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.

Adepticon has ruled in favour of first turn no-reserve full army deepstrike. One step closer to legitimacy?

No. What House Rules Adepticon choose to use for their tournaments are irrelevant.

Yeah, another one of the many contradictions explicit GW's rules.

Adepticon is not GW.

Asmodai Asmodean wrote:
Adepticon has ruled in favour of first turn no-reserve full army deepstrike. One step closer to legitimacy?

No, one step closer to ignoring the rule that says DWA is still DS, and thus still reserves, and thus is still capped at 50%

A houserule, even for something as big as "A", is just a houserule.

Has anyone got the ibook scenerios for DA's, I heard there is a mission in there with a special rule that allows you to full deepstrike a DWA army?

If there was why would there be a special rule for something that you can always do?, there wouldnt be.

I'd really like to know WHAT they based this decision off of? A tragedy nonetheless...

Like many FAQs it's based on how they read intent. I have no issues with them ruling this way whatsoever.

What I have issues with is people who read things like the INAT or Adepticon FAQ and insist that it must be the RAW.
(I'm not implying that anyone on the forum has done that - but I've played people that have done that)

Agree completely with rigeld...

I'm in favor of the full DWA army for one reason, order of operations. It specifies that you designate your DWA immediately after choosing Warlord traits, which occurs before deployment. Once you reach deployment any unit using DWA must enter by Deep Strike (that's what the DWA is afterall) so when it comes time to calculate the 50% the entire army falls under "Must be Reserved". Of course you'd have to drop everyone turn 1 or you'd b breaking the rules.

So all Dark Angel terminators have to start in reserve, or can you choose to deploy some and keep some in reserve?

MarkyMark wrote:
Has anyone got the ibook scenerios for DA's, I heard there is a mission in there with a special rule that allows you to full deepstrike a DWA army?

If there was why would there be a special rule for something that you can always do?, there wouldnt be.

I think you may be thinking (or have been told about) one of the Apocalypse formation datasheets.
This of course means it's specifically for Apocalypse, where just about anything goes, and is in no way precedent or proof of any kind for normal rules.

Yep, a huge mistake is to take the Adepticon FAQ, or any fan-made FAQ such as the INAT, and try to apply any status of legitimacy to the rulings made in it. Ultimately with fan-made FAQs it is just one or more gamers getting together to just 'make a call' on nebulous situations.

With that said, there is also another incorrect assertion being made in this thread (and otherwise often cited) and that is the notion that there is one 'correct' RAW interpretation of the rules and any deviation from this is just 'house rules'. There are surely such things as house rules (where people willingly choose to change the rules for their games), but that should *not* be confused with a nebulous situation being answered in a way that you don't personally agree with.

The myth of 'RAW' stems from the fact that some people incorrectly believe that language is like mathematics and there is one true way to interpret it. When in reality, language by its very nature has multiple interpretations and meanings that can be studied and argued over. Words often have multiple meanings...sometimes these words are defined within the framework of the game, but even then there can be situations where it is unclear whether the author is using that word in context of its game-defined meaning or one of its other 'real world' definitions. Similarly, the meaning of a sentence or paragraph can change dramatically based on simple grammatical changes, its placement in a paragraph, the paragraph's placement within the page, etc. All those meanings only exist in so much as any group of people can agree to see them that way, and that includes the author of the writing themselves.

For example, a tiny proportion of gamers can read a passage and say: 'this is the RIGHT way to play based on what this passage says', but if 95% of other gamers don't read that passage the same way it doesn't matter how correct that 5% says their reading is or how much they stamp their feet on the floor, they generally aren't going to get to play like that. And the same principles apply to the authors of the text as well. Often we argue about the grammatical intricacies of a sentence acting as though the author is a robot who understands the golden rules of grammar perfectly and never makes mistakes. But again the reality is that authors are people to, who have different levels of understanding about grammar just like we all do, and of course sometimes they just make mistakes.

This is likely evidenced by the amount of FAQ answers by GW (not 'errata' or 'amendments') that seem to go against what many people perceive to be the RAW. Clearly to the author of the text (or at least to the author of the FAQ) the RAW do not seem to match the RAW that many of us interpret the text to be. The one, stone-cold truth is that nobody plays by the 'RAW' because there is no such thing as the 'RAW'...only the rules that people happen to interpret the same. The more clear and simple rules are, the more likely they are to be interpreted the same by different people. The more complex and confusing they are, the more likely they are to be interpreted differently by different people.

