I had an argument with a player from the FLGS the other day that is bugging the heck out of me. The argument was with drop pods and how the scatter system works with them. I have seen people drop pod on the middle of a unit as placement and then just move it to the closest side that the pod would land safely. This is where the argument began.

1. He was saying if you placed the drop pod in this situation and rolled a to hit your pod would immediately mishap on the basis that a to hit is not a scatter. I countered with the wording on PG. 6 of the BRB that a scatter is whenever you roll the scatter dice even if it came up as a hit you're still technically scattering. He then argued that if the drop pod would still mishap because you must reduce the scatter by minimum amount possible so that the pod couldn't go anywhere since it reduces itself to 0 and is still on the unit and thus mishaps.

I agree with you, FTR.

One of the reasons I stopped playing the game, though - is stupid arguments like that. I don't miss them.

icefire78 wrote:
I had an argument with a player from the FLGS the other day that is bugging the heck out of me. The argument was with drop pods and how the scatter system works with them. I have seen people drop pod on the middle of a unit as placement and then just move it to the closest side that the pod would land safely. This is where the argument began.

(Emphasis mine)


The underlined is not the correct way to do it.

1. He was saying if you placed the drop pod in this situation and rolled a to hit your pod would immediately mishap on the basis that a to hit is not a scatter. I countered with the wording on PG. 6 of the BRB that a scatter is whenever you roll the scatter dice even if it came up as a hit you're still technically scattering. He then argued that if the drop pod would still mishap because you must reduce the scatter by minimum amount possible so that the pod couldn't go anywhere since it reduces itself to 0 and is still on the unit and thus mishaps.

The IGS for the DP's state that you reduce the scatter. If you place the model where it will mishap, it does not say to increase the scatter to avoid it, only to reduce the scatter.

Therefore if you scatter onto a unit or impassible terrain you will reduce the scatter distance to avoid the obstacle.

If you place the DP on top of a unit and it does not move you will mishap as you only reduce scatter to avoid obstacles.

Basically he was correct, the pod would mishap.

 chromedog wrote:
I agree with you, FTR.

One of the reasons I stopped playing the game, though - is stupid arguments like that. I don't miss them.

Well considering the OP was incorrect, his opponents argument was not really all that stupid...

By argument couldn't you scatter negative inches? Since the whole board by technicality is a x / y grid, with some z in it if you count raised terrain. Wouldn't I just reduce my scatter of 0 inches the opposite direction of the arrow and land safely. I am still reducing my number

icefire78 wrote:
By argument couldn't you scatter negative inches?

If you have to bring out some convoluted argument for suddenly counting negatives then you're probably doing something wrong. It would be like saying a hypothetical unit that's unaffected by Blessings is also unaffected by Maledictions since they're basically negative Blessings, right?

icefire78 wrote:
By argument couldn't you scatter negative inches? Since the whole board by technicality is a x / y grid, with some z in it if you count raised terrain. Wouldn't I just reduce my scatter of 0 inches the opposite direction of the arrow and land safely. I am still reducing my number

No where in the rules does it say you treat the board like a cartesian graph

also reducing tends to mean towards 0, not just subtraction

well no, convoluted though it may be, there is nothing stating negatives exist for this. A reduction into negative numbers is still a reduction unless it requires me to stop at 0. This player in question was arguing every rule possible so I'm trying to work up the counter argument to it. I won't be playing him again either way, but this part is of valid concern for me because it was an idea to drop a pod into the middle of a unit as the safest way to not scatter to far away from said unit


Automatically Appended Next Post:
also if you roll a to hit on the scatter dice is it still considered a scatter is the other big question.

'Reducing scatter' IMO is there for the express purpose of stopping this kinda thing.

You can't place the DP on top of the opponents units before you roll to shatter. You need to place it in a legal position (1" from his units) before you roll. So that argument was pointless.

icefire78 wrote:By argument couldn't you scatter negative inches? Since the whole board by technicality is a x / y grid, with some z in it if you count raised terrain. Wouldn't I just reduce my scatter of 0 inches the opposite direction of the arrow and land safely. I am still reducing my number

If you don't roll any scatter distance, there is no 'negative' distance to scatter. Any direction you move the pod is scattering further than it should have, not less.

sam918 wrote:You can't place the DP on top of the opponents units before you roll to shatter. You need to place it in a legal position (1" from his units) before you roll. So that argument was pointless.

