- Oaka

• Mass Mutation
• Fortune
• Guide
• Mind War
• Augment
• Eldritch Storm
• Catalyst

Should I go on?

BYE

if there is a 4th printing supposedly it reads like this,

In close combat a model with a doom siren will always strike in Initiative sequence even if attacking enemy in cover as the waves of sonic energy confuse and repel them. Enemy who strike first regardless of initiative are unaffected



I've only heard that rumor once, and it turned out to be that the guy had bought a brand spanking new Codex, saw that it was different from the 3rd and assumed it was a 4th without checking the title page. It turned out to be a 2nd printing after all.

Has anyone seen and confirmed this new 4th printing?

Aside from the aforementioned thing about Eldar psychic powers...I think we included every power that occurs in the shooting phase.  There may have been something we missed, but I've never heard anyone argue that you had to roll to hit for non-shooting powers.

Looks like whatever gremlins were affecting Dakka a couple of months ago are now affecting AWC and AdeptiCon...

I don't know anyone that's ever told someone that a deepstriking model that scatters into friendly troops is dead. I don't doubt they do that out there, but we don't do it here. That's a major rules change.

And no, I won't be there. But that's because I'm done with 40K all together, not this FAQ.

This Dakka Thread here shows that the majority of players disagree with your local gaming group, so calling it a "major rules change" is inaccurated. It is doubly inacurate when you go into the little fact that there are no rules actually addressing this issue. Besides, you have said yourself on many occasions that if there are two possible outcomes to an ambigous rule, you always take the less advantageous interpretation.

http://dakkadakka.com/Forums/tabid/56/forumid/15/postid/105984/view/topic/Default.aspx

But needless to say, I am sorry you won't be able to attend, as many people are interested to see you face off against many of the other "top tiered" players in the country. I respect you for being forward with your reasons not to attend.

But back to my original point, if you don't like it don't attend. Nobody ever said these are "official" rulings. I do find it sad, that they are the only ones to actually address these issues. I know, my local gaming group will probably abide by them and I hope that other areas make the change as well.

The rules aren't ambiguous on the point at all: if you deepstrike on to your own models they get stacked up. I know no one that wants to stack up models, so the practical convention is that you place them as close as possible.

But the rules definitely do not support declaring the models dead. If you guys want to change the rules to make them dead, knock your socks off. But trying to pass that off as anything but a change to the rules wouldn't be genuine.

But really, I don't care anymore. Now if you want to talk about declaring charges against units you can't possibly reach, let me know.

Before I do that, find me a rule that says you can't place models on top of each other. I see one that says you can't move your models on top of each other, but nothing about them getting there some other way.

And I definitely don't see anything about them treating friendly models as impassible terrain or enemy models, the only things defined to kill the deepstrikers.

But why am I arguing this? I said it all before, when this was first posted, and obviously it fell on deaf ears. And I don't even play 40k anymore.

P3: Deep striking models have a special rule that says they deploy onto the board.

Page 84 "Roll for the arrival of these units in the reserves rules then deploy them as follows."

C: Deep strikers do not move onto the table.

So no, they don't move onto the table. They have a special rule that says they deploy onto the table. If I've missed a rule that says you can't deploy models on top of each other, let me know.

The only difference between the Adepticon FAQ and a FAQ that Games Workshop can put out is that Games Workshop has the ability to stamp a "Chapter Approved" or some other silly "official" moniker on it.

And that moniker doesn't make Games Workshop any less arbitrary (or for that matter correct or incorrect) than Adepticon's effort.  The only advantage Games Workshop brings to the table is that their FAQ would be considered to be a rule, versus Adepticon's being viewed as a house rule on a larger scale.

But again, that "official" designation doesn't make the GW FAQ well thought out or well written. 

Once again demonstrating its not who you know, or what you know, but how much cleaveage you have.

The whole idea of "show me in the book where it doesn't allow you to do something" is quite possibly the most abusive interpretation I have read.  With that I think I will place my Rhinos with their bottoms facing the enemy.  Nothing in the rules says you can't.  The bottom has no armor value and therefore can't be penetrated, thus making them invulnerable.  Hell, all my vehicles will deploy that way.  That way they can't be destroyed before I can use them 1st turn.

The deepstrike rules tell me to stack the models, or rather they say to move the model the amount scattered and place around it. The only way to follow that rule when you run into your own troops is to stack them.

Whether or not you can stack models in pre-game deployment isn't relevant, even if you find it amusing to whine about what effect that might have (that's called a slippery slope fallacy for those who care to look it up).

But please, leave the rules arguments to Bill . He won't waste our time yapping about baselessly on how it should be or some girl's breast size or any other non-sense unrelated to this issue we're talking about. He'll just find a rule or logical argument that refutes me or won't. You guys are doing nothing for your claims but providing volume.

You figured wrong.

Sorry, but if you aren't quoting a rule that supports something you're claiming or figuring, you're wasting your time.

This will only double my respect for next years winners because they will enter a fair competitve match and would have come out on top. That is a greater acomplishment than going undefeated and your list contains Doomfists and first turn Deamon Icons.

Funny how your description says that the rules say to 'move' the model.

One thing the rules don't say, however, is to move the model vertically.  The scatter die does not point up at an angle.  So unless you can place the model in the same place as another model without moving vertically, you can't actually place the model, so you resort to the rules don't say I can move the model vertiacally as part of deepstrike also.

Just admit your wrong Mauleed and be done with it.  I know you have trouble with that, but be a real man.

Anyway, this is obviously a waste of time until Bill responds. Bill, email me if you'd like to debate further.

1st.  If you start discounting 'Count As' as a basis for relationships in 40K, then a lot of special rules for units start to fall apart.  (ie:  C'tan 'Count As' having frag grenades, Psycannon Bolts - A bolt weapon with this upgrade 'Counts As' AP4, Brazier of Holy Fire 'Counts As' a close combat weapon).  There are additional examples all through out the codices.  So Deepstriking is considered movement with the phrase 'Counts as having moved'.  Otherwise, you discount all the other 'Counts as' relationships in 40K.  So this is a strong part of the overall argument, not a weak one.

Step 1: Based on the above we have established that deepstriking is a form of movement.  It is a subset of the overall movement category.

2nd.  Page 15 - A model may not move into/through the space occupied by a friendly model or through a gap between friendly models smaller than its own base size. 

Step 2:  Deepstriking = a form of movement   &  Models may not move into space occupied by a friendly model.

3rd.  Page 84 - All Deep Striking Models are arranged around the first model.  Models must be placed in base contact with the original model in a circle around it.  When the first circle is complete, a further circle should be placed with each model touching the circle inside it.

Step 3:  This is where the entire rules set has a problem.  The rest of the deepstriking rules do not mention friendly models.  Yet we are in an area where you can't follow the 2nd and 3rd criteria listed above.  This is an impass.  Without looking at any additional information, neither side is correct on how to appropriately handle this.

However, the key beyond this information is other scenarios that set the precedent for where you can not place models on the board.  The precedent in this case is found on page 84 "If you are unable to complete a circle without any of them coming within 1" of the enemy, entering impassable terrain or going off-table, the surplus models are destroyed.  

1.  Unable to complete the circle, which the friendly models scenario is similar to the page 84 rule list above.

2.  The surplus models are destroyed.

With the precedent for the three scenarios - A) 1" of the enemy, B) entering impassable terrain, or C) going off-table,  following steps 1, 2, and 3 above, the application of destroying the friendly forces is consistent with other similar scenarios that set precedent.  This is a perfect application of precendent, which is how law is consistently applied.