The Deathwing Assault situation is not a case where the people writing the Adepticon FAQ decided to say: 'how can we create a house rule?' It IS a nebulous situation that has been submitted to be answered because it is nebulous. If you were to take a poll asking people how they think it should be played (if one hasn't already been created), I'm sure you would find a fairly big divide because it is nebulous.

Even if you happen to think the RAW on a particular issue are crystal clear, if there is any kind of sizable divide on players reading the rules on how it is supposed to be played (I'd personally say that if at least 20-25% of players interpret a rule differently then its probably not that clear), then you can rest assured that the 'RAW' are *not* clear in this case, in that they don't provide a clear definitive way to play that everyone can agree on.

 DeathReaper wrote:
So all Dark Angel terminators have to start in reserve, or can you choose to deploy some and keep some in reserve?

The DA Termies have a special rule called Deathwing Assault. You choose which units are going to use Deathwing Assault and they automatically arrive T1 or T2, your choice, but they all must enter at the same time. So with the DA you can deploy termies, DWA termies, or place termies in reserve as normal.

The debate stems from whether squads using DWA are counted as "must enter from reserve" or whether they are counted for 50% max in reserve.

andystache wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
So all Dark Angel terminators have to start in reserve, or can you choose to deploy some and keep some in reserve?

The DA Termies have a special rule called Deathwing Assault. You choose which units are going to use Deathwing Assault and they automatically arrive T1 or T2, your choice, but they all must enter at the same time. So with the DA you can deploy termies, DWA termies, or place termies in reserve as normal.

The debate stems from whether squads using DWA are counted as "must enter from reserve" or whether they are counted for 50% max in reserve.

Can they be deployed on the table as normal?

If so they do not have to start in reserve and the restriction about 1/2 the army applies.

 DeathReaper wrote:

Can they be deployed on the table as normal?

If so they do not have to start in reserve and the restriction about 1/2 the army applies.

If you choose to use Deathwing Assault they MUST enter player by Deep Strike. The rule allows you to choose whether or not you will use the DWA before deployment, so at the time of deployment you may not deploy any units selected for the DWA to the table.

EDIT: The rule specifically says you make the decision after Warlord Traits, but before deployment. You must inform your opponent which units will be DWA, but not when they arrive

andystache wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

Can they be deployed on the table as normal?

If so they do not have to start in reserve and the restriction about 1/2 the army applies.

If you choose to use Deathwing Assault...

So DWA is a choice?

So you choose to use DWA or Choose to deploy them on the table?

Asmodai Asmodean wrote:
Adepticon has ruled in favour of first turn no-reserve full army deepstrike. One step closer to legitimacy?

No. Why on Earth should it?

Aren't you arguing RAI instead of RAW? RAW is literally following what the wording of the rulebook says.

Well RAW in the codex says explicitly all squads DWA'ing arrive in the chosen turn by deepstrike. Codex always trumps BRB, ergo all DWA squads arrive in the first turn is my interpretation.

But let's not open this hoary old chestnut again. Just stating that if the biggest 40k tournament rules in favour of it, it's a pretty good argument in favour of it. I usually just d6 it with my opponent anyway.

I'm not (really) getting into this argument (again) however if one were to argue that if you choose to DWA you have to DS therefore you have to start in reserves therefore you don't count, then the counter-argument is any unit that can Deep Strike or Outflank must be in reserves to do so therefore since that is how they are being deployed they have to start in reserve and therefore don't count.

I think we can all agree it definitely needs to be FAQ'd by GW.

All that being said in a friendly game I'd probably allow it. Heck I allowed a 20-boy mob take a Trukk.

 DeathReaper wrote:

So DWA is a choice?

So you choose to use DWA or Choose to deploy them on the table?

For the sake of completeness you technically have three options, you can choose to use DWA after Warlord traits, you can deploy normally, or you can place the Termies in Reserve as with any other unit that may Deep Strike. If you go with option three then they obviously count for the 50% and you have to roll to bring them in, not sure why you would, but you can.