This is incorrect. Placing a Deep Striking unit on top of another unit is perfectly legal (see the FAQ entry for the Mawloc, whose special Deep Strike rule would be useless if you couldn't aim him at a unit)... it's just normally unwise, since in most cases would result in a mishap unless you roll a decent scatter.

Think this has come up in the past as well, but lets go again

You need to place the model on the table according to the deepstrike rules. Since you can't place it on top of other models your "strategy" of placing it on top of the unit you want to fire at is illegal (unless you think magically levitating above the table is the same as placing on the table).
In addition to this the movement phase spells out that you cannot move within 1" of an enemy except when charging. Now there is some discussion onto whether or not arriving via deepstrike constitutes moving, but the phrase "In the movement phase during which they arrive, deep striking units may not move any further,." at the very least implies it is a movement.

Edit:
@ Insaniak: While it is a FAQ on how to apply the Mawlocs deepstrike, it feels more like an explanation on the "Terror from the Deep" special rule. If it had been a FAQ for deepstrike in general it should have been in the rulebook FAQ.

sam918 wrote:
You can't place the DP on top of the opponents units before you roll to shatter. You need to place it in a legal position (1" from his units) before you roll. So that argument was pointless.

/Agree this is correct. Drop Pods and all Deep Strike actions must be placed legally before you can roll for scatter.

I'll take a crack at this.


First hurdle is if placing a deep strike point with anything other than a mawloc or monolith over a unit is legal.

Depends most likely on your playgroup and if they determine if arrive by deep strike is a movement or not.

Most playgroups avert this whole argument by saying that anything other than items with special rules will not be able to attempt to deep strike on top of other units and or don't have players that attempt this.

Lets assume its not a movement and its a special item that allows you to put the marker wherever you want.

So you have your deep strike target over another unit with a drop pod and you roll a hit, what happens.

You mishap, straight forward, you can't reduce scatter to get out of it because there is no reduction possible.

There is no rule that says a drop pod can't mishap, if you can't fulfill the requirements to avoid mishap from reducing the scatter due to the codex rules you go back to the rulebook saying you mishap.

Your whole playgroup can always decide to play the rules however it likes, but if your going to ask the general public your either going to get shot down at either that is not a legal place to deep strike, or there is nothing saying you can scatter however far you want to avoid mishap.



I'm going to give you a situation that shows you that the way its being playing is fairly broken, what if your opponent had a blob army and covered his deployment zone, someone in your play group decided he will send all his drop pods somewhere deep in his opponents deployment zone on top of his units, does the drop pod magically move 12+ inches to avoid mishapping, there is nothing in the rulebook to support this.

Again to sum up your FLGS may play however it likes, but to the average player either, its illegal to try to deep strike on top of a unit because you can't place the model there, or you mishap.

icefire78 wrote:
By argument couldn't you scatter negative inches? Since the whole board by technicality is a x / y grid, with some z in it if you count raised terrain. Wouldn't I just reduce my scatter of 0 inches the opposite direction of the arrow and land safely. I am still reducing my number

Not really since in the world of maths negative numbers are imaginary numbers and are not real numbers.

Placing a drop pod in the middle of a unit is certainly not within the spirit of the game. I doubt its even legal RAW anyway as I'm sure the deepstriking rules will say that you're not allowed to place a deepstriking unit over another unit already on the table.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 insaniak wrote:
This is incorrect. Placing a Deep Striking unit on top of another unit is perfectly legal (see the FAQ entry for the Mawloc, whose special Deep Strike rule would be useless if you couldn't aim him at a unit)... it's just normally unwise, since in most cases would result in a mishap unless you roll a decent scatter.

Not saying I disagree with you but the Mawloc does have a special rule which states that it can do this anyway. Not sure if there is a rule or not otherwise but I wouldn't be surprised if there was.

The mawloc is a special case, and really shouldn't be used to set precedents for a 100% different model.

 DarthOvious wrote:

Not really since in the world of maths negative numbers are imaginary numbers and are not real numbers.

No they are not. Negative numbers are real numbers, and the distinction between imaginary numbers, real numbers and irrational numbers is not the same as "dose not exist".

However, if anyone tries to scatter a negative distance on your next turn turn all of your models backwards, move them anywhere you want on the board. If your opponent argues point out to them that under the same logic they used for scatter you have moved -50", which is less than +6".

Also, the board is not on an X/Y axis. The game dose not use Cartesian coordinates. The measurements are from a point outwards.

 DarthOvious wrote:

Not saying I disagree with you but the Mawloc does have a special rule which states that it can do this anyway. Not sure if there is a rule or not otherwise but I wouldn't be surprised if there was.

