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.

This is akin to declaring which weapon you will use in close combat and then changing your mind after rolling to hit. Just because you declared intent of which weapon you were going to use, doesn't mean you had to use it.

Waste of breath with col_incompetent.

No you can not, if you say they are ariving via deep strike they must arrive that way.

Its also worth noting that deepstrike reserves are separate from reserves, they are two different pools. At the start of the game you pick which unit is going to which pool, once they are in there, unless you have another special rule to summon them, they can only arrive the way that pool allows, no changing pools.

If they start in the deep strike pool, they must deep strike in. If they start in normal reserves, they must come in via normal reserve method.

t.A guy who half his army is deep strike.

 CrownAxe wrote:

col_impact wrote:

GodDamUser wrote:
Oh is this another lets see how many pages we get till the thread is locked?

I simply read the rules and argue based on what the rules actually say and not on what I want them to say.

Arguments that are based purely on the Rules As Written aren't always popular and often elicit a knee-jerk response from others.

So lots of pages of back-and-forth can be used up by the action of me simply pointing to others where their counter arguments aren't supported by any rules or aren't in accordance with what they rules actually say.

If people paused and checked thoroughly on what the rules actually say before posting on any given thread then a lot of back-and-forth could be spared.

You are just reading the rules incorrectly though.

It's why you are always the only person to be on your side of the argument. You're the one at fault

To be fair, it's now always. We did have the one thread where he was with most of the people and it was just Ceann and Brother Ramses on the other side. I would say there have been many threads like you describe, though.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

col_impact wrote:

Outflank takes away the above permission. Deep Strike does not. A unit that has announced that it will be Deep Striking is placed both in Reserves and Deep Strike Reserves, leaving the option open to walk on from Reserves when it comes time to roll for Reserves.

Actually I'd like to see you give the rules quote showing Outflank taking away the permission. From what I read, it looks like the two are similar. You declare you're outflanking, then it tells you how units that are outflanking come on. You declare you're deep striking when you put the unit in reserves, then it tells you how deep striking units come on. I don't see how you claim the permission is rescinded for outflanking but not for Deep Strike.

But, relating it back to the other thread, I concur with Charistoph's post that if you have some special rule (like Eternity Gate) it could override it, but otherwise I don't see that you get to change your mind after you've made the declaration. You've already declared how the unit is coming on, there's notthing written up giving you permission to change the declaration, so it seems you would be stuck with the declaration (unless codex rule/equipment shenanigans get involved)

Brother Ramses wrote:This is akin to declaring which weapon you will use in close combat and then changing your mind after rolling to hit. Just because you declared intent of which weapon you were going to use, doesn't mean you had to use it.

Or changing the target after you Roll To Hit.

"Okay, you hit with all of your Fire Dragons on my Gaunts, roll to Wound."
"Actually, I will be Wounding your Zooming Tyrant instead."
" this, I'm going home".

doctortom wrote:But, relating it back to the other thread, I concur with Charistoph's post that if you have some special rule (like Eternity Gate) it could override it, but otherwise I don't see that you get to change your mind after you've made the declaration. You've already declared how the unit is coming on, there's notthing written up giving you permission to change the declaration, so it seems you would be stuck with the declaration (unless codex rule/equipment shenanigans get involved)

Thank you. We don't always agree on some of these things.

I would like to point out as an aside, the Gate is not a special rule, and deep strike is. Which is how it is able to manipulate normal reserves and ongoing reserves. Deep Strike is listed as a special rule, in the codex, on the Army List Entry page for any unit that has deep strike.

It is accorded all precedence of a special rule and an Army List Entry. What you have here is essentially the exact same scenario. Someone claiming you can cancel deep strike halfway through, which you cannot. Short of another LABELED special rule.

Gate is not a special rule and deploying as normal from reserves is not either, gate can take precedence over the basic rules because it is a "codex rule".

Nearly all of a particular individuals arguments are based on permissions he assumes he has.
When I think we can all agree we are told what permissions we have by the rules and under what circumstances we can use said permissions.

Ceann wrote:
I would like to point out as an aside, the Gate is not a special rule, and deep strike is. Which is how it is able to manipulate normal reserves and ongoing reserves. Deep Strike is listed as a special rule, in the codex, on the Army List Entry page for any unit that has deep strike.

It is accorded all precedence of a special rule and an Army List Entry. What you have here is essentially the exact same scenario. Someone claiming you can cancel deep strike halfway through, which you cannot. Short of another LABELED special rule..

At the risk of derailing the thread, it's not quite the same. The Gate is an advanced rule in a codex, Deep Strike (as a special rule) is an advanced rule in the main rulebook. "On rare occasions, a conflict will arise between a rule in this rulebook, and one printed in a codex. Where this occurs, the rule pprinted in the codex or Army List Entry always takes precedence.." (page 13 main rulebook). The units are in reserve. Deep strike reserve is not treated as separate from reserves (or ongoing reserves) as per instructions in the codex - deep strike says "Roll for the arrival of Deep Striking units as specified in the rules for Reserves (p 135) and then deploy them as follows" Page 135 says "At the start of your second turn you must roll a D6 for each unit in your army that is being held in Reserve - these are known as Reserve Rolls." It doesn't say anything about treating Deep Strike Reserve for rolling, so the Deep Strike rules are treating the unit as being in Reserves. "Deep Strike Reserves" is just an indicator of how they come onto the board when they come out of Reserves. This means they are treated as being in Reserves for purposes of the Gate, and through the codex > rulebook provision form page 13 could be deployed through the gate. (For that matter, anybody placed in Reserves for outflanking could be pulled out in the same manner). So, advanced rules in the codex do override advanced rules in the main rulebook.

This is a different situation than what we are dealing with here in this thread, though. We have units declared to be deep striking (or outflanking) and no advanced rule from a codex or supplement to override it. You've already committed to having them arrive via deep striking (or outflanking) and have no permission to change that declaration (by way of an advanced rule from a codex or supplement), therefore they must arrive by the method that you declared they will arrive.

Ceann wrote:
I would like to point out as an aside, the Gate is not a special rule, and deep strike is. Which is how it is able to manipulate normal reserves and ongoing reserves. Deep Strike is listed as a special rule, in the codex, on the Army List Entry page for any unit that has deep strike.

It is accorded all precedence of a special rule and an Army List Entry. What you have here is essentially the exact same scenario. Someone claiming you can cancel deep strike halfway through, which you cannot. Short of another LABELED special rule.

Gate is not a special rule and deploying as normal from reserves is not either, gate can take precedence over the basic rules because it is a "codex rule".

The Gate is not any kind of rule, it is Wargear. It does have special rules, though. Remember the definition, location does not matter in defining it as a special rule.

The reason its rules are special are four fold.
* It is not a Transport nor on a Transport, but units can Disembark through it.
* It is able to Disembark units that are not Embarked on the unit.
* It is able to override the procedure of Arriving From Reserves by virtue of bypassing the roll.
* It is able to remove a unit from off the table to reposition it via Disembarking.

All of these are breaking numerous rules, mostly advanced rules at that, and that is part of what defines a special rule. There is no other term for it because these sure aren't basic rules it is using.

