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.

Spoletta 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.

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).

Yes it is clearly intended as the/DW detachment is not the only way to field DW. It is a way to field DW that arrive in a massed teleport assault. Why would you think it is intended ?with no fluff support for models that can't teleport to be able to teleport as long as there are enough Terminators around? Why does taking 2 squads of terminators magically make their teleporters capable of teleporting a PA marine or a Landraider? I genuinely want to know why you think this?

 FlingitNow wrote:

Spoletta 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.

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).

Yes it is clearly intended as the/DW detachment is not the only way to field DW. It is a way to field DW that arrive in a massed teleport assault. Why would you think it is intended ?with no fluff support for models that can't teleport to be able to teleport as long as there are enough Terminators around? Why does taking 2 squads of terminators magically make their teleporters capable of teleporting a PA marine or a Landraider? I genuinely want to know why you think this?

You clearly haven't read anything of what has been said in this thread. Ignored.

No, fling is just correct.

You're coming from the position that the rule is wrong, so must be changed. Howveer the rule isnt wrong - like all rules it presumes you wont deliberately break the rules. You have done. Thats cheating

Grav is not you deliberately breaking arule. You get to a situaiton the rules do nt cover. That iks totally separate

Youre intentionally trying to change a rule that works perfectly well, and does not cause the game to break, "JUST BECAUSE". Thats it.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
No, fling is just correct.

You're coming from the position that the rule is wrong, so must be changed. Howveer the rule isnt wrong - like all rules it presumes you wont deliberately break the rules. You have done. Thats cheating

Grav is not you deliberately breaking arule. You get to a situaiton the rules do nt cover. That iks totally separate

Youre intentionally trying to change a rule that works perfectly well, and does not cause the game to break, "JUST BECAUSE". Thats it.

Sorry man, if that rule "perfectly worked" we wouldn't have a 3 page long thread trying to understand how that rule works called "How will you/your group play Dark Angel rule inconsistencies?".
It's actually quite the contrary, we have no idea what the author intended to do with that rule. We know that the RAW is incorrect and are looking for the RAI so that we can mend the rule accordingly.
Again, the fact that you can avoid all this by not selecting certain models is a workaround, not surely the answer.

Sigh.

No, the RAW is not incorrect. and, people on here can argue for 15 pages about "has the ability" meaning "must already have" so 3 pages is nothing.

You must follow the urle: all models are placed in Deepstrike Reserve. You know you must comp[ly with this rule at list building time, as the rule is clearly laid out. You dont get to purchas emodels that cannot meet this requirement and decide the RAW is "incorrect" on this

It is a massed teleporter assault. If you cannot teleport (or rather, be in DSR representing Teleport) then you may not be fielded

It isnt a "workaround". It is literally following the rules

Your assumptions are what is causing your error and confusion here. The same way peoples assumptions on how armies are constructed gives them issues with 7ths new way of constructing armies

There is no need for a workaround, when there is no problem apart from the one you have constructed yourself.

I didn't choose the grav example by chance, cause it is this exact same situation. In one case you are asked to roll a dice toward an unknown result, in another case you have model that is asked to do something that it can't do.

Want another case? Model that finds himself stuck on impassable terrain (maybe do to the vortex rule). He can't get away from there, but can't end it's movement there. Woot i broke the game again! Let's ban all models with vortex rule!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Sigh.

No, the RAW is not incorrect. and, people on here can argue for 15 pages about "has the ability" meaning "must already have" so 3 pages is nothing.

You must follow the urle: all models are placed in Deepstrike Reserve. You know you must comp[ly with this rule at list building time, as the rule is clearly laid out. You dont get to purchas emodels that cannot meet this requirement and decide the RAW is "incorrect" on this

It is a massed teleporter assault. If you cannot teleport (or rather, be in DSR representing Teleport) then you may not be fielded

It isnt a "workaround". It is literally following the rules

Your assumptions are what is causing your error and confusion here. The same way peoples assumptions on how armies are constructed gives them issues with 7ths new way of constructing armies

There is no need for a workaround, when there is no problem apart from the one you have constructed yourself.

You are looking at this from a warped point of view. And no one is saying that those models should be able to deep strike (but it can be a solution). And yes the RAW is busted since first it tells you "A" and then "Not A". It is literally telling you "You can take models that can deep strike and models that cannot deepstrike, but they all must deep strike at the start of the game".

Spoletta wrote:
Want another case? Model that finds himself stuck on impassable terrain (maybe do to the vortex rule). He can't get away from there, but can't end it's movement there. Woot i broke the game again! Let's ban all models with vortex rule!