I agree. Specific rules for specific units don't really help answer the question.

I would say, no you can't. You scatter less than the maximum. If the maximum is 0 then you move less than that.

 Steve steveson wrote:

 DarthOvious wrote:

Not really since in the world of maths negative numbers are imaginary numbers and are not real numbers.

No they are not. Negative numbers are real numbers, and the distinction between imaginary numbers, real numbers and irrational numbers is not the same as "dose not exist".

My apologies, you are right. Something I misremembered about imaginary numbers from when I was younger.


[

disdamn wrote:

sam918 wrote:
You can't place the DP on top of the opponents units before you roll to shatter. You need to place it in a legal position (1" from his units) before you roll. So that argument was pointless.

/Agree this is correct. Drop Pods and all Deep Strike actions must be placed legally before you can roll for scatter.

That is not true, there is no requirement to place the DSing models in a legal position before you roll scatter.

The problem with negative scatter is scatter is a direction and a distance. You can go left 0" but you can't go left -1" because now you are going right 1".
The drop pod IGS does not give you permission to change the scatter direction, only reduce the scatter distance.

My question is this: If a zooming flyer can't be placed where an enemy model is present than why would it legal to "target" your deepstrike location so that it is on an enemy model?

The flyer is not "technically" sharing the same table space as the other model so why can't it be said that the flyer is above the enemy model and therefore you place the flyer?

@icefire78

You are told to place the model on the table though. sitting on top of another model, is not on the table.

If you are holding the model deep striking over a unit, you did not place it as you are still holding onto it.

so your friend was right on this one.

and I agree with you can't scatter a negative amount.

disdamn wrote:

sam918 wrote:
You can't place the DP on top of the opponents units before you roll to shatter. You need to place it in a legal position (1" from his units) before you roll. So that argument was pointless.

/Agree this is correct. Drop Pods and all Deep Strike actions must be placed legally before you can roll for scatter.

Yet the written rules state you can place the unit anywhere on the table.

There is no such concept of illegality here; you can indeed place it such that it automatically mishaps if you "hit"

 DarthOvious wrote:
... as I'm sure the deepstriking rules will say that you're not allowed to place a deepstriking unit over another unit already on the table.

They don't.

Not saying I disagree with you but the Mawloc does have a special rule which states that it can do this anyway..

No it doesn't.

Distances cannot be negative.

The mawlac FAQ gives specific permission to deep strike within 1", it really has little relevance as its sepcific to the one model and moves the things it comes in on top of after it deep strikes.

Either deep striking models must be placed validly, arguments are that the placement is a move in the movement phase therefore subject to movement rules, or that since you cannot place your model onto of another model and still have it be on the table than it isn't valid. Or you play that you can designate any point anywhere for deep stricking in which case to go onto question two, which is can you add inches to your scatter to avoid a mishap.

The scattering thing is just silly, the drop pod doesn't magically move unlimited inches to avoid mishaps, if you can't reduce the scatter to avoid the mishap, its going to mishap.

tiber55 wrote:
The mawlac FAQ gives specific permission to deep strike within 1", it really has little relevance as its sepcific to the one model and moves the things it comes in on top of after it deep strikes.

It's an FAQ, not an errata. As such, it doesn't grant permission, it clarifies that permission is there.

Since there is nothing in the Mawloc entry that specifically allows this, it therefore must be inherently allowed by the Deep Strike rules.

However if it was inherently allowed in the Deep Strike rules it had no business being in the Tyranid FAQ, since Deep Strike is a core rulebook rule and a clarification should refer to the place where the rule comes from.

Unfortunately GW is not known for actually using logic in their Errata's/FAQ, so often these clarifications lead to more questions than answers.

DutchSage wrote:
However if it was inherently allowed in the Deep Strike rules it had no business being in the Tyranid FAQ, since Deep Strike is a core rulebook rule and a clarification should refer to the place where the rule comes from.

It's in the Tyranid FAQ because the Mawloc is the only unit that really has any particular reason to want to be deep striking on top of another unit.

Surely the deep strike rules don't care where you target, just where you end up, and whether the model can be legally placed (marlocs aside). Anything else is just arguing semantics.

As for reducing the distance a negative amount, that's just hilarious! Reducing the distance from the target point can't go into negatives, as then you would just be moving it further away again in another direction!

Unless of course your talking about 4 dimensional space? Perhaps going back in time?

A pod that gets a direct hit within 1 inch of enemy models, while off the table edge, and/or on an illegal placement can't scatter so you roll on the mishap chart. Plain as day.