There is absolutely no rule that states, "you cannot override a special rule without another labelled special rule." That is a farcical comment which is nowhere in the rulebook. "Codex rules" take precedence over ANY rules in the rulebook, not just the basic rules. Deep Strike is defined in the rulebook, so the Gate can override it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 doctortom wrote:
This is a different situation than what we are dealing with here in this thread, though. We have units declared to be deep striking (or outflanking) and no advanced rule from a codex or supplement to override it. You've already committed to having them arrive via deep striking (or outflanking) and have no permission to change that declaration (by way of an advanced rule from a codex or supplement), therefore they must arrive by the method that you declared they will arrive.

I did bring it up by virtue of the only way to counter the situation. I guess someone still has a burr about it, despite numerous points to the exact same rules that state otherwise to his opinion.

 Charistoph wrote:

Ceann wrote:
I would like to point out as an aside, the Gate is not a special rule, and deep strike is. Which is how it is able to manipulate normal reserves and ongoing reserves. Deep Strike is listed as a special rule, in the codex, on the Army List Entry page for any unit that has deep strike.

It is accorded all precedence of a special rule and an Army List Entry. What you have here is essentially the exact same scenario. Someone claiming you can cancel deep strike halfway through, which you cannot. Short of another LABELED special rule.

Gate is not a special rule and deploying as normal from reserves is not either, gate can take precedence over the basic rules because it is a "codex rule".

The Gate is not any kind of rule, it is Wargear. It does have special rules, though. Remember the definition, location does not matter in defining it as a special rule.

The reason its rules are special are four fold.
* It is not a Transport nor on a Transport, but units can Disembark through it.
* It is able to Disembark units that are not Embarked on the unit.
* It is able to override the procedure of Arriving From Reserves by virtue of bypassing the roll.
* It is able to remove a unit from off the table to reposition it via Disembarking.

All of these are breaking numerous rules, mostly advanced rules at that, and that is part of what defines a special rule. There is no other term for it because these sure aren't basic rules it is using.

There is absolutely no rule that states, "you cannot override a special rule without another labelled special rule." That is a farcical comment which is nowhere in the rulebook. "Codex rules" take precedence over ANY rules in the rulebook, not just the basic rules. Deep Strike is defined in the rulebook, so the Gate can override it.

We as players are not allowed to decide what does and does not break the rules.
If you note any unit with Deep Strike on it's list entry, under Special Rules section of the list it will be noted as one, as with any other rule that is a special rule.
If it is not noted as one then it is not one, regardless of our opinions on the matter.

The reason its rules are not special are one and only one.

* We are not told it is one.

Open any codex, go to the page before the first unit and read the break down of an Army List Entry.
This in particular.

9. Special Rules: Any special rules that apply to models in the unit are listed here. Special
rules that are unique to models in that unit are described in full here, whilst others are
detailed either in the Appendix of this book or in the Special Rules section of Warhammer
40,000: The Rules.

Eternity Gate is not listed as a special rule on the data sheet, so it is not one.
It is allowed to exert codex precedence over the basic rules, which is why it does work.
It is not allowed to supersede special rules, to my knowledge nothing is.
This is why Lance works over the shielding ability also, one is a special rule and one is not.
We are told where special rules exist and explicitly told where to find them.
This is also precisely why you cannot just walk onto the board after stating you will deep strike, you have already chosen to use the rule and you must use the entire rule, not a portion of a rule.

Hopefully when the 8th ed. rules drop that they make all of this a bit more clear, regardless of what side of it you are on.
I think we can all agree that we only want clarity.

Ceann wrote:
We as players are not allowed to decide what does and does not break the rules.
If you note any unit with Deep Strike on it's list entry, under Special Rules section of the list it will be noted as one, as with any other rule that is a special rule.
If it is not noted as one then it is not one, regardless of our opinions on the matter.

The reason its rules are not special are one and only one.

* We are not told it is one.

Open any codex, go to the page before the first unit and read the break down of an Army List Entry.
This in particular.

9. Special Rules: Any special rules that apply to models in the unit are listed here. Special
rules that are unique to models in that unit are described in full here, whilst others are
detailed either in the Appendix of this book or in the Special Rules section of Warhammer
40,000: The Rules.

Eternity Gate is not listed as a special rule on the data sheet, so it is not one.
It is allowed to exert codex precedence over the basic rules, which is why it does work.
It is not allowed to supersede special rules, to my knowledge nothing is.
This is why Lance works over the shielding ability also, one is a special rule and one is not.
We are told where special rules exist and explicitly told where to find them.
This is also precisely why you cannot just walk onto the board after stating you will deep strike, you have already chosen to use the rule and you must use the entire rule, not a portion of a rule.

Hopefully when the 8th ed. rules drop that they make all of this a bit more clear, regardless of what side of it you are on.
I think we can all agree that we only want clarity.

Incorrect. Location is not the definition of a special rule. Nothing you have ever quoted on this subject states that this is the only place to find special rules. Special Rules listed as such are the the abilities which are not tied to any equipment.

A special rule is something that bends or breaks the game's rules. Being found in Wargear does not automatically make it basic rules or the game's rules. Does the Eternity Gate entirely follow the game's rules, or does it bend or break them? I gave a list of rules that it does bend and break, and those were advanced rules as well, so the Gate's rules definitely bend or break the rules.

That is the rulebook's definition, and that is what matters, period.

Ceann wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

Ceann wrote:
I would like to point out as an aside, the Gate is not a special rule, and deep strike is. Which is how it is able to manipulate normal reserves and ongoing reserves. Deep Strike is listed as a special rule, in the codex, on the Army List Entry page for any unit that has deep strike.

It is accorded all precedence of a special rule and an Army List Entry. What you have here is essentially the exact same scenario. Someone claiming you can cancel deep strike halfway through, which you cannot. Short of another LABELED special rule.

Gate is not a special rule and deploying as normal from reserves is not either, gate can take precedence over the basic rules because it is a "codex rule".

The Gate is not any kind of rule, it is Wargear. It does have special rules, though. Remember the definition, location does not matter in defining it as a special rule.

The reason its rules are special are four fold.
* It is not a Transport nor on a Transport, but units can Disembark through it.
* It is able to Disembark units that are not Embarked on the unit.
* It is able to override the procedure of Arriving From Reserves by virtue of bypassing the roll.
* It is able to remove a unit from off the table to reposition it via Disembarking.

All of these are breaking numerous rules, mostly advanced rules at that, and that is part of what defines a special rule. There is no other term for it because these sure aren't basic rules it is using.

There is absolutely no rule that states, "you cannot override a special rule without another labelled special rule." That is a farcical comment which is nowhere in the rulebook. "Codex rules" take precedence over ANY rules in the rulebook, not just the basic rules. Deep Strike is defined in the rulebook, so the Gate can override it.

We as players are not allowed to decide what does and does not break the rules.
If you note any unit with Deep Strike on it's list entry, under Special Rules section of the list it will be noted as one, as with any other rule that is a special rule.
If it is not noted as one then it is not one, regardless of our opinions on the matter.

The reason its rules are not special are one and only one.

* We are not told it is one.

Open any codex, go to the page before the first unit and read the break down of an Army List Entry.
This in particular.

9. Special Rules: Any special rules that apply to models in the unit are listed here. Special
rules that are unique to models in that unit are described in full here, whilst others are
detailed either in the Appendix of this book or in the Special Rules section of Warhammer
40,000: The Rules.

Eternity Gate is not listed as a special rule on the data sheet, so it is not one.
It is allowed to exert codex precedence over the basic rules, which is why it does work.
It is not allowed to supersede special rules, to my knowledge nothing is.
This is why Lance works over the shielding ability also, one is a special rule and one is not.
We are told where special rules exist and explicitly told where to find them.
This is also precisely why you cannot just walk onto the board after stating you will deep strike, you have already chosen to use the rule and you must use the entire rule, not a portion of a rule.