HJ - The difference there is that the DWA is separate from the Tactical Dreadnought Armor's may Deep Strike. So any model in Termie armor can be placed in Reserve to enter play through Deep Strike and counts against the 50%. However the Deathwing has an additional rule that allows the player to select specifically when they will enter play, but they must be held in Reserve to use this rule. The wording of the rule is "automatically enters play through Deep Strike" and I equate automatically with must. Any model with the Deep Strike rule may be held in Reserve to enter play through Deep Strike, DWA units and Drop Pods must enter play by Deep Striking. That's the way I read it.

EDIT - But yes an FAQ update would be wonderful and while they're at it they could give us a yes/no on the TH/SS + CML, but I'm not holding my breath for that

 DeathReaper wrote:

andystache wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

Can they be deployed on the table as normal?

If so they do not have to start in reserve and the restriction about 1/2 the army applies.

If you choose to use Deathwing Assault...

So DWA is a choice?

So you choose to use DWA or Choose to deploy them on the table?

Yes that is correct. It is a Choice, by the Player, to DWA or not to use it.

Here. Now we can stop this bickering and get back to what really matters. Such as why embarked Farseers cannot use Farseer Psychic Powers and why Tyranids cannot manually fire weapons.

Tyranids are OP.

HJ - Can they really not use Farseer powers when embarked? Cause if that's so that damn Wave Serpent should never have had a 4++ save.

Also I thought this one was really tame for a YMDC thread, no insults or anything. In fact I was quite enjoying it. But I take your point

/thread

rigeld2 wrote:
Tyranids are OP.

shame on you for making an off topic post. I am gonna report you!!

Edit: Hey you going to FO's tomorrow?

 yakface wrote:

Spoiler:

Yep, a huge mistake is to take the Adepticon FAQ, or any fan-made FAQ such as the INAT, and try to apply any status of legitimacy to the rulings made in it. Ultimately with fan-made FAQs it is just one or more gamers getting together to just 'make a call' on nebulous situations.

With that said, there is also another incorrect assertion being made in this thread (and otherwise often cited) and that is the notion that there is one 'correct' RAW interpretation of the rules and any deviation from this is just 'house rules'. There are surely such things as house rules (where people willingly choose to change the rules for their games), but that should *not* be confused with a nebulous situation being answered in a way that you don't personally agree with.

The myth of 'RAW' stems from the fact that some people incorrectly believe that language is like mathematics and there is one true way to interpret it. When in reality, language by its very nature has multiple interpretations and meanings that can be studied and argued over. Words often have multiple meanings...sometimes these words are defined within the framework of the game, but even then there can be situations where it is unclear whether the author is using that word in context of its game-defined meaning or one of its other 'real world' definitions. Similarly, the meaning of a sentence or paragraph can change dramatically based on simple grammatical changes, its placement in a paragraph, the paragraph's placement within the page, etc. All those meanings only exist in so much as any group of people can agree to see them that way, and that includes the author of the writing themselves.

For example, a tiny proportion of gamers can read a passage and say: 'this is the RIGHT way to play based on what this passage says', but if 95% of other gamers don't read that passage the same way it doesn't matter how correct that 5% says their reading is or how much they stamp their feet on the floor, they generally aren't going to get to play like that. And the same principles apply to the authors of the text as well. Often we argue about the grammatical intricacies of a sentence acting as though the author is a robot who understands the golden rules of grammar perfectly and never makes mistakes. But again the reality is that authors are people to, who have different levels of understanding about grammar just like we all do, and of course sometimes they just make mistakes.

This is likely evidenced by the amount of FAQ answers by GW (not 'errata' or 'amendments') that seem to go against what many people perceive to be the RAW. Clearly to the author of the text (or at least to the author of the FAQ) the RAW do not seem to match the RAW that many of us interpret the text to be. The one, stone-cold truth is that nobody plays by the 'RAW' because there is no such thing as the 'RAW'...only the rules that people happen to interpret the same. The more clear and simple rules are, the more likely they are to be interpreted the same by different people. The more complex and confusing they are, the more likely they are to be interpreted differently by different people.

The Deathwing Assault situation is not a case where the people writing the Adepticon FAQ decided to say: 'how can we create a house rule?' It IS a nebulous situation that has been submitted to be answered because it is nebulous. If you were to take a poll asking people how they think it should be played (if one hasn't already been created), I'm sure you would find a fairly big divide because it is nebulous.