And how did the model get stuck in Impassable Terrain? He could not have moved there (the rules forbid it), and if the impassable terrain moved on top of the model (which is the more likely scenario), the model did not end his move in impassable terrain. So again no rule was broken. He simply would not be able to move, much like an Immobilized vehicle cannot move.

I think the rule I am going to make with regard to how my brother plays his Dark Angels is that an Independent Character with the Deathwing rule that takes a Space Marine Bike may be taken in the Ravenwing Strike Force.

 bullyboy wrote:

 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.

That's just a BS arguement and you know it. Could GW write more clearly? Yeah, definately, I'm totally with you on that. But it doesn't mean that the current rules don't count. You might need to take another detachement field a model, but no model is "unfieldable" as some claim.

Not knowing enough about the rules is your own damn fault. Someone I know bought 3 Nemesis dreadknights, built them and found out he could bring only 2 in a Nemesis strike force when someone pointed it out to himat deployment.

I felt bad for him but even he himself had to admit it was his own damn stupidity that led him to 'waste' money. And I say waste but he can and does run 3 DK's in a regular CAD from time to time.

 casvalremdeikun wrote:
I think the rule I am going to make with regard to how my brother plays his Dark Angels is that an Independent Character with the Deathwing rule that takes a Space Marine Bike may be taken in the Ravenwing Strike Force.

My issue with that is that the only Character without the DW rule that can take a bike is the character MOST likely to be Ravenwing in the standard chappy...

Spoletta wrote:


Want another case? Model that finds himself stuck on impassable terrain (maybe do to the vortex rule). He can't get away from there, but can't end it's movement there. Woot i broke the game again! Let's ban all models with vortex rule!

Model is suddenly in impassable, let's say because of vortex. Model cannot move through impassable terrain, and model cannot end a move in impassable terrain. Therefore: model cannot move.

Formation says all models in this formation must deepstrike. Model cannot deepstrike. Therefore: model cannot be in formation.

These conclusion require only a modicum of critical thinking skills. Just because you are refusing to view these rules in a reasonable manor does not mean they are broken. They function. Maybe not how we want them too, but they work, unlike the Grav/armour save example which is simply something the rules do not cover.

In the DW case, it serves to create a restriction that only models capable of deepstrike may be in this particular detachment.

In the RW case... they function. It is not the desired result, and I am willing to bet that it's going to get FAQ'd (eventually), but it is still a functional rule: to take that RW det, you must take Sammy. They should add that RW Bike grants RW rule to ICs.

The trouble is models with out the deep strike special rule ARE allowed in the DW strike force detachment, and that's his point entirely. This detachment allows you to legally find yourself in a situation the rules do not cover.

My opinion, based on the RAW, if you place a model in deep strike reserve that cannot deep strike the model will be 'trapped' in reserves through the game and will inevitably count as a casualty.

I find it amusing that the players who are basically saying the DW rules are clearcut and are not RAI can also claim that RW biker HQs should be allowed in RWSF. cake and eat it boys. Either you are playing RAW for all or not all.

Here are 3 distinctive points regarding DWSF that should be considered.

1. In the Deathwing Redemption Force, the restrictions specifically state that ICs MUST be in terminator armour. There are no such restrictions in the DWSF, this may be completely RAI.
2. In the DWSF there is a sentence talking about dedicated transports preceding another sentence talking about dreadnoughts and their dedicated transports. There would be no reason to have this stated twice if just referring to drop pod dreads. RAI may be referring to land raider transports.
3. If the DWSF was supposed to be terminators and dreads only, it would become eerily similar to the Deathwing Redemption Force, almost too similar.

RAI may have intended for the DWSF to include all Deathwing members and their transports. I agree that it may not have intended for them to Deep Strike and to me the thought of deep striking land raiders is absurd, but I cannot rule out that the intention was to allow these elements in the force.

This is exactly the same as the RWSF HQ options. People are having no problem allowing bikers to be in this force, but we have no idea if that is RAI for all HQ choices on bike. Only the chaplain has a legitimate claim to be in the Ravenwing. Librarians and Interrogator Chaplains may never have been given RW training so may only belong in a CAD. Same with the techmarine.

I think the DWSF was intended to give the option of all the elements of the deathwing, same as the RWSF. Deathwing Land Raiders are an integral part of that puzzle and even though they removed venerable from land raiders, there is still a page in the book talking about the Deathwing Land Raiders.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Sigh.

No, the RAW is not incorrect. and, people on here can argue for 15 pages about "has the ability" meaning "must already have" so 3 pages is nothing.