Hopefully when the 8th ed. rules drop that they make all of this a bit more clear, regardless of what side of it you are on.
I think we can all agree that we only want clarity.

Ceann, the main rulebook talks about basic vs. advanced, not special vs. non-special. I gave you the quote on how an advanced rule in a codex interacts with an advanced rule in the main rulebook. Insisting that the Gate doesn't override normal Deep Strike rules is you just trying to make rules up. Please refer back to page 13 in the main rulebook. I would also suggest that we drop this tangent as there will probably be more than enough going on here when col_impact rejoins the conversation, and we should probably not get this closed before he gets back because we derailed it into a subject that had already been closed up. Therefore, I would say that if you do not agree with what I said in my prevous post we should probably just agree to disagree on it.

 Charistoph wrote:

Ceann wrote:
We as players are not allowed to decide what does and does not break the rules.
If you note any unit with Deep Strike on it's list entry, under Special Rules section of the list it will be noted as one, as with any other rule that is a special rule.
If it is not noted as one then it is not one, regardless of our opinions on the matter.

The reason its rules are not special are one and only one.

* We are not told it is one.

Open any codex, go to the page before the first unit and read the break down of an Army List Entry.
This in particular.

9. Special Rules: Any special rules that apply to models in the unit are listed here. Special
rules that are unique to models in that unit are described in full here, whilst others are
detailed either in the Appendix of this book or in the Special Rules section of Warhammer
40,000: The Rules.

Eternity Gate is not listed as a special rule on the data sheet, so it is not one.
It is allowed to exert codex precedence over the basic rules, which is why it does work.
It is not allowed to supersede special rules, to my knowledge nothing is.
This is why Lance works over the shielding ability also, one is a special rule and one is not.
We are told where special rules exist and explicitly told where to find them.
This is also precisely why you cannot just walk onto the board after stating you will deep strike, you have already chosen to use the rule and you must use the entire rule, not a portion of a rule.

Hopefully when the 8th ed. rules drop that they make all of this a bit more clear, regardless of what side of it you are on.
I think we can all agree that we only want clarity.

Incorrect. Location is not the definition of a special rule. Nothing you have ever quoted on this subject states that this is the only place to find special rules. Special Rules listed as such are the the abilities which are not tied to any equipment.

A special rule is something that bends or breaks the game's rules. Being found in Wargear does not automatically make it basic rules or the game's rules. Does the Eternity Gate entirely follow the game's rules, or does it bend or break them? I gave a list of rules that it does bend and break, and those were advanced rules as well, so the Gate's rules definitely bend or break the rules.

That is the rulebook's definition, and that is what matters, period.

/sigh /triple face palm

Dude.


Whenever a creature or weapon has an ability that breaks or bends one of the main game
rules, it is represented by a special rule.

It TELLS you when it is a special rule. You are pulling a "you know who" move by not stating the entire context of the statement.
So while you might THINK it is breaking rules, it isn't.
You can't decide it isn't a special rule because you were not told it was one.
Hence it is not represented by a special rule.
Because if it was then it would be.... "represented by a special rule".

Is rolling for reserves as normal, listed in the special rules section or represted by a special rule?
No.

Is deep strike?
Yes.

So we follow the rules for deep strike, because it is a special rule and special rules are listed IN THE CODEX on the datasheet under the "Special Rules" section of the Army List Entry.
The special rules in the BRB a repository for rules, if a rules is referenced on a data sheet it is permitted to use the rules being referenced unless it is superseded by a special rule.

Ceann wrote:
/sigh /triple face palm

Dude.


Whenever a creature or weapon has an ability that breaks or bends one of the main game
rules, it is represented by a special rule.

It TELLS you when it is a special rule. You are pulling a "you know who" special by not stating the entire context of the statement.

Does the Eternity Gate, which a model has, have an ability that allows you to bend or break the game's rules? Yes, or no?

Do you accept the concept that a rule provided by a codex can override a USR? If not, can you demonstrate where it states otherwise?

 Charistoph wrote:

Ceann wrote:
/sigh /triple face palm

Dude.


Whenever a creature or weapon has an ability that breaks or bends one of the main game
rules, it is represented by a special rule.

It TELLS you when it is a special rule. You are pulling a "you know who" special by not stating the entire context of the statement.

Does the Eternity Gate, which a model has, have an ability that allows you to bend or break the game's rules? Yes, or no?

Do you accept the concept that a rule provided by a codex can override a USR? If not, can you demonstrate where it states otherwise?

9. Special Rules: Any special rules that apply to models in the unit are listed here. Special
rules that are unique to models in that unit are described in full here, whilst others are detailed either in the Appendix of this book or in the Special Rules section of Warhammer 40,000: The Rules.

You are told BY THE CODEX what special rules you have.
Is Eternity Gate listed as a special rule?
No.

Is it represented by a Special Rule?
No.

So is it one?
No.

Ceann wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

Ceann wrote:
/sigh /triple face palm

Dude.


Whenever a creature or weapon has an ability that breaks or bends one of the main game
rules, it is represented by a special rule.

It TELLS you when it is a special rule. You are pulling a "you know who" special by not stating the entire context of the statement.

Does the Eternity Gate, which a model has, have an ability that allows you to bend or break the game's rules? Yes, or no?

Do you accept the concept that a rule provided by a codex can override a USR? If not, can you demonstrate where it states otherwise?

9. Special Rules: Any special rules that apply to models in the unit are listed here. Special
rules that are unique to models in that unit are described in full here, whilst others are detailed either in the Appendix of this book or in the Special Rules section of Warhammer 40,000: The Rules.

You are told BY THE CODEX what special rules you have.
Is Eternity Gate listed as a special rule?
No.

Is it represented by a Special Rule?
No.

So is it one?
No.

That does not address his question. It also does not address what I said earlier. I'm starting to wonder if you just have me on ignore. It's not special vs. non-special rule, it's basic vs advanced rule, and the ruleook tells you how to handle a conflict between rules in a codex and ones in the main rulebook. Charistoph, if he's not willing to drop the argument and agree to disagree as I suggested earlier, you might bring this up more explicitly with him.

The issue tom is that basic vs advanced is just that, basic vs advanced. A USR is not a basic rule, if you want to conceptually put two rules a box, which one must be the basic rule and which one must be the advanced rule becomes quite clear.

You are exhibiting the same behavior of cherry picking statements from rules and using those as arguments.

BvA:

1. The advanced rules that apply to a unit are indicated
in its Army List Entry.

2. For example, the basic rules state that a model must take a Morale check under certain situations. If, however, that model has a special rule that makes it immune to Morale checks, then it does not take such checks - the advanced rule takes precedence.

I don't need to address his question because his question is based on a false premise that he has permission, as a player, to decide what is and is not an advanced rule. That is the issue that everyone seems to have.

That is why this issue keeps coming up, because everyone see's this statement "bends or breaks a rule" ignores the part that it will be "represented by a special rule" and asserts they have the authority to decide which is which.

We are told that special rules are advanced rules.
We are told where to find special rules.
We are told they will be notated on the Army List Entry.
We are told advanced rules are in the Army List Entry.