Even if you happen to think the RAW on a particular issue are crystal clear, if there is any kind of sizable divide on players reading the rules on how it is supposed to be played (I'd personally say that if at least 20-25% of players interpret a rule differently then its probably not that clear), then you can rest assured that the 'RAW' are *not* clear in this case, in that they don't provide a clear definitive way to play that everyone can agree on.

Would it be possible to modify the Tenets of YMDC post to add everything you just said? Great post.

 Super Ready wrote:

MarkyMark wrote:
Has anyone got the ibook scenerios for DA's, I heard there is a mission in there with a special rule that allows you to full deepstrike a DWA army?

If there was why would there be a special rule for something that you can always do?, there wouldnt be.

I think you may be thinking (or have been told about) one of the Apocalypse formation datasheets.
This of course means it's specifically for Apocalypse, where just about anything goes, and is in no way precedent or proof of any kind for normal rules.

Nope, one of the IBook add ones when the new DA codex come out....

clively wrote:

 yakface wrote:

Spoiler:

Yep, a huge mistake is to take the Adepticon FAQ, or any fan-made FAQ such as the INAT, and try to apply any status of legitimacy to the rulings made in it. Ultimately with fan-made FAQs it is just one or more gamers getting together to just 'make a call' on nebulous situations.

With that said, there is also another incorrect assertion being made in this thread (and otherwise often cited) and that is the notion that there is one 'correct' RAW interpretation of the rules and any deviation from this is just 'house rules'. There are surely such things as house rules (where people willingly choose to change the rules for their games), but that should *not* be confused with a nebulous situation being answered in a way that you don't personally agree with.

The myth of 'RAW' stems from the fact that some people incorrectly believe that language is like mathematics and there is one true way to interpret it. When in reality, language by its very nature has multiple interpretations and meanings that can be studied and argued over. Words often have multiple meanings...sometimes these words are defined within the framework of the game, but even then there can be situations where it is unclear whether the author is using that word in context of its game-defined meaning or one of its other 'real world' definitions. Similarly, the meaning of a sentence or paragraph can change dramatically based on simple grammatical changes, its placement in a paragraph, the paragraph's placement within the page, etc. All those meanings only exist in so much as any group of people can agree to see them that way, and that includes the author of the writing themselves.

For example, a tiny proportion of gamers can read a passage and say: 'this is the RIGHT way to play based on what this passage says', but if 95% of other gamers don't read that passage the same way it doesn't matter how correct that 5% says their reading is or how much they stamp their feet on the floor, they generally aren't going to get to play like that. And the same principles apply to the authors of the text as well. Often we argue about the grammatical intricacies of a sentence acting as though the author is a robot who understands the golden rules of grammar perfectly and never makes mistakes. But again the reality is that authors are people to, who have different levels of understanding about grammar just like we all do, and of course sometimes they just make mistakes.

This is likely evidenced by the amount of FAQ answers by GW (not 'errata' or 'amendments') that seem to go against what many people perceive to be the RAW. Clearly to the author of the text (or at least to the author of the FAQ) the RAW do not seem to match the RAW that many of us interpret the text to be. The one, stone-cold truth is that nobody plays by the 'RAW' because there is no such thing as the 'RAW'...only the rules that people happen to interpret the same. The more clear and simple rules are, the more likely they are to be interpreted the same by different people. The more complex and confusing they are, the more likely they are to be interpreted differently by different people.

The Deathwing Assault situation is not a case where the people writing the Adepticon FAQ decided to say: 'how can we create a house rule?' It IS a nebulous situation that has been submitted to be answered because it is nebulous. If you were to take a poll asking people how they think it should be played (if one hasn't already been created), I'm sure you would find a fairly big divide because it is nebulous.

Even if you happen to think the RAW on a particular issue are crystal clear, if there is any kind of sizable divide on players reading the rules on how it is supposed to be played (I'd personally say that if at least 20-25% of players interpret a rule differently then its probably not that clear), then you can rest assured that the 'RAW' are *not* clear in this case, in that they don't provide a clear definitive way to play that everyone can agree on.

Would it be possible to modify the Tenets of YMDC post to add everything you just said? Great post.

Ditto... worthy of an exalt!