With pre-measuring now in 6th, there's no reason to make a mistake with your drop pods and no way to mishap outside of board edges and GK strike squads unless you're being a... fool.

 juraigamer wrote:
A pod that gets a direct hit within 1 inch of enemy models, while off the table edge, and/or on an illegal placement can't scatter so you roll on the mishap chart. Plain as day.

With pre-measuring now in 6th, there's no reason to make a mistake with your drop pods and no way to mishap outside of board edges and GK strike squads unless you're being a... fool.

Or want them to stay in Reserves badly enough that you're willing to take the 50-50 chance of getting a Delayed result on the mishap table, and so are trying to deliberately provoke a mishap.

But, point being, yes, and speaking as a Pods player myself, if you place the pod in a mishap-able position, and get a hit on the scatter dice, you mishap.

In addition, attempting to claim the inertial guidance system lets you go in the opposite direction doesn't hold. You aren't decreasing your scatter into negatives, you are just INCREASING it while simultaneously changing directions. The only thing the IGS lets you do is decrease, to a maximum of the starting position.

Simple solution for this type of DBgery: When our opponent tries to drop right on your unit, you follow the Monolith guidelines (yeah, I know...not legal or relevant for pods) and move your models aside just enough to create a space where the pod can legally land.
Then just look at your opponent all innocent while he tries to figure out how to disembark from the pod while remaining >1" from your models that are surrounding the pod.

And we all know what happens to a unit that can not disembark from a transport that is surrounded when they are required too...

Wouldn't the simpler solution just be to follow the rules and mishap the pod?

"Place one model from the unit anywhere on the table."
Putting the DSing model onto an enemy model is not on the table, it's on a model. You aren't given permission to scooch your opponent's models out of the way, nor are you given permission to ignore the normal rules for avoiding enemy models. Thus, your model isn't touching the table and is not following the rules for DS.

How, then, is it legal to place the Pod (or whatever) on top of enemy models?

Edit: the "whatever" does not include Mawlocs or Monoliths

I agree with the title of this thread, it's stupidity. Why on earth would anyone deliberately mishap?

Also, with regard to negative distances in the 'Cartesian game table', that's non-sense in gaming terms. Negative coordinates are only negative if something moves relative to a stationary origin point. Move zero and that distance won't be negative except to where zero used to be.
Besides, all distances in 40k are clearly to be thought of in a polar coordinate system, with each model at any time being its own origin point. Look at how flyers have to move and arcs of fire on vehicles and stuff like that. This way, all distances can only be positive numbers. Angles could be negative IF you define which side is zero, which could change every turn, or phase, if the player wants it to do so.

 Elric Greywolf wrote:
"Place one model from the unit anywhere on the table."
Putting the DSing model onto an enemy model is not on the table, it's on a model. You aren't given permission to scooch your opponent's models out of the way, nor are you given permission to ignore the normal rules for avoiding enemy models. Thus, your model isn't touching the table and is not following the rules for DS.

How, then, is it legal to place the Pod (or whatever) on top of enemy models?

Edit: the "whatever" does not include Mawlocs or Monoliths

Two things
- as already pointed out, the Mawloc's FAQ entry clarifies that deep striking onto enemy models is fine and
- your argument would also prevent players from deep striking onto terrain, which the rules also make quite clear is supposed to be allowed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Lord Krungharr wrote:
I agree with the title of this thread, it's stupidity. Why on earth would anyone deliberately mishap?.

As somebody already mentioned, it's a risky way of potentially holding your unit in Reserve a little longer if you want to.

As per the original question, it would also be useful if you misunderstood the drop pod rules...

 insaniak wrote:

 Elric Greywolf wrote:
"Place one model from the unit anywhere on the table."
Putting the DSing model onto an enemy model is not on the table, it's on a model. You aren't given permission to scooch your opponent's models out of the way, nor are you given permission to ignore the normal rules for avoiding enemy models. Thus, your model isn't touching the table and is not following the rules for DS.

How, then, is it legal to place the Pod (or whatever) on top of enemy models?

Edit: the "whatever" does not include Mawlocs or Monoliths

Two things
- as already pointed out, the Mawloc's FAQ entry clarifies that deep striking onto enemy models is fine and
- your argument would also prevent players from deep striking onto terrain, which the rules also make quite clear is supposed to be allowed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Lord Krungharr wrote:
I agree with the title of this thread, it's stupidity. Why on earth would anyone deliberately mishap?.