If the only example we are given, of BvA in action, is to notate that a special rule is the advanced rule and that is the only example we are given other than a description. Then clearly only special rules are advanced rules.

In all of these situations Deep Strike is listed under the special rules section of Data Sheet and nothing else is.
Therefore Deep Strike has precedence.
Outflanking is the same way, it is listed under the special rules for the unit, it has precedence.
The only way we would actually have a conflict would be if there was a special rule in the codex and a USR and those conflicted, then the special rule from the codex would have precedence.
However there is no special rule here to contest Deep Strike.

Ceann wrote:9. Special Rules: Any special rules that apply to models in the unit are listed here. Special
rules that are unique to models in that unit are described in full here, whilst others are detailed either in the Appendix of this book or in the Special Rules section of Warhammer 40,000: The Rules.

You are told BY THE CODEX what special rules you have.
Is Eternity Gate listed as a special rule?
No.

Is it represented by a Special Rule?
No.

So is it one?
No.

That is a definition by location. That is not listed as the defining characteristic of a special rule. The term "only" is not used in the rulebook's or codices' comments on location. That restriction is completely yours.

Answer the questions:
Does the Eternity Gate, which a model has, have an ability that allows you to bend or break the game's rules? Yes, or no?

Do you accept the concept that a rule provided by a codex can override a USR? If not, can you demonstrate where it states otherwise?

doctortom wrote:Charistoph, if he's not willing to drop the argument and agree to disagree as I suggested earlier, you might bring this up more explicitly with him.

I have. He did not like the answers and just gave a politician's answer, i.e. answer the question he wanted instead of the one asked.

Does the Eternity Gate, which a model has, have an ability that allows you to bend or break the game's rules? Yes, or no?


Fabrication Charistoph I am disappointed.
This is what he would do.

1. WHAT SPECIAL RULES DO I HAVE?
It may seem obvious, but unless stated otherwise, a model does not have a special rule.

2. Whenever a creature or weapon has an ability that breaks or bends one of the main game
rules, it is represented by a special rule.

It has not been represented as one, nor has it been stated otherwise that it is one.
You need to answer... is Eternity Gate represented as a special rule? Yes, or no?
In order to represented as one, it would have to be in the Special Rules section of the datasheet.

col_impact expresses himself in a way that is annoying, but in most cases technically correct, its therefor often not necessary for others to join in, so judging how right he is by how many who agrees with him is not fair.


There is no rule in the BRB that says you have to do what yo say.


I could say unit A will shoot at unit B, and then afterwards say "im rolling to run", and go on to roll a die to run unit A instead, no rule broken. Its not a nice way to behave, but its not illegal.


Likewise, I could put a unit in reserves and say it will deep strike, (this triggers a rule saying this unit is now in deep strike reserve, and also Reserves as he points out in red), but nothing in BRB says I have to do what I say, and nothing in the rules says it may now only arrive by deep strike.


Because the definition of putting a unit in deep strike is horribly worded by GW, "put in reserves and inform oponent", you end up with rules most likely being wrongly interpreted, strictly RAW.


Most people in the thread who argue say that when you say the "unit will arrive by DS", that unit now must arrive by DS. Changing the werb in that sentence already drastically changes the meaning.


I believe GW intended for the unit to now be locked to deploy by deep strike only, but their sentences strictly logically don't convey that meaning. Or they changed their mind while writing up rules, or different writers had different understanding of the rules. Its a mess anyway. But that is a RAI issue.

Had GW wanted this flexibilty, they would surely have expressed themselves differently, yet RAI.


When they wrote outflank they did a better job.

Ceann wrote:
The issue tom is that basic vs advanced is just that, basic vs advanced. A USR is not a basic rule, if you want to conceptually put two rules a box, which one must be the basic rule and which one must be the advanced rule becomes quite clear.

You are exhibiting the same behavior of cherry picking statements from rules and using those as arguments.

BvA:

1. The advanced rules that apply to a unit are indicated
in its Army List Entry.

2. For example, the basic rules state that a model must take a Morale check under certain situations. If, however, that model has a special rule that makes it immune to Morale checks, then it does not take such checks - the advanced rule takes precedence.

I don't need to address his question because his question is based on a false premise that he has permission, as a player, to decide what is and is not an advanced rule. That is the issue that everyone seems to have.

That is why this issue keeps coming up, because everyone see's this statement "bends or breaks a rule" ignores the part that it will be "represented by a special rule" and asserts they have the authority to decide which is which.

We are told that special rules are advanced rules.
We are told where to find special rules.
We are told they will be notated on the Army List Entry.
We are told advanced rules are in the Army List Entry.

If the only example we are given, of BvA in action, is to notate that a special rule is the advanced rule and that is the only example we are given other than a description. Then clearly only special rules are advanced rules.

thank you for responding.

I do think your claim of cherry picking rules is way off-base. I am referring to THE rule that tells us how to handle basic rules and how to handle advanced rules. Yes, Deep Strike is a special rule. We know special rules are advanced rules because a) they are not in the core rules section, where we're told all the basic rules are, b) they are in the appendix, which we are told is a "collection of advanced rules, weaponry and abilities"

What about Eternity Gate? It contains advanced rules as well. I suggest you review what is stated on page 13 for a definition of advanced rules, as it covers more than just "special rules". All special rules are advanced rules, but not all advanced rules are special rules (and therefore, not only special rules are advanced rules). I think that is where your analysis falls apart. The Eternity gate has its own rules that override normal rules, so therefore cannot be basic rules. Also they are new rules in a codex, so aren't covered in the basic rules section. It would also fall under the advanced rules in the "apply to specific types of models" category - namely models equipped with it. "The advanced rules that apply to a unit are indicated in its Army List Entry." Are the rules for Eternity Gate indicated there? Yes. We are dealing with an advanced rule for the Eternity Gate for pulling models out of Reserves. (We also override the basic rules about how to deploy units coming in from Reserves when we use it.) So, we have an advanced rule from the main rulebook (Deep Strike) compared to an advanced rule in a Codex (Eternity Gate). According to page 13, Codex advanced rule beats main rulebook advanced rule.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ceann wrote:
Does the Eternity Gate, which a model has, have an ability that allows you to bend or break the game's rules? Yes, or no?


Fabrication Charistoph I am disappointed.
This is what he would do.

1. WHAT SPECIAL RULES DO I HAVE?
It may seem obvious, but unless stated otherwise, a model does not have a special rule.

2. Whenever a creature or weapon has an ability that breaks or bends one of the main game
rules, it is represented by a special rule.

It has not been represented as one, nor has it been stated otherwise that it is one.
You need to answer... is Eternity Gate represented as a special rule? Yes, or no?
In order to represented as one, it would have to be in the Special Rules section of the datasheet.

Unfortunately what you do here is not going by the rules. You should not be asking what special rules do I have, but what advanced rules do I have? It just happens that Eternity Gate has a special rule. Basic rules do not allow you to take a unit from Reserves and deploy it in front of the monolith. Then again, Reserves rules are advanced rules by themselves, so any rules involving reserves are advanced rules.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

torblind wrote:
col_impact expresses himself in a way that is annoying, but in most cases technically correct, its therefor often not necessary for others to join in, so judging how right he is by how many who agrees with him is not fair.


There is no rule in the BRB that says you have to do what yo say.


I could say unit A will shoot at unit B, and then afterwards say "im rolling to run", and go on to roll a die to run unit A instead, no rule broken. Its not a nice way to behave, but its not illegal.


