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.

No, the logical solution is: if taking the model results in you breaking a rule, don't take that model. If you do, you're cheating.

Nice, next time i see centurion on the other side of the table i'll tell them that.

More seriously, i mailed GW about the issue.

Again how does taking Centurions lead you to acting counter to the rules? We just get a situation that the rules don't cover which is entirely different (and you could argue it's just as muchhis oopponent's fault for fielding a mixed save unit). Plus how CAN you field Centurions?

Have you actually got any coherent point or relevant example?

Plenty man, but you keep ignoring all of those.

There is no difference in taking a model that is likely to break the game and one that will do so. Both cases are treated the same way. This is not the first time we incur in one of those.

You know what was done in the long list of similar cases? Here's an hint, we didn't forbid the use of that model/formation.

You don't only want to make a special snowflake case out of this, but in doing so you are banning from the detachment the one model that was allowing this same list until a week ago. Do you understand how dumb it sounds to ban Azrael in the DW/RW detachment?

Edit: And not cause there was a change in the fluff or something done by GW, but because he generates one of the easiest to solve rules issues in the game. Yeah, nice choice.

One causes a rule whole the other forces you to break a rule. There is a difference between the rules breaking and you breaking a rule. One means the rules do not function, the other means you act contrary to the rules.

Likewise none of the examples you've listed are relevant or comparable as all first cause a rule to break (rather than cause you to break a rule) and secondly all involve an entire unit or formation to be unfieldable, neither is true in this case. So are you going to come up with anything that allows you to break rules or a relevant example?

 FlingitNow wrote:
One causes a rule whole the other forces you to break a rule. There is a difference between the rules breaking and you breaking a rule. One means the rules do not function, the other means you act contrary to the rules.

Likewise none of the examples you've listed are relevant or comparable as all first cause a rule to break (rather than cause you to break a rule) and secondly all involve an entire unit or formation to be unfieldable, neither is true in this case. So are you going to come up with anything that allows you to break rules or a relevant example?

We are talking about several models being unfieldable as a result of this. Apart from that sorry but i don't get your point.

OK I'm confused here. What does Deathleapers Assassin Brood and Centurions have to do with anything?

They are all models that in some cases generate situations were rules don't work and need an interpretation.

Spoletta wrote:
They are all models that in some cases generate situations were rules don't work and need an interpretation.

How so?

Spoletta wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
One causes a rule whole the other forces you to break a rule. There is a difference between the rules breaking and you breaking a rule. One means the rules do not function, the other means you act contrary to the rules.

Likewise none of the examples you've listed are relevant or comparable as all first cause a rule to break (rather than cause you to break a rule) and secondly all involve an entire unit or formation to be unfieldable, neither is true in this case. So are you going to come up with anything that allows you to break rules or a relevant example?

We are talking about several models being unfieldable as a result of this. Apart from that sorry but i don't get your point.

Name 1 model that is unfieldable due to this interpretation?

So you don't see the difference between rules not functioning and you acting contrary to a direct instruction? If not I really can't help you.

RAW, I believe it's either of these 2:

1) You can use whatever units you like, LR included.
At the start of your game, you place all units in deepstrike reserves, because nothing prevents units without DS to be in DS reserves. However, ALL models in the unit must have the deepstrike special rule in order to actually deep strike (this is literally the first line of rules in the BRB under "deep strike".

Result: Land raiders and any other models that don't have the DS special rule remain in DS reserves for the rest of the game.

2) Deep strike reserves are units placed in reserves with the intent to deepstrike. Since models without DS special rule cannot be placed in reserves WITH intent to deepstrike because they are not allowed to do so (again, this is literally written in the BRB), you cannot deploy your units without DS special rule legally and thus you cannot legally deploy your army and the game ends.

If you insist on playing any other way, either by placing the units without DS special rule in regular reserves (for which you have no permission) or deepstriking them (breaking the rule that you need the DS special rule to do so), you are performing an illegal deployment, thus cheating.

The rule 'Not Enough Room' does not apply in this case because you are not trying to fit models in a deployment zone.

Spoletta wrote:
Plenty man, but you keep ignoring all of those.

