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.

OK, so we've mostly read about them, and I'm not fully interested in RAW as everyone appears to understand we have a real problem. So how will you play them, or try to convince your gaming group to play them?

Deathwing Strike Force

Characters not in terminator armour. Deepstrike allowed or no. If no, how do they deploy?

Dedicated Transports (Land Raiders). Deepstrike allowed or no. If no, how do they deploy? i personally think this is not an issue as I feel that only drop pods for dreadnoughts were intended for this strikeforce and not Land Raiders.

Ravenwing Strike Force

HQ options not listed as Ravenwing but have option for a bike.

Chaplain...Ravenwing has their own chaplain. Add Ravenwing rule?

Interrogator Chaplains and Librarians. In Deathwing, not Ravenwing but have options for bike. Allow in strikeforce with just Deathwing rule (so no jink reroll) or give ravenwing rule? deathwing rule should not be removed (see Sammael). personally, I don't think they should get the Ravenwing rule but should be allowed in strikeforce.

Any others I missed?

Hopefully we get an official FAQ, but if not...I guess we have to govern ourselves.

 bullyboy wrote:
Deathwing Strike Force

Characters not in terminator armour. Deepstrike allowed or no. If no, how do they deploy?

Dedicated Transports (Land Raiders). Deepstrike allowed or no. If no, how do they deploy? i personally think this is not an issue as I feel that only drop pods for dreadnoughts were intended for this strikeforce and not Land Raiders.

The formation requires that all models be placed into Deep Strike Reserve but does not offer any permission to do so for models or units that are ordinarily unable.

 Mr. Shine wrote:

 bullyboy wrote:
Deathwing Strike Force

Characters not in terminator armour. Deepstrike allowed or no. If no, how do they deploy?

Dedicated Transports (Land Raiders). Deepstrike allowed or no. If no, how do they deploy? i personally think this is not an issue as I feel that only drop pods for dreadnoughts were intended for this strikeforce and not Land Raiders.

The formation requires that all models be placed into Deep Strike Reserve but does not offer any permission to do so for models or units that are ordinarily unable.

that's how my friend and I interpreted it too, only term armour and drop pod dreads for both DW formations. So any Land Raider borne termis must be from a CAD.

Sad to hear the book has such stupid problems. Well, when my roomie gets his new book I will read it and see whats up.

The Deathwing Strike Force is pretty clear cut, and restricts you to things that can only Deep Strike. I agree that the non Terminator characters should have the option for armor, but not going to care. Not really seeing any inconsistency to be honest.

As for the Ravenwing Strike Force our group came up with a happy middle ground until it gets resolved.

Any HQs taken with a Bike as Part of the Strike Force will gain the Ravenwing Rule. There was some discussion from a fluff perspective, that all Deathwing units technically have Ravenwing training as they advanced up the ranks. So there was a proposal the non Deathwing HQs wouldn't get the Ravenwing rule. We just decided to allow all the characters to have it so a smaller point game wouldn't force a RW player to have to get Sammael/Sableclaw.

HQs that take a Bike as part of a normal force will not gain the Ravenwing rule, even if the intent was to run them with a RW unit. Most will have an Invulnerable or at least the option to get one.

No, it doesn't make much sense since there isn't a non Ravenwing bike unit option. It seemed to end any argument since the only real abuse would be to put a Character on a bike, then have him join a normal unit and have a re-rolling Jink save tank wounds for the squad, much like other characters with an Invulnerable save.

Just a suggestion, but one that worked as a house rule for everyone.

I would play it quite differently.

1) The deep strike rule is the one that lets you get placed onto the deep strike reserve. You don't need the deep strike rule to deep strike once you are in there (same reason why being put into deep strike reserve by GOI mishap still let's you deep strike the following turn). Since the strike force puts you into the deep strike reserve then any model in the formation can deep strike. This is how RAW works and RAI seems to point that way, or a deathwing strikeforce wouldn't be albe to play Ezekiel and Azrael.

2) If you are playing a Ravenwing strikeforce then you are usign the 2nd company, not 2nd company led by some other big shots (inner circle). Ravenwing do not have a librarius or interrogator chaplains, so i'd add to the models that don't have the deathwing rule (chaplains and company masters) the ravenwing rule if they get a bike.

Spoletta wrote:
Since the strike force puts you into the deep strike reserve then any model in the formation can deep strike.

Sorry, but could you please point to where the formation's rules say all models in the formation may or do begin the game in Deep Strike Reserve?

The formation's command benefits require that "All units in this detachment must begin the game in Deep Strike Reserve." That's a requirement, not special permission.