Likewise, I could put a unit in reserves and say it will deep strike, (this triggers a rule saying this unit is now in deep strike reserve, and also Reserves as he points out in red), but nothing in BRB says I have to do what I say, and nothing in the rules says it may now only arrive by deep strike.


Because the definition of putting a unit in deep strike is horribly worded by GW, "put in reserves and inform oponent", you end up with rules most likely being wrongly interpreted, strictly RAW.


Most people in the thread who argue say that when you say the "unit will arrive by DS", that unit now must arrive by DS. Changing the werb in that sentence already drastically changes the meaning.


I believe GW intended for the unit to now be locked to deploy by deep strike only, but their sentences strictly logically don't convey that meaning. Or they changed their mind while writing up rules, or different writers had different understanding of the rules. Its a mess anyway. But that is a RAI issue.

Had GW wanted this flexibilty, they would surely have expressed themselves differently, yet RAI.


When they wrote outflank they did a better job.

The problem is that he says outflanking takes away permission, but deep striking doesn't. How so? For outflanking you declare they are outflanking. The rules later tell you how to handle outflanking units. You declare you are deep striking. The rules tell you how to handle deep striking units. If the declaration take away the permission to just walk on for outflanking units, then in order for him to be consistent, then deep striking units would also have had their permission to just walked on revoked in just the same manner it's revoked for outflankers. No, there's no rule in the BRB that you have to do what you say, but I do think there is a good argument for the point that at the time you declare that the unit is either deep striking or outflanking, you have defined the unit as a deep stirking unit or an outflanking unit, which means they are subject to the rules of having to follow through on how those types of units are instructed to com onto the board (unless, of course, there's an advanced rule associated with something in a codex that would override it - the Ceann/Charisoph/ myself sidebar going on now).

His argument about units the must deep strike cherry picks and ignores that they are required to be placed in reserves as well as being required to deep strike. Merely saying they are required in reserves would not cover them deep striking at all; it has to mention it in order to ensure they deep strike. That does not mean that it's an exclusionary statement in that only they are forced to deep strike. As I said, once you've made the commitment to deep strike you've defined your unit in a manner that makes you have to follow the deep strike rules for deployment.

 doctortom wrote:

Ceann wrote:
The issue tom is that basic vs advanced is just that, basic vs advanced. A USR is not a basic rule, if you want to conceptually put two rules a box, which one must be the basic rule and which one must be the advanced rule becomes quite clear.

You are exhibiting the same behavior of cherry picking statements from rules and using those as arguments.

BvA:

1. The advanced rules that apply to a unit are indicated
in its Army List Entry.

2. For example, the basic rules state that a model must take a Morale check under certain situations. If, however, that model has a special rule that makes it immune to Morale checks, then it does not take such checks - the advanced rule takes precedence.

I don't need to address his question because his question is based on a false premise that he has permission, as a player, to decide what is and is not an advanced rule. That is the issue that everyone seems to have.

That is why this issue keeps coming up, because everyone see's this statement "bends or breaks a rule" ignores the part that it will be "represented by a special rule" and asserts they have the authority to decide which is which.

We are told that special rules are advanced rules.
We are told where to find special rules.
We are told they will be notated on the Army List Entry.
We are told advanced rules are in the Army List Entry.

If the only example we are given, of BvA in action, is to notate that a special rule is the advanced rule and that is the only example we are given other than a description. Then clearly only special rules are advanced rules.

thank you for responding.

I do think your claim of cherry picking rules is way off-base. I am referring to THE rule that tells us how to handle basic rules and how to handle advanced rules. Yes, Deep Strike is a special rule. We know special rules are advanced rules because a) they are not in the core rules section, where we're told all the basic rules are, b) they are in the appendix, which we are told is a "collection of advanced rules, weaponry and abilities"

What about Eternity Gate? It contains advanced rules as well. I suggest you review what is stated on page 13 for a definition of advanced rules, as it covers more than just "special rules". All special rules are advanced rules, but not all advanced rules are special rules (and therefore, not only special rules are advanced rules). I think that is where your analysis falls apart. The Eternity gate has its own rules that override normal rules, so therefore cannot be basic rules. Also they are new rules in a codex, so aren't covered in the basic rules section. It would also fall under the advanced rules in the "apply to specific types of models" category - namely models equipped with it. "The advanced rules that apply to a unit are indicated in its Army List Entry." Are the rules for Eternity Gate indicated there? Yes. We are dealing with an advanced rule for the Eternity Gate for pulling models out of Reserves. (We also override the basic rules about how to deploy units coming in from Reserves when we use it.) So, we have an advanced rule from the main rulebook (Deep Strike) compared to an advanced rule in a Codex (Eternity Gate). According to page 13, Codex advanced rule beats main rulebook advanced rule.

I feel like I am trying to be quite honest about BvA. It gives us a description of the kinds of things that might be advanced rules. That is it, a description. We are not given permission to freely on our own decide what is and is not an advanced rule. The only location it gives us as to where they might be located is an Army List Entry or Codex.

Eternity Gate is not an advanced rule, that is an assumption based on the description that is provided. In the example of what BvA is, it states that a special rule is the advanced rule and takes precedence.
Eternity Gate works as normal because if conflicts with the basic deployment rules, but by being in a codex it has precedence. Note that the basic reserve rules are not notated on the data sheet.
Deep Strike is a special rule, is notated as such on the data sheet. You cannot use part of a special rule, deep striking involves the entire process of placing it in reserves to the point it arrives. Anything that changes that is conflicting with the process.

Reanimation Protocols is a special rule, so is Chapter Tactics, if Eternity Gate was a special rule then it could easily be located under the special rule section of the units data sheet, but it isn't, if that were the case it would clearly have precedence.

Deep strike and outflank are both located in the special rules section of any unit that has them,

BvA tells us "Advanced rules apply to specific types of models, whether because..."
Because means, reasons. We are given reasons why advanced rules would apply.
Not what they ARE, but why they apply.
We are then told "The advanced rules that apply to a unit are indicated in its Army List Entry."
Then provided an example of a special rule as being the advanced rule.
The two statements tell us what they apply too, and then tell us where the rules that apply are indicated.

I have drawn no conclusions on my own, nor decided I have permission to decide what rule is what rule.
The entire purpose of BvA is to poorly explain to us that special rules have precedence.

 doctortom wrote:
The problem is that he says outflanking takes away permission, but deep striking doesn't. How so? For outflanking you declare they are outflanking. The rules later tell you how to handle outflanking units. You declare you are deep striking. The rules tell you how to handle deep striking units.

I agree these look like very similar mechanics. But as always with RAW, the devil is in the details, every last tiny one.

For outflank it says literally:

When this unit arrives from Reserves, ...

Those few words make all the difference in the world. There is no such formal restriction on any paragraphs of the Deep Strike Rule.

Again I am dead certain that if GW wanted to make this distinction between the two methods (DS and OF), they wouldn't have hidden away the crucial difference between them in this one sentence deep inside BRB.

Now col_impact is being a total d*** about what is logical and strict, which is why those who agree (like me) seldom join in, and people with emotions (which covers well above 90% of us), get into these long angry and eventually locked YMDC threads.

torblind wrote:

 doctortom wrote:
The problem is that he says outflanking takes away permission, but deep striking doesn't. How so? For outflanking you declare they are outflanking. The rules later tell you how to handle outflanking units. You declare you are deep striking. The rules tell you how to handle deep striking units.