There is no difference in taking a model that is likely to break the game and one that will do so. Both cases are treated the same way. This is not the first time we incur in one of those.

You know what was done in the long list of similar cases? Here's an hint, we didn't forbid the use of that model/formation.

You don't only want to make a special snowflake case out of this, but in doing so you are banning from the detachment the one model that was allowing this same list until a week ago. Do you understand how dumb it sounds to ban Azrael in the DW/RW detachment?

Edit: And not cause there was a change in the fluff or something done by GW, but because he generates one of the easiest to solve rules issues in the game. Yeah, nice choice.

I hope you realize the weakness of this arguement? New codex --> new rules. Should I still give purgation squads Astral aim 'because it was in the last GK codex'?

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
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!

That isn't an issue at all. The same is true in C:SM, C:Orks, etc. Only armour with additional special effects is listed in the wargear section of their profile.
That's also the way Orks have been from at at least 4th Edition.

DaPino wrote:
RAW, I believe it's either of these 2:

1) You can use whatever units you like, LR included.
At the start of your game, you place all units in deepstrike reserves, because nothing prevents units without DS to be in DS reserves. However, ALL models in the unit must have the deepstrike special rule in order to actually deep strike (this is literally the first line of rules in the BRB under "deep strike".

Result: Land raiders and any other models that don't have the DS special rule remain in DS reserves for the rest of the game.

2) Deep strike reserves are units placed in reserves with the intent to deepstrike. Since models without DS special rule cannot be placed in reserves WITH intent to deepstrike because they are not allowed to do so (again, this is literally written in the BRB), you cannot deploy your units without DS special rule legally and thus you cannot legally deploy your army and the game ends.

If you insist on playing any other way, either by placing the units without DS special rule in regular reserves (for which you have no permission) or deepstriking them (breaking the rule that you need the DS special rule to do so), you are performing an illegal deployment, thus cheating.

The rule 'Not Enough Room' does not apply in this case because you are not trying to fit models in a deployment zone.

Spoletta wrote:
Plenty man, but you keep ignoring all of those.

There is no difference in taking a model that is likely to break the game and one that will do so. Both cases are treated the same way. This is not the first time we incur in one of those.

You know what was done in the long list of similar cases? Here's an hint, we didn't forbid the use of that model/formation.

You don't only want to make a special snowflake case out of this, but in doing so you are banning from the detachment the one model that was allowing this same list until a week ago. Do you understand how dumb it sounds to ban Azrael in the DW/RW detachment?

Edit: And not cause there was a change in the fluff or something done by GW, but because he generates one of the easiest to solve rules issues in the game. Yeah, nice choice.

I hope you realize the weakness of this arguement? New codex --> new rules. Should I still give purgation squads Astral aim 'because it was in the last GK codex'?

We all agree (except someone it seems) that at the present time the rules don't work. I'm not trying to say that right now you can deep strike. I'm trying to say that since you need to change the rules to solve this, it is easier to add a "if able" to that rule than to ban some legal models from that detachment.

So no examples of models that become unfieldable because of this interpretation? Just bluster once again like your refusal to cite relevant examples and refusal to accept that the rules breaking and you breaking a rule are two entirely different things?

Personally I'd contact games workshop and ask for a refund if I had bought the DA book, and tell them it's unfit for purpose which under UK law means they are required to refund you. If you ordered it online you have about a week to return it for any/no reason, but I'd make it clear it's because they haven't edited the book correctly.
GW won't take notice and write good rules until customers start complaining with their wallets instead of their keyboards. If enough people did this, we might see a turn around in their 'no faq' policy.
There are people writing more coherent rules in the "proposed rules" section of this forum than the actual game designers who charge £35~50 per book, it's a pretty depressing state.

So 1 rules error in a 160 page book makes you want a refund? If RaW was perfect at this level of complexity it'd have to be written in legal speak which would make it unreadable to anyone with legal training.

Yeah I'll keep my slightly flawed book that allows me to play my $5000 army.

 FlingitNow wrote:
So no examples of models that become unfieldable because of this interpretation? Just bluster once again like your refusal to cite relevant examples and refusal to accept that the rules breaking and you breaking a rule are two entirely different things?