Deathwing Strike Force

Characters not in terminator armour. Deepstrike allowed or no. If no, how do they deploy?

Dedicated Transports (Land Raiders). Deepstrike allowed or no. If no, how do they deploy? i personally think this is not an issue as I feel that only drop pods for dreadnoughts were intended for this strikeforce and not Land Raiders.

You have to deepstrike if you can't deep strike you can't be part of the formation. Don't see how this is an inconsistency seems entirely consistent from a RaW & RaI point of view.

Ravenwing Strike Force

HQ options not listed as Ravenwing but have option for a bike.

Chaplain...Ravenwing has their own chaplain. Add Ravenwing rule?

Interrogator Chaplains and Librarians. In Deathwing, not Ravenwing but have options for bike. Allow in strikeforce with just Deathwing rule (so no jink reroll) or give ravenwing rule? deathwing rule should not be removed (see Sammael). personally, I don't think they should get the Ravenwing rule but should be allowed in strikeforce.

I'd allow any bike HQ to join RW detachment, I wouldn't give then the RW rule seems fairest solution unless we get an FAQ...

Any others I missed?

Hopefully we get an official FAQ, but if not...I guess we have to govern ourselves.

Can't think of any others at the moment but if 1 rule is all that's wrong in a 160 page codex that'll be a first. I wouldn't hold my breath from an FAQ though.

There is one huge inconsistency actually. The formation has no requirement that all models are able to deep strike when you make the list, the problem arises when you play it. This means that a legal list conflicts with it's own rules.
There are 2 possible interpretations of this, by extending what it says from " You must deep strike everything" to:

1) All models that are able to deep strike must do so.
2) All models must deep strike even if they normally aren't allowed to.

Both of those templates of wording are used by GW in other cases.

In the first case you have made the pure deathwing players happy since they can deploy on the field by adding a non terminator IC to the unit.
In the second case you let them deep strike everything but pure deathwing isn't playable.

The case where you say "Only deep strike able models can be part of this formation" is the one forcing things too much. A table level rule cannot influence a list composition restriction.

The formation tells you that you have to put everything in DS reserve. If you get to the game anything you take that can't be put in DS reserve so can't be legally deployed and is destroyed according to the deployment rules. So you are free to take non-DS units but they are auto dead at the start of the battle WO it is a pretty dumb idea. There is absolutely not justification for either 1 or 2 in your example.

Neither is a justification for what you say, why would they be destroyed? There is nothing like that in the deployment rules. Actually nowhere does it ever take into consideration that a unit could be undeployable (except for shortage of table area or immobile models)

There is no correct answer here, we can only find the one most fitting that bends the rules as little as possible. Having an in game rule that affects list construction rules looks like to me as being a pretty big forcing of the rules.
On the other hand the 2 i suggested are just a clarification of an existing rule.

Edit: If we go by pure RAW then it follows the following rule "If a model cannot be deployed for any kind of reason then it must go in reserve". So you would keep DW non termi models in normal reserve.

Which it also can't go in. Why can't an in game rule effect list building?

I'm actually not too concerned about the Deathwing rules as I'd take all termies or a few dreads in pods, won't have to worry about buying a Land Raider now.

The Ravenwing is still an annoyance to me as I don't want to take Sammael, that should never be a requirement...not with the new way lists are built.

If you look at the fluff part it is clearly indicated that there are Ravenwing chaplains, so those at least should be able to take a bike and become Ravewing.

Spoletta wrote:
If you look at the fluff part it is clearly indicated that there are Ravenwing chaplains, so those at least should be able to take a bike and become Ravewing.

they can take a bike (as can Librarians and Interrogator Chaplains) so that part is OK. It's the lack of the Ravenwing rule that excludes them from the formation.

 FlingitNow wrote:
Which it also can't go in. Why can't an in game rule effect list building?

Cause it would be an absolute first. The rule set is divided into two parts: how to make a legal list, how to play a list on the table.

Those two set of rules don't influence each other, except for the fact that the rules on one side have to be coherent with the rules on other side. We are now facing an incoherency.
Saying that a gameplay rule affects how i'm allowed to build a list is the same as a rule saying that you can spend army points during the game. There is a chronological problem in one influencing the other.

Sure, nothing in stopping us from adding "You can add to this detachment only models/units capable of deepstriking" . But we are modifying a rule, we are not saying that this is the correct interpretation of the rules. Which is perfectly fine.
Since there is an incoherency you either modify the list building rules or the gameplay rules. One has to change to meet the other one.