I agree these look like very similar mechanics. But as always with RAW, the devil is in the details, every last tiny one.

For outflank it says literally:

When this unit arrives from Reserves, ...

Those few words make all the difference in the world. There is no such formal restriction on any paragraphs of the Deep Strike Rule.

Again I am dead certain that if GW wanted to make this distinction between the two methods (DS and OF), they wouldn't have hidden away the crucial difference between them in this one sentence deep inside BRB.

Now col_impact is being a total d*** about what is logical and strict, which is why those who agree (like me) seldom join in, and people with emotions (which covers well above 90% of us), get into these long angry and eventually locked YMDC threads.

But the devil is entirely in the details.
"Reserves" as a standard deployment procedure takes place within the basic rules.
Outflanking and Deep Strike are special rules, special rules have a precedence when there is a conflict.

Outflank and Deep Strike dictate EXACTLY how you MUST arrive when using them.
If you try to bring that unit in via some other fashion, then you are conflicting with how the two special rules dictate they arrive.
You cannot use them to claim you are deploying in a particular fashion and then stop using the rule later to change it.
When you declare them in your deployment phase the bullet has effectively left the barrel, the grenade has been thrown.
You have no option to stop it "mid air" and change your mind. You have begun using the rule and must use the rule until it has been completed in it's finality.
Only a duly noted special rule from a codex could change the circumstances of their arrival.

Arriving from your board edge is not that circumstance.

Some people are going to love 8th Edition Narrative Play with how much crap they just make-up.

Ceann wrote:
I feel like I am trying to be quite honest about BvA. It gives us a description of the kinds of things that might be advanced rules. That is it, a description. We are not given permission to freely on our own decide what is and is not an advanced rule. The only location it gives us as to where they might be located is an Army List Entry or Codex.

You suffer from a misconception here. We are told what basic rules are and what advanced rules are. We are given permission to decide what is an advanced rule by the fact that they have defined what the basic rules are, and as the only categories are basic and advanced rules, if it is not a basic rule then it must be an advanced rule.

In matter of fact, we are required to be able to tell if a rule is a basic rule or an advanced rule when having to deal iwth the interaction between two rules. Otherwise, you would never know how to apply the basic vs advanced sidebar.

Ceann wrote:
Eternity Gate is not an advanced rule, that is an assumption based on the description that is provided. In the example of what BvA is, it states that a special rule is the advanced rule and takes precedence.
Eternity Gate works as normal because if conflicts with the basic deployment rules, but by being in a codex it has precedence. Note that the basic reserve rules are not notated on the data sheet.
Deep Strike is a special rule, is notated as such on the data sheet. You cannot use part of a special rule, deep striking involves the entire process of placing it in reserves to the point it arrives. Anything that changes that is conflicting with the process.

No assumptions made at all. It is compared to the basic rules in the Core Rules section. Are the rules for Eternity gate rules that are in the Core Rules section? No. Therefore, it is not a basic rule. It breaks or bends one of the main game rules, so it meets the definition of a special rule. It can be used for any unit in Reserves, so it is not strictly following vehicle rules (as you are not dealing with a unit embarked in the vehicle) (Vehicle rules are advanced rules, by the way, meeting the "are not normal infantry models (a bike, a swarm or even a tank)", so even if it were merely disembarking rules you are still dealing with advanced rules)

So, not only do you not have a lack of permission, you have a duty to be able to tell if a rule is basic or advanced. Your problem is that you are treating special rules as the only advanced rules when page 13 clearly has a broader definition than that.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ceann wrote:
[

But the devil is entirely in the details.
"Reserves" as a standard deployment procedure takes place within the basic rules.

Well, to put a point on it, the devil IS in the details. The first sentence for MISSION SPECIAL RULES on page 135 (the title of the section alone should be a big tip off): "Special rules can be added to a game to cover unique situations, tactics or abilities that you feel you need to be represented by your battle." So, we have just had the section with Mission Special Rules defined as Special Rules. And, since Special Rules are advanced rules, that means that the rules for Reserves there are advanced rules, not basic rules.

Ceann wrote:Does the Eternity Gate, which a model has, have an ability that allows you to bend or break the game's rules? Yes, or no?

Fabrication Charistoph I am disappointed.
This is what he would do.

1. WHAT SPECIAL RULES DO I HAVE?
It may seem obvious, but unless stated otherwise, a model does not have a special rule.

2. Whenever a creature or weapon has an ability that breaks or bends one of the main game
rules, it is represented by a special rule.

It has not been represented as one, nor has it been stated otherwise that it is one.
You need to answer... is Eternity Gate represented as a special rule? Yes, or no?
In order to represented as one, it would have to be in the Special Rules section of the datasheet.

No fabrication, I am just applying the situation as the rulebook defines it, not as the rulebook locates it. Note the difference in verb, "defines" vs "locates". You are only going by location, not definition. That is a fabrication.

I also note that you did not answer the questions:
Does the Eternity Gate, which a model has, have an ability that allows you to bend or break the game's rules? Yes, or no?

Do you accept the concept that a rule provided by a codex can override a USR? If not, can you demonstrate where it states otherwise?

torblind wrote:col_impact expresses himself in a way that is annoying, but in most cases technically correct, its therefor often not necessary for others to join in, so judging how right he is by how many who agrees with him is not fair.

While I agree on the second part, he more often is not technically correct as he often takes things out of context, and ignores things that would say otherwise, even in the very sentence he is nit-picking rules from.

torblind wrote:There is no rule in the BRB that says you have to do what yo say.

A false premise. That is the equivalent of saying, "but it doesn't say I can't". Please review the Forum Tenet Rules #1 and take particular note of the link on how to have an intelligent rules debate..

torblind wrote:I could say unit A will shoot at unit B, and then afterwards say "im rolling to run", and go on to roll a die to run unit A instead, no rule broken. Its not a nice way to behave, but its not illegal.

It depends on when you are announcing you are rolling to Run. If you are doing it during the To Wound portion of the Shooting Sequence, it is rather disingenuous and basically lying to your opponent. It is poor sportsmanship and will cause that you to lose any games.

torblind wrote:Likewise, I could put a unit in reserves and say it will deep strike, (this triggers a rule saying this unit is now in deep strike reserve, and also Reserves as he points out in red), but nothing in BRB says I have to do what I say, and nothing in the rules says it may now only arrive by deep strike.

If you change your mind in Deployment, most will see no problem with it any more than they would if you changed Targets before selecting a Weapon and rolling To Hit. But as has pointed out repeatedly, once the game starts, there is no permission set allowing you to change how a unit Arrives From Reserves except through codex rules. Doing so is following a, "but it doesn't say I can't" mentality.

torblind wrote:Most people in the thread who argue say that when you say the "unit will arrive by DS", that unit now must arrive by DS. Changing the werb in that sentence already drastically changes the meaning.

A change caused by tense. One is defining an action of the future. The other is regarding the fulfillment of that expectation.

Ceann wrote:I feel like I am trying to be quite honest about BvA. It gives us a description of the kinds of things that might be advanced rules. That is it, a description. We are not given permission to freely on our own decide what is and is not an advanced rule. The only location it gives us as to where they might be located is an Army List Entry or Codex.

Not true. It only states it is indicated, on there, not located there. Are you aware of the difference in these terms?

All special rules are advanced rules. All advanced rules carry special rules, otherwise, they are basic rules which would not allow them to be advanced.