Ezekiel and Azrael are unfieldable in the DW and RW detachment due to that rule change, happy? Thought it was obvious.
Gave you plenty of examples.
Having a chance to break a game and breaking a game are the same thing, sorry if you don't get it.
In effect i said i wouldn't answer anymore to you.

@Everyone else

Sure, we can right now say that those models are not allowed in the detachment, but that is neither an interpretation nor a solution. It's a stopgap measure.
There needs to be an agreement of some kind on the kind of rule change we are going to adopt, so:

1) We change the detachment restriction to force IC to wear termi armor like the DW formation already does?
2) Do we intervene on that rule that is causing the problem? And in that case we:
a) Add an "If able" to the rule?
b) Add an "Even in normally is not allowed to" to the rule?

Personally i'd go with 2a for the reason that we keep Azrael in the DW detachment while allowing all those guys that played full DW to avoid getting screwed by the new codex.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jy2 wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
They are all models that in some cases generate situations were rules don't work and need an interpretation.

How so?

Centurion firing on a unit with multiple armor values is an unresolvable situation.
Bloodleaper formation Preferred enemy IC is an unresolvable rule in all those cases where the IC is not alone.
There many other cases like this in the game. Usually the tournament formats rule those in some way.

Ezekiel and Azrael are unfieldable in the DW and RW detachment due to that rule change, happy? Thought it was obvious.
Gave you plenty of examples.
Having a chance to break a game and breaking a game are the same thing, sorry if you don't get it.
In effect i said i wouldn't answer anymore to you.

Pretty certain both those models can be fielded in a CAD or a Lion's Blade detachment for a start. So try again which models are unfieldable if you don't intentionally break any rules?

Please list 1 relevant example. Yes the irrelevant examples you used caused the game to break, what you're trying to do here is intentionally take an action contrary to the rules. You are taking an action that forces you to do something that the rules expressly prohibits, rather than taking an action that could result in a situation not covered by the rules depending on your opponents army (like for instance the Grav weapon example could equally be put down to your opponent fielding mixed save units, or you choosing to target them).

Azrael has never been able to join the DW detachment so why use the word keep? You're also missing the option of not changing and not breaking any rules. Or if you insist on rules spelling every eventuality out the most sensible change would be to (and therefore must be able to) on the DS restriction.

Things change in new codexes all the time. I used to run Pedro and Calgary in a list together, can't anymore. You used to be able to run RW as troops with Sammael and have DW in your list without taking another HQ, now you can't. Things change that's kind of the entire point of a new codex.

Which Codex are you guys looking at?

Mine says all ICs in the Deathwing Redemption Force must have TDA. Am I missing something?

Why would you even want to...it's a formation to drop in an all Deathwing force, one would think only Deathwing members would be in it. Combined with the DP requirement for the Dreads and the Deathwing Assult rule for the Formation, it seems pretty obvious that Landraiders are not meant to be included.

 FlingitNow wrote:
So no examples of models that become unfieldable because of this interpretation? Just bluster once again like your refusal to cite relevant examples and refusal to accept that the rules breaking and you breaking a rule are two entirely different things?

text removed.
Reds8n No need for comments like this.
. You can argue what you think as RAW as long as you want, but at some point you need to see that GW needs to write codexes with the idea that someone has never played before. Heck, people are still making mistakes in list building with the new decurions, auxiliaries and formations, even experienced players.

let's look at a new player perspective at the Deathwing Strike Force.