You must follow the urle: all models are placed in Deepstrike Reserve. You know you must comp[ly with this rule at list building time, as the rule is clearly laid out. You dont get to purchas emodels that cannot meet this requirement and decide the RAW is "incorrect" on this

It is a massed teleporter assault. If you cannot teleport (or rather, be in DSR representing Teleport) then you may not be fielded

It isnt a "workaround". It is literally following the rules

Your assumptions are what is causing your error and confusion here. The same way peoples assumptions on how armies are constructed gives them issues with 7ths new way of constructing armies

There is no need for a workaround, when there is no problem apart from the one you have constructed yourself.

for most of this I compltely agree. The only issue I have is that it's very strange of GW to create the DWSF without the option to field ALL of the Deathwing (members, transports). The deep Striking teleportation force is already in the book and is called the Deathwing Redemption Force. It seems odd to almost repeat this thing with the DWSF (one of the first things I noticed when looking at the book was how close these two formations are). And what's crazy is that if they had allowed all deathwing members to be in the force, and allowed terms in transports to be fielded on table instead of DSR then players who play pure DW armies would have a way to actually play the game without almost auto losing Turn 1.

I would absolutely allow my opponent to play all DW with the DWSF by allowing Land Raiders and their occupants to start on table. All dreads and non transport terms would start in deep strike reserve.

Are we certain that the Summoned to war sentence should have read instead "must begin the game in deep strike reserve unless mounted in a land raider"

I just don't know anymore with GW. It just seems crazy that they create this formation that pretty much auto loses if it is played alone.

Yes, because GW don't create auto lose formations, like lost and the damned. Oh, wait.

Spoletta - no, the grav example is not exactly the same. The clear and undeniable reasons why have already been given.

The rule is utterly clear. You may take x models, and the models you choose just be able to deepstrike. Choosing to only follow one rule, well that's plain cheating.

Exactly the same as trying to claim the 6th ed nice dex and rule book let you create a none character army that was force org legal but failed once you got to the game and couldn't select a warlord, and thus the codex was broken

It isn't. The rules must be followed, and you can manage to do so. This is different to grav , no matter how often you try to equate the two.

The most probable scenario is that whoever wrote that rule had in mind that if something is forced to do something it can't then it obviously hasn't to. He could have wrote the whole thing a lot better, but that is most probably the RAI.

This clears all issues, allows Azrael, Ezekiel and Asmodai in their iconic detachment, allows the iconic DW land Raider and those that want to play pure DW can do so.

Yes this is what makes more sense and is the direct and most logical interpretation. I'll propose this to my store.

Those that want to change the detachment rules to ban those models should please explain me why they would propose to their store an interpretation and change to the rules that is much less direct and logical. What advantages would it have? I can tell you it has a lot of drawbacks, first of all being hardest on the new players.

That said, i'm no longer interested in convincing other of this, it is too obvious to make the effort.

well, the thread was asking what you plan to do, not what is RAW/RAI.
I'll wait for GW to be the judge of that (if and when they do).

maceria wrote:


Model is suddenly in impassable, let's say because of vortex. Model cannot move through impassable terrain, and model cannot end a move in impassable terrain. Therefore: model cannot move.

If you don't move then you ended your move, but it's ok, this is not a topic that i want to discuss here.

Spoletta - you are the sole person changing rules. The most reasonable interpretation to make is that, if choosing to do something forces you to break the rules, then maybe you do not choose that action

Not moving != ending your move. So patently obvious the mind boggles.

I find my interpretation fully respecting of the existing rules in a logical and direct manner while yours look unnecessarily complicated and rule warping.

But as i said, I've reached my conclusion, you're free to believe what you want, i'm no longer trying to get my point across, it proved useless.

Spoletta wrote:
I find my interpretation fully respecting of the existing rules in a logical and direct manner while yours look unnecessarily complicated and rule warping.

I'm sorry. I've tried to stay out of this, but this comment blew my mind.

You have literally suggested we break or ignore the rules on this subject. Fling it and Nos are literally telling you not to break the rules.

If you think that purposely forcing a rule into being broken is the logical thing to do, and that not forcing the rules to be broken is unnecessarily complicated and warped, then the rules are not the cause of the problem.......

I find it more logical to interpet "Must" with "Must if able" than to assume that the rule is "You can take models A and B, but only models A".

The second is obviously dumb. Sorry, i'm starting to be honest.

I think that one thing that needs further investigation is why is the Deathwing Redemption Force and Deathwing Strike Force so similar. If we take the majority above, neither can take Deathwing characters out of Terminator armour and neither can take land raiders as dedicated transports. Was creating the Deathwing Redemption Force necessary at all?