Ceann wrote:Eternity Gate is not an advanced rule, that is an assumption based on the description that is provided. In the example of what BvA is, it states that a special rule is the advanced rule and takes precedence.
Eternity Gate works as normal because if conflicts with the basic deployment rules, but by being in a codex it has precedence. Note that the basic reserve rules are not notated on the data sheet.
Deep Strike is a special rule, is notated as such on the data sheet. You cannot use part of a special rule, deep striking involves the entire process of placing it in reserves to the point it arrives. Anything that changes that is conflicting with the process.

You are incorrect that you cannot use part of a special rule. See the Pysker Power Gate of Infinity and how it works for an example. See also how Stubborn deals with Fearless for another example of only using part of a special rule.

Ceann wrote:Reanimation Protocols is a special rule, so is Chapter Tactics, if Eternity Gate was a special rule then it could easily be located under the special rule section of the units data sheet, but it isn't, if that were the case it would clearly have precedence.

Deep strike and outflank are both located in the special rules section of any unit that has them,

BvA tells us "Advanced rules apply to specific types of models, whether because..."
Because means, reasons. We are given reasons why advanced rules would apply.
Not what they ARE, but why they apply.
We are then told "The advanced rules that apply to a unit are indicated in its Army List Entry."
Then provided an example of a special rule as being the advanced rule.
The two statements tell us what they apply too, and then tell us where the rules that apply are indicated.

I have drawn no conclusions on my own, nor decided I have permission to decide what rule is what rule.

You have drawn conclusions of your own, otherwise you would be questioning what we are saying and not having a determination to fight against what we are saying.

So, let me ask you this, If the Eternity Gate's rules are not advanced nor special, what are they?

They are not basic, as they are defined in the codex, not the rulebook, nor defined as basic rules there. Nor do they even interact with any basic rule, as they address advanced rules regarding Reserves and Transports.

The Eternity Gate is a piece of Wargear and not rules. Wargear, much like models, carry rules. They cannot be basic rules, as they modify rules that are already defined as advanced in the rulebook.

Do the rules of the Eternity Gate fit any of the categories which define an advanced rule?
* Special kind of Weapon? Nope.
* Cause it to be different from its fellows? Nope.
* Cause it to be a not normal infantry model? Nope.
* Unusual Skill? Yes. It allows the model to do something that no other model without an Eternity Gate can do.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

torblind wrote:

 doctortom wrote:
The problem is that he says outflanking takes away permission, but deep striking doesn't. How so? For outflanking you declare they are outflanking. The rules later tell you how to handle outflanking units. You declare you are deep striking. The rules tell you how to handle deep striking units.

I agree these look like very similar mechanics. But as always with RAW, the devil is in the details, every last tiny one.

For outflank it says literally:

When this unit arrives from Reserves, ...

Those few words make all the difference in the world. There is no such formal restriction on any paragraphs of the Deep Strike Rule.

Again I am dead certain that if GW wanted to make this distinction between the two methods (DS and OF), they wouldn't have hidden away the crucial difference between them in this one sentence deep inside BRB.

From Deep Strike:

Roll for the arrival of all Deep Striking units as specified in the rules for Reserves and then deploy them as follows...

Only changing how they get on the table at this point.

In the Movement phase during which they arrive...

You rolled for getting them out of Reserves, and then they Arrive.

So, since it only changes the method of placing the units on the table, not the prerequisites, of Arriving From Reserves, it is somehow not included as "arriving from reserves"?

Ceann wrote:But the devil is entirely in the details.
"Reserves" as a standard deployment procedure takes place within the basic rules.
Outflanking and Deep Strike are special rules, special rules have a precedence when there is a conflict.

Incorrect. Reserves is a Mission Special Rule. It is not basic. Just because we are used to using it, does not define it as basic. That is your biggest problem with these definitions. You are taking something that is basic to us or to something else and defining it as basic without thinking about how the game sees it.

torblind wrote:

 doctortom wrote:
The problem is that he says outflanking takes away permission, but deep striking doesn't. How so? For outflanking you declare they are outflanking. The rules later tell you how to handle outflanking units. You declare you are deep striking. The rules tell you how to handle deep striking units.

I agree these look like very similar mechanics. But as always with RAW, the devil is in the details, every last tiny one.

For outflank it says literally:

When this unit arrives from Reserves, ...

Those few words make all the difference in the world. There is no such formal restriction on any paragraphs of the Deep Strike Rule.

Again I am dead certain that if GW wanted to make this distinction between the two methods (DS and OF), they wouldn't have hidden away the crucial difference between them in this one sentence deep inside BRB.

Now col_impact is being a total d*** about what is logical and strict, which is why those who agree (like me) seldom join in, and people with emotions (which covers well above 90% of us), get into these long angry and eventually locked YMDC threads.

My mini-rulebook says "When an Outflanking unit arrives from Reserves, but not from Ongoing Reserves..." It doesn't just say "when this unit arrives from Reserves"

Huh, how about that? Conflicting statements between the two books we are looking at. No wonder there's an argument about it! I don't know which one is more recent (I suspect the mini-rulebook might be a corrected version given the specificity you're talking about being here but not in your quote - it looks like my quote is more of a correction of yours rather than the other way around. I can easily see, though why this would be seen differently, depending on which version of the book you have! Unfortunately I don't see it mentioned in the FAQ. Can somebody with an enhanced digital version give the quote from Outflank so we can clear up what's the most recent version? I would imagine the updates would have that version being more recent. It doesn't make sense to argue about the deep striking and reserves any more until we get this cleared up, as it is probably the different wordings causing the conflict.


Thanks for posting and for answering my earlier question; this wouldn't have come to light if you hadn't!!!!

 doctortom wrote:
My mini-rulebook says "When an Outflanking unit arrives from Reserves, but not from Ongoing Reserves..." It doesn't just say "when this unit arrives from Reserves"

Huh, how about that? Conflicting statements between the two books we are looking at. No wonder there's an argument about it! I don't know which one is more recent (I suspect the mini-rulebook might be a corrected version given the specificity you're talking about being here but not in your quote - it looks like my quote is more of a correction of yours rather than the other way around. I can easily see, though why this would be seen differently, depending on which version of the book you have! Unfortunately I don't see it mentioned in the FAQ. Can somebody with an enhanced digital version give the quote from Outflank so we can clear up what's the most recent version? I would imagine the updates would have that version being more recent. It doesn't make sense to argue about the deep striking and reserves any more until we get this cleared up, as it is probably the different wordings causing the conflict.


Thanks for posting and for answering my earlier question; this wouldn't have come to light if you hadn't!!!!

There are 3 instances of Outflank, one for the rule itself, one for Scout, and one for Infiltrate. The latter two state, "When this unit arrives from Reserves, but not Ongoing Reserve...", while the Special Rule itself is as you point out your rulebook states.

I'm thinking torblind was quoting from one of the sub-references found in Scout or Infiltrate, not Outflank itself.

Please read your data sheets.

8. Wargear: This section details the weapons and equipment the models in the unit are
armed with, many of which are described in more detail in the Appendix of this book. The
cost for all the unit’s basic equipment is included in its points cost.

9. Special Rules: Any special rules that apply to models in the unit are listed here.

Whenever a creature or weapon has an ability that breaks or bends one of the main game
rules, it is represented by a special rule.

We are told that the unit has basic equipment.
Therefore all of the equipment it has, are basic rules used for that unit in that codex.

