Jump to content

Welcome to The Bolter and Chainsword
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Photo

Tactical Reserves and GSC


  • Please log in to reply
5 replies to this topic

#1
Morticon

Morticon

    ++ FILIUS VINDICOR ++

  • ++ MODERATI ++
  • 13,614 posts
  • Location:Beijing, China

I've heard elsewhere that this is causing great contention, yet for the life of me cannot understand the argument against it - so I'm taking to the forum to try and glean what the actual argument is. 

Currently, every gaming group I'm involved with plays all beta rules.  I'm not fussed by this.  But, that's the context. 

Here are the relevant rules for GSC:

 

 

Cult Ambush:

During deployment, you can set up this
unit in ambush instead of on the battlefield.
 
If this unit has the INFANTRY or BIKER
keyword, you can either set it up in ambush or
underground instead of on the battlefield.
When you set up a unit underground, it can
emerge at the end of any of your Movement
phases – set the unit up anywhere on the
battlefield that is more than 9" from any
enemy models.
 
Revealing Ambush Markers:
 
If you have the first turn, you must reveal
all of your ambush markers at the start
of your Movement phase, one at a time,
before moving any units.
 
THEY CAME FROM BELOW…
Genestealer Cults Stratagem
Use this Stratagem before you reveal an ambush marker.
Select up to 3 units (excluding VEHICLES) from your
army that are set up in ambush. For each unit that you
select, remove one ambush marker from the battlefield.
The selected units are no longer set up in ambush and
are instead set up underground, as described in the Cult
Ambush ability (pg 78).
 
GSC ERRATA: 

ERRATA Page 79 – Cult Ambush Add the following sentence: ‘Matched Play: In matched play, units set up in ambush using this rule count as being set up on the battlefield for the purposes of Tactical Reserves.
 
 

And finally....

 

TACTICAL RESERVES

Instead of being set up on the battlefield during Deployment, many units have the ability to be set up on teleportariums, in high orbit, in ambush, etc., in order to arrive on the battlefield mid-game as reinforcements. When setting up your army during Deployment for a matched play game,....... Furthermore, in matched play games, units that are not placed on the battlefield during deployment in order to arrive on the battle mid-game as reinforcements cannot arrive on the battlefield during the first battle round. Finally, any unit that has not arrived on the battlefield by the end of the third battle round in a matched play game counts as having been destroyed.



________

I feel like I dont even need to structure an argument here, because a sequential reading of the rules tells you all you need to know. 

What am I missing? 

What is the argument against this? 

 

 


Gamist, cheesy, beardy or broken; If Games Workshop put it in the book I'll gladly play against it, or with it. - Mort
"Use soft words and hard arguments." (Henry George Bohn [1796-1884].)

There is no harm in, on occasion, having disagreements. It's another thing entirely, however, to be a tool in conveying that disagreement.

"OP: The term used by players to describe a combination of yours they are personally unable to beat"

Collection of Battle Reports
Corbulo Tactica

#2
Morticon

Morticon

    ++ FILIUS VINDICOR ++

  • ++ MODERATI ++
  • 13,614 posts
  • Location:Beijing, China

To add insult to injury for rulings against this by some parties....GSC previously had an exemption from this rule. 

In the most recent big FAQ they noted this:

 

"We have also removed the exemption that Genestealer Cults had in the previous beta version of this rule – rest assured this has been taken into account for Codex: Genestealer Cults, which is currently in development."

 

 

 


Gamist, cheesy, beardy or broken; If Games Workshop put it in the book I'll gladly play against it, or with it. - Mort
"Use soft words and hard arguments." (Henry George Bohn [1796-1884].)

There is no harm in, on occasion, having disagreements. It's another thing entirely, however, to be a tool in conveying that disagreement.

"OP: The term used by players to describe a combination of yours they are personally unable to beat"

Collection of Battle Reports
Corbulo Tactica

#3
GrinNfool

GrinNfool

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • + FRATER DOMUS +
  • 169 posts
  • Location:Denver

So the short of it is the rules are poorly worded, in many different locations, and GSC behaves inconsistently with how most other armies behave leading to interpretation problems.  Also please note I am going to play devils advocate on this as you specifically asked to try to see it from the other side.  Note I agree with you.  Though I will say I have seen groups rule it like yours seems to, and to be honest I can at least SEE their reasoning even if I don't agree w/ it.

 

So you have the right of it that technically GSC units picked up from ambush can arrive via "underground" turn 1.  It is basically the same as ork's psyker Da Jump spell, and you should point to that as to why this shouldn't really be argued against you.  Whether or not this stays though I think remains to be seen, it wouldn't surprise me if GW walked this back to say you can't use the pull off the table strategem to arrive turn 1 underground.  With the psyker stuff or when its done via relic its either once per game or once per round, so people don't generally care to much.  GSC kind of get to cheat this by getting 3 DS turn 1 w/o relic or having to pass a psyker test.  In addition the unit that will arrive turn 1 is never vulnerable as its off the table by the time your opponent gets to shoot even if they go first.  GSC is in an fantastic spot currently getting full access to guard as well as lots of supplements to handle things guard doesn't do well, turn 1 DS is icing on the cake. 