As somebody already mentioned, it's a risky way of potentially holding your unit in Reserve a little longer if you want to.

As per the original question, it would also be useful if you misunderstood the drop pod rules...

Q: Can a Mawloc choose to Deep Strike onto a point occupied by an
enemy model on purpose in order to use the Terror from the Deep special
rule? (p51)
A: Yes.

Im sorry but that doesnt say that deep striking onto a enemy model is fine, its states that it is allowed "in order to use the Terror from the Deep special rule". That is not a precedent to overide BRB (errata), this is a specific FAQ to handle the interaction of a special rule that IS IN CONFLICT with the rules for deep strike from the BRB. Quit trying to use only part of the explanation in the FAQ.

 insaniak wrote:

 Elric Greywolf wrote:
"Place one model from the unit anywhere on the table."
Putting the DSing model onto an enemy model is not on the table, it's on a model. You aren't given permission to scooch your opponent's models out of the way, nor are you given permission to ignore the normal rules for avoiding enemy models. Thus, your model isn't touching the table and is not following the rules for DS.

How, then, is it legal to place the Pod (or whatever) on top of enemy models?

Edit: the "whatever" does not include Mawlocs or Monoliths

Two things
- as already pointed out, the Mawloc's FAQ entry clarifies that deep striking onto enemy models is fine and
- your argument would also prevent players from deep striking onto terrain, which the rules also make quite clear is supposed to be allowed.

I'm not sure I quite buy this yet, but I'm willing to be convinced. From a cursory look over the Deployment section and how to place terrain, it looks as if the word "board" refers to the piece of wood/ground that you play on, while "table" means the entire, including terrain. If this is true, then saying, "Place one model from the unit anywhere on the table" would include pieces of terrain.

Edit: and as to the Mawloc, the Tyranid FAQ gives permission for the Mawloc to DS onto an enemy model. No permission is given for any other unit/model to do so.

 Elric Greywolf wrote:
I'm not sure I quite buy this yet, but I'm willing to be convinced. From a cursory look over the Deployment section and how to place terrain, it looks as if the word "board" refers to the piece of wood/ground that you play on, while "table" means the entire, including terrain. If this is true, then saying, "Place one model from the unit anywhere on the table" would include pieces of terrain.

By that logic, why wouldn't the 'table' include the models on it as well?

Edit: and as to the Mawloc, the Tyranid FAQ gives permission for the Mawloc to DS onto an enemy model. No permission is given for any other unit/model to do so.

The FAQ doesn't give permission to do anything. It's a clarification, not a rule. It clarifies that deep striking onto another model is perfectly acceptable, which allows the Mawloc to use its special rule.

The real argument for doing this would be can you choose to place a single model from inside the Drop pod (are they considered a single unit?) There is nothing that says the model placed prior to scatter must follow the 1" rule, only after the location is determined is that you must be able to fit all models legally. But once scatter is determined to be a hit, the drop pod would have to be placed (which it wont fit) and hence a mishap.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 insaniak wrote:

 Elric Greywolf wrote:
I'm not sure I quite buy this yet, but I'm willing to be convinced. From a cursory look over the Deployment section and how to place terrain, it looks as if the word "board" refers to the piece of wood/ground that you play on, while "table" means the entire, including terrain. If this is true, then saying, "Place one model from the unit anywhere on the table" would include pieces of terrain.

By that logic, why wouldn't the 'table' include the models on it as well?

Edit: and as to the Mawloc, the Tyranid FAQ gives permission for the Mawloc to DS onto an enemy model. No permission is given for any other unit/model to do so.

The FAQ doesn't give permission to do anything. It's a clarification, not a rule. It clarifies that deep striking onto another model is perfectly acceptable, which allows the Mawloc to use its special rule.

No it doesnt, it doesnt say that deep striking onto another is fine for EVERYONE, it doesnt say this allows him to use his rule, it specifically states that it is "allowed in order to use the Terror from the Deep special rule".....it even says "special rule"...meaning not a normal occurance.

 quickfuze wrote:
No it doesnt, it doesnt say that deep striking onto another is fine for EVERYONE, it specifically states that it is allowed "in order to use the Terror from the Deep special rule".....it even says "special rule"...meaning not a normal occurance.

Sure. And I already addressed this.

The thing is, there is no allowance in the Mawloc's rules for it specifically to Deep Strike on top of other models. It just has a special rule that kicks in when it does.

