge that following a rule will break (or conflict) with another rule and therefore don't do it?
This is a game. We follow the rules and we follow them step by step.
Right, I think this is the disconnect. See my edit above.
Automatically Appended Next Post: The tenents of the forum, as someone linked earlier, tends to lean towards method 2. You have to keep other rules in mind while following a chain of rules 'step by step' as it were. If performing an optional Deep Strike forces a model to Swoop while another rule disallows that model to Swoop then you can not perform the optional Deep Strike. It is a direct cause and effect that following the rules like a script won't catch but we as all-knowing humans can plainly see.
Conflicts With Another Rule
If you've provided a set of premises that support your argument, but they are in conflict with another rule, your argument will not hold. It's important to remember to "Break No Rule".
For example, in 40K (4th edition) units that arrive on the table via deep strike "may not move or assault on the turn they arrive". However, if that unit has the 'Fleet' Universal Special Rule they are allowed to move D6" during the shooting phase in a turn they don't shoot. In this case there are two viable rule that clash; one stating that the unit cannot move that turn and the other saying the unit is indeed allowed to move if it doesn't shoot, so which one takes precedence? Because we must always strive to "Break no Rule" and moving at all during the turn a unit arrives via Deep Strike would break a rule we must play that the unit arriving via Deep Strike cannot 'Fleet' on the same turn.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/11/25 18:27:41
Zimko wrote: You're processing the rules like a computer instead of a human. You know Deep Strike will cause a conflict in the rules. It is plain to see. But like following the script of a computer you do it anyway.
So the question is, do you follow rules like a script (where the order matters) or do you use the knowledge that following a rule will break (or conflict) with another rule and therefore don't do it?
This is a game. We follow the rules and we follow them step by step.
Right, I think this is the disconnect. See my edit above.
Automatically Appended Next Post: The tenents of the forum, as someone linked earlier, tends to lean towards method 2. You have to keep other rules in mind while following a chain of rules 'step by step' as it were. If performing an optional Deep Strike forces a model to Swoop while another rule disallows that model to Swoop then you can not perform the optional Deep Strike. It is a direct cause and effect that following the rules like a script won't catch but we as all-knowing humans can plainly see.
Conflicts With Another Rule
If you've provided a set of premises that support your argument, but they are in conflict with another rule, your argument will not hold. It's important to remember to "Break No Rule".
For example, in 40K (4th edition) units that arrive on the table via deep strike "may not move or assault on the turn they arrive". However, if that unit has the 'Fleet' Universal Special Rule they are allowed to move D6" during the shooting phase in a turn they don't shoot. In this case there are two viable rule that clash; one stating that the unit cannot move that turn and the other saying the unit is indeed allowed to move if it doesn't shoot, so which one takes precedence? Because we must always strive to "Break no Rule" and moving at all during the turn a unit arrives via Deep Strike would break a rule we must play that the unit arriving via Deep Strike cannot 'Fleet' on the same turn.
Its a game. We follow the rules. And we follow them step by step and resolve their logic step by step. That's how you implement RAW.
If the rest of you are breaking with logical sequentiality then you are already well in the HYWPI category.
But they're only described as moving like Jump units within a rule that is not yet 'called' sequentially. You're being inconsistent. At the point in which the rule you're paraphrasing is called, FMCs have not been described as moving like Jump.
6000+
2500
2000
2000