he looks at the FOC picture, then reads the Restrictions....Deathwing rule unless a dedicated transport. It then talsk about a dreadnought and it's dedicated transport, the drop pod.
So he goes back in the book at sees that the Interrogator Chaplain has the Deathwing rule...COOL, I just bought that model along with the book. he'll be my HQ.
he then looks at elites and sees that only deathwing terms, knights and ven dreads have deathwing rule. But then he sees that each terminator sqd can have a dedicated transport, a mighty Land Raider. Oh yeah, there was a part in the book on pg 53 that talked about Deathwing Land Raiders. Cool.
And so he builds his list with these models, spent good money and readies for a game. he goes on to read the command benefits for his brand new army. he sees a thing called Deep strike reserve...wow, that sounds kind of neat, let me see what that does in the rulebook.
He opens the rulebook and looks for the Deep Strike Reserve rule, he then reads that all models must have the Deep Strike rule, at first he thinks nothing of it as he assumes GW wouldn;t allow him to take a model that contradicts the rules. Hmm, but where does it say if a unit has deep strike. he looks at the chaplain....hmm, no rule about deep strike. He then looks at terminators....no rule for deep strike, same as land raiders. OK, now I'm confused, but again, maybe deathwing gives me Deep Strike since that's what detachment says.
A buddy then tells him about the rules for terminator armour and he checks that. Oh, there is the Deep Strike rule. But what about my chaplain I bought....what about the Land raider? Keeps reading, gets more confused.

Calls friend who informs him he can't play those models as they can't deep strike. Gets all pissed off about the models he bought and wonders why the heck GW would allow him to take a unit in one rule and then not allow him to field it in another right below. Stupid game.

THIS is how it should be looked at. GW should have been specific, and certainly NOT talk about dedicated transports in one line, and then right below talk about dreadnoughts and their dedicated transports (drop pods) in the next sentence. This infers that the first sentence is talking about land raiders since it makes no sense to repeat the line below when discussing dreadnoughts.

It is extremely poor writing and should not be dismissed with contempt as easily as you have been doing throughout this whole thread.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 hisdudeness wrote:
Which Codex are you guys looking at?

Mine says all ICs in the Deathwing Redemption Force must have TDA. Am I missing something?

Why would you even want to...it's a formation to drop in an all Deathwing force, one would think only Deathwing members would be in it. Combined with the DP requirement for the Dreads and the Deathwing Assult rule for the Formation, it seems pretty obvious that Landraiders are not meant to be included.

Deathwing Strike Force on pg 158, not Deathwing Redemption Force.

jeez, this is a perfect example. In one formation, they specifically tell you that all ICs MUST have TDA, but in the strikeforce this is omitted. Dumb.

 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?

What if I allied in a drop pod, or another transport that could deep strike?
That would let all the models in the formation deep strike, even though some of those are doing so by units not in the formation.

The darkshroud unit getting shrouded stealth isn't even inconsistent imo. It still affects the unit because it is within a 6" bubble. It then specifically states that the darkshroud itself is not affected.

It sounds like the wording for grimoire of true names.

I would allow anyone with the Deathwing rule to be included in the Ravenwing Detachment....

But obviously wouldn't get the Ravenwing reroll.

Frankly, these "inconsistencies" seem to be people wanting to min/max or Easter egg the codex.

Why on earth would a non-wing unit/IC be included in a wing formation/detachment? If you want to attach a PA IC to a wing unit in a wing formation take a CAD.

 Nightlord1987 wrote:
I would allow anyone with the Deathwing rule to be included in the Ravenwing Detachment....

But obviously wouldn't get the Ravenwing reroll.

That makes the least sense out of the all the suggestions.

Maybe exchange deathwing for ravenwing, but you can't just leave out the ravenwing rule for a ravenwing librarian

In my digital codex, it states that all models must enter by deep strike reserve, then it goes on to define deep strike by stating all models must have the "deep strike special rule". Separately but similarly, the DW redemption force even spells out that your dreadnoughts must arrive via a drop pod in a single model formation. My group has played it that if you can't take terminator armor or a drop pod as a DC you're out.


For RW, any HQ that can take a bike automatically gains the RW special rule. Pretty simple.

 hisdudeness wrote:
Frankly, these "inconsistencies" seem to be people wanting to min/max or Easter egg the codex.

Why on earth would a non-wing unit/IC be included in a wing formation/detachment? If you want to attach a PA IC to a wing unit in a wing formation take a CAD.

wow, not only did you not hit the bullseye, you didn't even hit the dartboard!

You have to have an understanding of the Dark Angels organization to understand why there are complaints.