I suggested the previous 2 points since we are not adding a rule, but just clarifying an existing one. If we have to go with the path of minimal modifications then that is the way.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 bullyboy wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
If you look at the fluff part it is clearly indicated that there are Ravenwing chaplains, so those at least should be able to take a bike and become Ravewing.

they can take a bike (as can Librarians and Interrogator Chaplains) so that part is OK. It's the lack of the Ravenwing rule that excludes them from the formation.

With the difference that the fact Librarians and IChaps can't become ravenwing could be intended. There are no such characters in the 2nd company. Chaplains instead are part of the 2nd company.

Cause it would be an absolute first. The rule set is divided into two parts: how to make a legal list, how to play a list on the table.

Those two set of rules don't influence each other,

I'm going to want rules support for this claim. You have a formation that forces you to put everything in DS reserve, why would you play as anything other than options which prevent DS aren't available?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Another rule inconsistency is does the RW Support squad get Stealth from the Dark shroud in the formation?

 FlingitNow wrote:

Cause it would be an absolute first. The rule set is divided into two parts: how to make a legal list, how to play a list on the table.

Those two set of rules don't influence each other,

I'm going to want rules support for this claim. You have a formation that forces you to put everything in DS reserve, why would you play as anything other than options which prevent DS aren't available?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Another rule inconsistency is does the RW Support squad get Stealth from the Dark shroud in the formation?

Look at it from another point of view. I'm allowed to take non terminator DW models in the formation, and that's a fact. The rules clearly state so.

Now those models are in my list and i get to start a game with that list. What happens when i want to deploy? Unknown, but until that moment there has no been no issues at all with the rules. This problem arises after i have legally compiled a list, so the solution (without changing the rules) can't be interpreting how list making works. If you solve this by interpretation you do it with the rules that are originating the problem (you must deep strike). If you solve it by changing how i compile my list then you are indeed changing a rule.

Let's not forget that some interrogator chaplains may have been promoted from the chaplain position in the ravenwing.

While trying to work out an argument for this issue, I just noticed that the only DA HQ with any armor listed is Beliel, all the rest have no armor listed under wargear, only a 3+ save on their profiles. GW done F'd up the DA codex .... Again!

I sware most of their problems would be resolved by simply hiring a competent editor.

Back to the inconsistency issues, I would have have to side with following the rules as possibly intended and ignore the open slots that can't be filled for the RW formation, while only taking HQs in TDA for the DW formation. Some day someone at GW will work up the will to admit they done F'd up, and issue an Errata. Until then, we might want to try not being dicks with assuming exceptions where none exist. Just say'n.

SJ

Look at it from another point of view. I'm allowed to take non terminator DW models in the formation, and that's a fact. The rules clearly state so.

Now those models are in my list and i get to start a game with that list. What happens when i want to deploy? Unknown, but until that moment there has no been no issues at all with the rules. This problem arises after i have legally compiled a list, so the solution (without changing the rules) can't be interpreting how list making works. If you solve this by interpretation you do it with the rules that are originating the problem (you must deep strike). If you solve it by changing how i compile my list then you are indeed changing a rule.

But you know at list building that selecting such units causes you to force a break in the rules at deployment. It's like claiming you point a gun at someone and pull the trigger that it can't be illegal if that bullet flies into and kills the person you pointed the gun at.

The DW is fine no matter how much you want it to be so you can take PA characters in your DW detachment and deep strike your landraiders...

 FlingitNow wrote:

Look at it from another point of view. I'm allowed to take non terminator DW models in the formation, and that's a fact. The rules clearly state so.

Now those models are in my list and i get to start a game with that list. What happens when i want to deploy? Unknown, but until that moment there has no been no issues at all with the rules. This problem arises after i have legally compiled a list, so the solution (without changing the rules) can't be interpreting how list making works. If you solve this by interpretation you do it with the rules that are originating the problem (you must deep strike). If you solve it by changing how i compile my list then you are indeed changing a rule.

But you know at list building that selecting such units causes you to force a break in the rules at deployment. It's like claiming you point a gun at someone and pull the trigger that it can't be illegal if that bullet flies into and kills the person you pointed the gun at.

The DW is fine no matter how much you want it to be so you can take PA characters in your DW detachment and deep strike your landraiders...

Correct, i can make a list that does not incur in that problem.
I can make a list without assassinorum execution force and never having to face the insolvable problem of preferred enemy (warlord).
I can make a list without centurions and never having to face the insolvable problem of different armor values in a unit.

The fact that i can prevent a problem by limiting my lists doesn't mean that the rule in fault is the one allowing me to take centurions.