 

As far as why you are getting push back, I think a lot of people look at it and say that seems unreasonable since you aren't placing the model on the table at any point, even though the rule states the maker counts as them on the table.  GSC as a whole is a really different army, and functions extremely oddly between deployment and first turn shenanigans, making it hard for people to reason through.  In addition there is the vagueness of the statement for the purposes of tactical reserves, one could read it as for the purpose of being able to DS units.  Without that wording GSC wouldn't be able to only deploy via blips as they would have nothing on the table.  The wording on the errata unfortunately isn't specific enough.  The "for the purposes" part of what I think leads to people making a poor interpretation of it.  If it just said GSC units in ambush are on the table then there is no room for interpretation.  You cut out the part in your re quoting on the FAQ that is probably causing the hang up.

 

When setting up your army during Deployment for a matched play game, at least half the total number of units in your army must be set up on the battlefield, and the combined points value of all the units you set up on the battlefield during Deployment (including those that are embarked within Tr ansports that are set up on the battlefield) must be at least half of your army’s total points value, even if every unit in your army has an ability that would allow them to be set up elsewhere.

 

Likely people are interpreting the "for the purposes of" applying specifically to the requirement of having half your army (points, power, units) on the table, even though the unit isn't on the table.  People are likely looking at that and saying then they aren't actually on the table which wouldn't exempt the from the no DS turn 1.   

 

Combine that with the "no longer in ambush" part of came from below which suddenly removes their "for the purposes of" protection with a little rules lawyering, and suddenly they were never on the table, don't have protection from the "for the purposes of" and models not on the table can't arrive turn 1.  Its not that that hard to follow their thought pattern IMHO, its wrong.... but it isn't completely illogical.  At the very least you can see how they view the correct interpretation (IMO) as a rules loophole.

 

Typical poor wording on things from GW causes your problem.

 

Between the you have to stay 9" away from me on your turn bubble, the I can remove up to 3 markers, i can pick up 3 units that were supposed to be revealed and now they can DS on my first turn, and getting to include guard the army is very bizarre.   I happen to play against a GSC player often so I am quite familiar but everytime some 1 new has to play him its an ordeal.  The general consensus he gets from people on it even when he finally convinces them is that its abusing a loophole in the rules.  While that isn't the case its not hard to see that point of view if you make a little effort.

 

IMHO I wouldn't be hugely surprised if GW messes more with this rule in a future FAQ GSC have a lot going for them, w/o 3 turn 1 DS for 1 CP but time will tell.


Edited by GrinNfool, 07 April 2019 - 05:58 AM.

  • Morticon and Kallas like this

#4
Morticon

Morticon

    ++ FILIUS VINDICOR ++

  • ++ MODERATI ++
  • 13,614 posts
  • Location:Beijing, China

Cheers for that! Thanks for taking the time to explain! 


Gamist, cheesy, beardy or broken; If Games Workshop put it in the book I'll gladly play against it, or with it. - Mort
"Use soft words and hard arguments." (Henry George Bohn [1796-1884].)

There is no harm in, on occasion, having disagreements. It's another thing entirely, however, to be a tool in conveying that disagreement.

"OP: The term used by players to describe a combination of yours they are personally unable to beat"

Collection of Battle Reports
Corbulo Tactica

#5
ValourousHeart

ValourousHeart

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • + FRATER DOMUS +
  • 1,671 posts
  • Location:DFW, Texas
  • Faction: Order of the Gossamer Shroud

Why are people comparing Ambush and Underground with Deep Strike.  Isn't this more like infiltrate... except I can wait to reveal where they were hiding?


  • Morticon likes this

#6
sfPanzer

sfPanzer

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • + FRATER DOMUS +
  • 18,015 posts
  • Location:Germany
  • Faction: Knights of Baal, Dal'yth Sept

Why are people comparing Ambush and Underground with Deep Strike.  Isn't this more like infiltrate... except I can wait to reveal where they were hiding?

 

Because it isn't like Infiltrate.

Infiltrating units get set up somewhere on the board during deployment. Deep Strike and other reserves get set up outside of the board as reinforcements and can come in turn 2-3.

Units you set up underground get set up outside of the board as reinforcements and can come in turn 2-3 (the Codex says at the end of any of your Movement phases but Matched play FAQ/Errata says only turn 1-3, 2-3 if we go with beta rules). ;)

 

Ambush is neither. It's a form of deployment shenanigans unique to GSC.


Disclaimer:

If my posts appear rude to you, I apologize. It's not meant to be rude in any way, it's just the way folks are in my country. It's really more about being direct than being rude. I know how it's perceived in the english speaking community and I already try to tone it down but I barely notice when it's too much since it's normal for me.


So yeah, I'm really not rude it's basically just cultural differences that act against me here. Again, I apologize.

gallery_62972_10568_7658.jpgbFk9acX.pnggallery_62972_14467_40478.pnggallery_62972_14467_3819.jpg





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users