Special rules are annotated for a REASON.
The special rules field would have no reason to exist other than to reference USR's which is clearly not the case.
There are plenty of pieces of wargear that notate specifically when they have a Special Rule.
If they were all advanced rules then this would again, have no purpose.

You guys are greatly misinterpreting basic vs advanced.
"Advanced rules apply to specific types of models whether because they have..."

Now please follow what I am saying.
It is telling you the circumstances, under which something WOULD have an advanced rule.
Not that the things listed ARE advanced rules.
Because... "The advanced rules that apply to a unit are indicated in its Army List Entry."

We are never anywhere given permission to make such determinations on our own.

The ONLY example of an advanced rule is this...

For example, the basic rules state that a model must take a Morale check under certain situations. If, however, that model has a special rule that makes it immune to Morale checks, then it does
not take such checks – the advanced rule takes precedence.

We are told in the special rules section that models do not have special rules unless told otherwise.
The only place we are told what special rules a unit or model has, is on it's army list entry, in the special rules section of the data sheet.

Because we are dealing with special rules you are required to follow through the entire process of using them. Because otherwise you are not using the rule. The examples you provided of Stubborn and Fearless are not accurate examples because both of those are special rules and are notated as special rules and specifically notate how they interact in order to not cause a conflict between the two of them.

 Charistoph wrote:

 doctortom wrote:
My mini-rulebook says "When an Outflanking unit arrives from Reserves, but not from Ongoing Reserves..." It doesn't just say "when this unit arrives from Reserves"

Huh, how about that? Conflicting statements between the two books we are looking at. No wonder there's an argument about it! I don't know which one is more recent (I suspect the mini-rulebook might be a corrected version given the specificity you're talking about being here but not in your quote - it looks like my quote is more of a correction of yours rather than the other way around. I can easily see, though why this would be seen differently, depending on which version of the book you have! Unfortunately I don't see it mentioned in the FAQ. Can somebody with an enhanced digital version give the quote from Outflank so we can clear up what's the most recent version? I would imagine the updates would have that version being more recent. It doesn't make sense to argue about the deep striking and reserves any more until we get this cleared up, as it is probably the different wordings causing the conflict.


Thanks for posting and for answering my earlier question; this wouldn't have come to light if you hadn't!!!!

There are 3 instances of Outflank, one for the rule itself, one for Scout, and one for Infiltrate. The latter two state, "When this unit arrives from Reserves, but not Ongoing Reserve...", while the Special Rule itself is as you point out your rulebook states.

I'm thinking torblind was quoting from one of the sub-references found in Scout or Infiltrate, not Outflank itself.

Good point. Looking, they do say "this unit" in the outflank section of Infiltrate and Scout, but my quote came directly from the Outflank rule. Strange that they changed a bit what they said for outflank in the sections for the other rules from the outflank rule itself, and don't reference the outflank special rule by page number but rely on the outflank rules in the scout or infiltrate part instead.

Ceann wrote:
Please read your data sheets.

8. Wargear: This section details the weapons and equipment the models in the unit are
armed with, many of which are described in more detail in the Appendix of this book. The
cost for all the unit’s basic equipment is included in its points cost.

9. Special Rules: Any special rules that apply to models in the unit are listed here.

Whenever a creature or weapon has an ability that breaks or bends one of the main game
rules, it is represented by a special rule.

We are told that the unit has basic equipment.
Therefore all of the equipment it has, are basic rules used for that unit in that codex.

Basic to the unit, but that doesn't mean that what they carry is basic to the game.

Review Terminator Squads for an example.
What is the basic Armour of the Terminator?
Does it carry any Special Rules?
What else does the Terminator Armour do to the model that isn't covered by a Universal Special Rule?
How is this different from how a normal Infantry model would play?
Does this break any of the game's rules?

Ceann wrote:
Special rules are annotated for a REASON.
The special rules field would have no reason to exist other than to reference USR's which is clearly not the case.
There are plenty of pieces of wargear that notate specifically when they have a Special Rule.
If they were all advanced rules then this would again, have no purpose.

Why would it have no purpose if both Wargear and Special Rules are both advanced rules? You are being far too closed minded on this.

Some things are tied to a modeled piece of equipment. There is a large portal on the front of a Monolith. What is it? It's the Eternity Gate. What does it do? A lot of things which you would not be able to do under any rule in the rulebook.

If something is not or cannot be referenced by a piece of Wargear or unit type, it is one of their skills, innate and without reference to any of their equipment. This is how GW has written the 40K game.

Ceann wrote:
You guys are greatly misinterpreting basic vs advanced.
"Advanced rules apply to specific types of models whether because they have..."

Now please follow what I am saying.
It is telling you the circumstances, under which something WOULD have an advanced rule.
Not that the things listed ARE advanced rules.
Because... "The advanced rules that apply to a unit are indicated in its Army List Entry."

We are never anywhere given permission to make such determinations on our own.

So why are you making this determination on your own? You have stated numerous things with no support. You have quoted many things out of context. You have ignored the direct quotes we have provided which state the exact opposite of your position.

Ceann wrote:
The ONLY example of an advanced rule is this...

For example, the basic rules state that a model must take a Morale check under certain situations. If, however, that model has a special rule that makes it immune to Morale checks, then it does
not take such checks – the advanced rule takes precedence.

False. It gives many examples while providing its definition.

Advanced rules apply to specific types of models, whether because they have a special kind of weapon (such as a boltgun), unusual skills (such as the ability to regenerate), because they are different to their fellows (such as a unit leader or a heroic character), or because they are not normal infantry models (a bike, a swarm or even a tank).

Numerous definitions provided by the term "because", and numerous examples provided by the phrase, "such as".

Ceann wrote:
We are told in the special rules section that models do not have special rules unless told otherwise.
The only place we are told what special rules a unit or model has, is on it's army list entry, in the special rules section of the data sheet.

False. At no place does it state that the only place we may find Special Rules for a unit or model is under the Special Rules heading of its army list entry. The word "only" is missing. Models with the Bike Unit Type do not list "Relentless" any more than Terminator models. Do they not have the Relentless Special Rule? Of course they do. Why? It is not found under their Special Rules heading. The reason they have these special rules is that Relentless can be found in either its Unit Type (for the Bikes) or their Wargear (for the Terminator models).

If I can provide such a Special Rule to a unit without using the Special Rules entry of their army list entry, might I not provide others? Do all Special Rules have to have a special name? Not really. The ability is what is important. It is an unusual skill the Wargear provides. That is part of what makes a model have an unusual skill. How then is this not advanced by every determination of such?

This goes to show your "definition by location" is a complete and total false determination made by you.

Ceann wrote:
Because we are dealing with special rules you are required to follow through the entire process of using them. Because otherwise you are not using the rule. The examples you provided of Stubborn and Fearless are not accurate examples because both of those are special rules and are notated as special rules and specifically notate how they interact in order to not cause a conflict between the two of them.

It is not. I was demonstrating how you do use part of a special rule at times. If a unit has both Stubborn and Fearless applied to it, I can only use the last sentence of Stubborn, and not the first. That is using only a part of the special rule. Your standard has no weight because it fails when we start applying other rules to them.

Neither Outflank or Deep Strike grant permission to change a unit's method of Arriving From Reserves once the game starts, yet, the Eternity Gate allows a Monolith to do exactly that after the game starts. That is the definition of a special rule and advanced rule. It does things that you cannot normally do.