Spoletta wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:

Look at it from another point of view. I'm allowed to take non terminator DW models in the formation, and that's a fact. The rules clearly state so.

Now those models are in my list and i get to start a game with that list. What happens when i want to deploy? Unknown, but until that moment there has no been no issues at all with the rules. This problem arises after i have legally compiled a list, so the solution (without changing the rules) can't be interpreting how list making works. If you solve this by interpretation you do it with the rules that are originating the problem (you must deep strike). If you solve it by changing how i compile my list then you are indeed changing a rule.

But you know at list building that selecting such units causes you to force a break in the rules at deployment. It's like claiming you point a gun at someone and pull the trigger that it can't be illegal if that bullet flies into and kills the person you pointed the gun at.

The DW is fine no matter how much you want it to be so you can take PA characters in your DW detachment and deep strike your landraiders...

Correct, i can make a list that does not incur in that problem.
I can make a list without assassinorum execution force and never having to face the insolvable problem of preferred enemy (warlord).
I can make a list without centurions and never having to face the insolvable problem of different armor values in a unit.

The fact that i can prevent a problem by limiting my lists doesn't mean that the rule in fault is the one allowing me to take centurions.

So how can you field the Execution Force or Centurions? My interpretation does not prevent you from ever fielding DW , nor does it stop you from ever fielding Landraiders or PA DW characters. Also there is a difference between a rules gap (like PE vs model properties and Grav vs mixed saves) and a rules break (taking a unit that can't deep strike in a formation that must). This is clearly as case of the later, where as there would be no way to ever field the examples you gave.

This just illustrates how desperate you are to seek an unfair advantage through trying to exploit what you feel are unclear rules.

Not trying to get anything man (i'm a nid player), i'm just saying something that should be crystal clear, so i'm not sure why it appears so hard to understand.

There is no way to interpret the rule in saying that you can't get non termi models in there.

That said, there is no correct way to interpret the rules and say that you can do that without problem.

So something has to change. You either change the rules on the list building, or you change the rules on the list playing.

If we say that we change the rules and you can't take those models then that is a fine solution. Just don't come and say that you are not changing the rules but the rules mean what you say.

So at a shooting range you may point and aim and fire a gun. You can never kill some one. Can you point and aim and fire a gun at someone at a shooting range?

There is only 1 way to interpret the DW detachment, models must have the DW rule and they must be held in DS reserve (and thus must be eligible for the latter).

 FlingitNow wrote:
So at a shooting range you may point and aim and fire a gun. You can never kill some one. Can you point and aim and fire a gun at someone at a shooting range?

There is only 1 way to interpret the DW detachment, models must have the DW rule and they must be held in DS reserve (and thus must be eligible for the latter).

Ok i'm getting tired of this, if you have a real argument for what you say then use it please, if not i'm just going to ignore you.

I've given you explanations, precedents, proposed solutions... you provided nothing except your one minded interpretation of the rules, even supporting yourself with invented rules (models getting destroyed... lol).

It appears 100% clear to me (and precedents say so too) that in these cases you intervene on the rule causing the problem and not on the rule allowing you to field the model.

It is much more logical to change from "All models in the detachment must start in deepstrike reserve" to "All models in the detachment must, if able, start in deepstrike reserve" instead of changing "You can take only models with the DW rule" to "You can take only models with the DW rule that can deepstrike".

Changing is still changing I'm going to just follow all the rules. One interpretation requires changing rules, the other doesn't.

By taking the model, you intend to break a rule. Doing so is cheating.

It's like taking a sole Tervigon HQ army in sixth. Legal Lista p
M but when you can to pick your warlord, you couldn't.

 FlingitNow wrote:
Changing is still changing I'm going to just follow all the rules. One interpretation requires changing rules, the other doesn't.

And that is where you are wrong.
No solution here can be achieved without changing a rule. If you follow all the rules then you can take those models in your list. That's RAW for you, sorry.
But i already said this, so it seems that the communication isn't working, let's drop the discussion before it degenerates.

@ Nosferatu
It's not cheating, the same as taking the deathleaper formation in your list is not cheating even if you know that they commonly break the game. In this case it happens every time instead of commonly but the solution applied should be the same, and i don't remember that formation being banned.

The logical and easiest solution is clarifying the rule by adding an "If able" to it.

No the easiest way is to just follow all the rules without changing or breaking any. The Deathleaper and other examples you've come up with are not remotely comparable, they cause gaps in the rules not force you to intentionally break them and they all make the entire unit/detachment/formation unfieldable. We're not doing that just asking you to follow the rules whilst still being able to take the formation.