You can argue what you think as RAW as long as you want, but at some point you need to see that GW needs to write codexes with the idea that someone has never played before. Heck, people are still making mistakes in list building with the new decurions, auxiliaries and formations, even experienced players.

let's look at a new player perspective at the Deathwing Strike Force.

he looks at the FOC picture, then reads the Restrictions....Deathwing rule unless a dedicated transport. It then talsk about a dreadnought and it's dedicated transport, the drop pod.
So he goes back in the book at sees that the Interrogator Chaplain has the Deathwing rule...COOL, I just bought that model along with the book. he'll be my HQ.
he then looks at elites and sees that only deathwing terms, knights and ven dreads have deathwing rule. But then he sees that each terminator sqd can have a dedicated transport, a mighty Land Raider. Oh yeah, there was a part in the book on pg 53 that talked about Deathwing Land Raiders. Cool.
And so he builds his list with these models, spent good money and readies for a game. he goes on to read the command benefits for his brand new army. he sees a thing called Deep strike reserve...wow, that sounds kind of neat, let me see what that does in the rulebook.
He opens the rulebook and looks for the Deep Strike Reserve rule, he then reads that all models must have the Deep Strike rule, at first he thinks nothing of it as he assumes GW wouldn;t allow him to take a model that contradicts the rules. Hmm, but where does it say if a unit has deep strike. he looks at the chaplain....hmm, no rule about deep strike. He then looks at terminators....no rule for deep strike, same as land raiders. OK, now I'm confused, but again, maybe deathwing gives me Deep Strike since that's what detachment says.
A buddy then tells him about the rules for terminator armour and he checks that. Oh, there is the Deep Strike rule. But what about my chaplain I bought....what about the Land raider? Keeps reading, gets more confused.

Calls friend who informs him he can't play those models as they can't deep strike. Gets all pissed off about the models he bought and wonders why the heck GW would allow him to take a unit in one rule and then not allow him to field it in another right below. Stupid game.

THIS is how it should be looked at. GW should have been specific, and certainly NOT talk about dedicated transports in one line, and then right below talk about dreadnoughts and their dedicated transports (drop pods) in the next sentence. This infers that the first sentence is talking about land raiders since it makes no sense to repeat the line below when discussing dreadnoughts.

It is extremely poor writing and should not be dismissed with contempt as easily as you have been doing throughout this whole thread.

Essentially this is a long way of saying because new players make mistakes you can break rules all you want and it's GW's fault for not stopping you.

Yes I could see a new player making that error, if I was playing him I'd let him count his Into Chappy as having Terminator Armour for free in that game and explain he needs to reorganise his list for next time. He could run an identical list as he initially ran just as unbound so it's not like he's totally wasted his money just is list isn't as strong as he thought it might be. Which is par for the course with a new player.

Could the rules doubly spell out what you could take to not break the rules? Yes they could. But at some point it is just a waste of ink and GW has to draw the line somewhere they can't be expected to repeat the entire rulebook in reference to every rule.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 bullyboy wrote:

 hisdudeness wrote:
Frankly, these "inconsistencies" seem to be people wanting to min/max or Easter egg the codex.

Why on earth would a non-wing unit/IC be included in a wing formation/detachment? If you want to attach a PA IC to a wing unit in a wing formation take a CAD.

wow, not only did you not hit the bullseye, you didn't even hit the dartboard!

You have to have an understanding of the Dark Angels organization to understand why there are complaints.

To be fair the Death wing stuff is blatant easter egging he's right there. The Ravenwing is clearly not as there are 3 HQ slots and 3>1 so the interpretation that the maximum HQs you can field in the RW detachment being 1 is clearly off.

Where as the Darkshroud Support Squad issue is a case of the rules not being immediately obvious.

 hisdudeness wrote:
Frankly, these "inconsistencies" seem to be people wanting to min/max or Easter egg the codex.

Why on earth would a non-wing unit/IC be included in a wing formation/detachment? If you want to attach a PA IC to a wing unit in a wing formation take a CAD.

That's exactly the problem here, we are talking about wing IC (they all have the deathwing rule) that cannot be taken into the Deathwing detachment due to the wording of a rule.
Someone here is trying to say that it is intended (??) and someone else is trying to find a way to correct that wording.
This gets only more complicated if you look at the Land Raider issue (which again, are part of Deathwing by fluff).