They were clearly designed to be different. It's just not clear how so.
Both the strike appear to be there in order to run pure (x)wing armies. The writers to managed to feth it up

It still works for me. Like i said before, the ravenwing hq problem has already been fixed by all TOs in my area.

 bullyboy wrote:
I think that one thing that needs further investigation is why is the Deathwing Redemption Force and Deathwing Strike Force so similar. If we take the majority above, neither can take Deathwing characters out of Terminator armour and neither can take land raiders as dedicated transports. Was creating the Deathwing Redemption Force necessary at all?

There are more differences then similarities.

Spoletta wrote:
I find my interpretation fully respecting of the existing rules in a logical and direct manner while yours look unnecessarily complicated and rule warping.

But as i said, I've reached my conclusion, you're free to believe what you want, i'm no longer trying to get my point across, it proved useless.

Following the rules is rules warping?

Mind. Boggled.

You have two rules which you must follow. So, follow them. It's not that difficult.

I'm not trying to convince you. Just showing how your twisting of rules doesn't fool anyone.

DaPino wrote:

 bullyboy wrote:

 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.

That's just a BS arguement and you know it. Could GW write more clearly? Yeah, definately, I'm totally with you on that. But it doesn't mean that the current rules don't count. You might need to take another detachement field a model, but no model is "unfieldable" as some claim.

Not knowing enough about the rules is your own damn fault. Someone I know bought 3 Nemesis dreadknights, built them and found out he could bring only 2 in a Nemesis strike force when someone pointed it out to himat deployment.

I felt bad for him but even he himself had to admit it was his own damn stupidity that led him to 'waste' money. And I say waste but he can and does run 3 DK's in a regular CAD from time to time.

Actually that was a well thought out and put comment he maid, you may not agree but the general point is sound.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
I find my interpretation fully respecting of the existing rules in a logical and direct manner while yours look unnecessarily complicated and rule warping.

But as i said, I've reached my conclusion, you're free to believe what you want, i'm no longer trying to get my point across, it proved useless.

Following the rules is rules warping?

Mind. Boggled.

You have two rules which you must follow. So, follow them. It's not that difficult.

I'm not trying to convince you. Just showing how your twisting of rules doesn't fool anyone.

Then don't get fooled. I'm not twisting anything, i'm just following rules, but you seem too narrow minded to see it.
If you want to propose a change of rules in your store so that you can solve this issue, be my guest. As i said it's a perfectly valid solution.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
I find my interpretation fully respecting of the existing rules in a logical and direct manner while yours look unnecessarily complicated and rule warping.

But as i said, I've reached my conclusion, you're free to believe what you want, i'm no longer trying to get my point across, it proved useless.

Following the rules is rules warping?

Mind. Boggled.

You have two rules which you must follow. So, follow them. It's not that difficult.

I'm not trying to convince you. Just showing how your twisting of rules doesn't fool anyone.

Its an immutable fact that the rules as written allow you to create a situation for which the rules provide no proper outcome.

 DJGietzen wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
I find my interpretation fully respecting of the existing rules in a logical and direct manner while yours look unnecessarily complicated and rule warping.

But as i said, I've reached my conclusion, you're free to believe what you want, i'm no longer trying to get my point across, it proved useless.

Following the rules is rules warping?

Mind. Boggled.

You have two rules which you must follow. So, follow them. It's not that difficult.

I'm not trying to convince you. Just showing how your twisting of rules doesn't fool anyone.

Its an immutable fact that the rules as written allow you to create a situation for which the rules provide no proper outcome.

And our argument is that, instead of putting yourself in that position and then breaking the rules to suit, you should not put yourself in that position so you have no reason to break anything

Oh, I agree 100%. Its a situation you should not willfully put yourself in, but that fact that its a situation you can legally put yourself in shows there is a problem with the rules as written. An avoidable problem is still a problem.
I think it was Spoletta that drew a comparison to grav weapons. This is a good comparison as both are rules that with out bending or breaking any other rules will lead you into situations the rules as written are not equipped to resolve. We can also avoid the problem of shooting grav weapons at a unit with mixed saved by choosing not to ever do that. Should you, I don't think so.

So lets all take a step back, take a deep breath and admit. The DWSF has a rules flaw, a flaw that is easy to avoid and making an issue out of, but a flaw none the less.

As to how I would play it? I know beyond myself there are at least two other DA players I might run into. I will propose 3 rule adjustments to my group and we will pick 1 and go from there.

1) Amend the restrictions to the detachment and add "A models must have the deep strike special rule or be deployed in a transport with the deep strike special rule."
2) Amend the 1st command benefit and only require models with the deep strike special rule to start the game in deep strike reserves. Instead non deep stirke units must start the game in 'normal' reserves.
3) Amend the 1st command benefit and give permission for models that do not have the deep strike special rule to arrive via deep-strike.