The FAQ clarifies that it's ok for the Mawloc to Deep Strike onto another model so it can use that special rule. Since there is no corresponding rule that would allow deep striking onto other models in the Mawloc's entry for that clarification to be clarifying, that permission to deep strike onto other models has to be inherent to the general deep strike rules. Otherwise, the clarification in the FAQ makes no sense... because if the general deep strike rules don't allow the Mawloc to deep strike onto other models, and the Mawloc's own rules don't allow it to deep strike onto other models, then the FAQ clarifying that it can in fact do so is in error.

Hence why it is a special allowance for that model only via a FAQ and not an Errata to the BRB (that says that after scatter you must be able to legally place all models). I am not arguing with you here in that you cant choose your initial target to be on top of another unit, but how do you place the model (in the event of a drop pod due to size) to mark before scatter? There is no allowance for moving other models out of the way, and it states to place a model from the unit on the table. The only argument I could think of here would be saying that one transported model is part of the unit and use him as a marker, but a ZERO scatter (hit) would still result in a mishap.

 quickfuze wrote:
... but how do you place the model (in the event of a drop pod due to size) to mark before scatter? .

Common practice from my experience is just to say 'I'm centering it right on that guy's head' rather than actually placing the model before rolling scatter.

 insaniak wrote:

 quickfuze wrote:
... but how do you place the model (in the event of a drop pod due to size) to mark before scatter? .

Common practice from my experience is just to say 'I'm centering it right on that guy's head' rather than actually placing the model before rolling scatter.

But you see why RAW, that's wrong right?

you're told to place the model. You admit you didn't place the model.

sirlynchmob wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 quickfuze wrote:
... but how do you place the model (in the event of a drop pod due to size) to mark before scatter? .

Common practice from my experience is just to say 'I'm centering it right on that guy's head' rather than actually placing the model before rolling scatter.

But you see why RAW, that's wrong right?

you're told to place the model. You admit you didn't place the model.

he did place the model, the rules doesn't say he has to leave it there

 insaniak wrote:
Wouldn't the simpler solution just be to follow the rules and mishap the pod?

Yeah...but some people need a special level of punishment before the self awareness of their TFGery finally dawns on them. Using the "unable to disembark" rules (killing whatever was in the pod) would be a delicious counter to someone insisting on playing MyPod 40K trying to game the rules.

sirlynchmob wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 quickfuze wrote:
... but how do you place the model (in the event of a drop pod due to size) to mark before scatter? .

Common practice from my experience is just to say 'I'm centering it right on that guy's head' rather than actually placing the model before rolling scatter.

But you see why RAW, that's wrong right?

you're told to place the model. You admit you didn't place the model.

Or you place it, and then remove it. You have complied with the rule as the rule does not require you to keep it in place while you roll scatter, etc.

sirlynchmob wrote:
But you see why RAW, that's wrong right?

you're told to place the model. You admit you didn't place the model.

Yes, RAW we know that you can Deep Strike on top of other models, but actually doing so is problematic.

Although, for fear of dredging up the whole circus again, this would seem to be another perfect application of WMS...

icefire78 wrote:
I had an argument with a player from the FLGS the other day that is bugging the heck out of me. The argument was with drop pods and how the scatter system works with them. I have seen people drop pod on the middle of a unit as placement and then just move it to the closest side that the pod would land safely. This is where the argument began.

1. He was saying if you placed the drop pod in this situation and rolled a to hit your pod would immediately mishap on the basis that a to hit is not a scatter. I countered with the wording on PG. 6 of the BRB that a scatter is whenever you roll the scatter dice even if it came up as a hit you're still technically scattering. He then argued that if the drop pod would still mishap because you must reduce the scatter by minimum amount possible so that the pod couldn't go anywhere since it reduces itself to 0 and is still on the unit and thus mishaps.

I play DS list quite often (see sig). Your opponent is correct. Have you read the DP and DS rules? I'm not sure what the issue is here. If it was you placing the pods, sorry, but you're wrong. The best argument is that you've seen others do it wrong too. Understandable, but hardly a good counter point. If you were playing me, I'd let you replace and reroll as it was an honest mistake... But certainly your opponent doesn't have to.

 insaniak wrote:

 DarthOvious wrote:
... as I'm sure the deepstriking rules will say that you're not allowed to place a deepstriking unit over another unit already on the table.

They don't.

Fair enough. Probably a good idea for me to read the rulebook myself so I can conform my own opinion.

Not saying I disagree with you but the Mawloc does have a special rule which states that it can do this anyway..

No it doesn't.

It doesnt have a special rule stating it can be placed over another model during DS; it has a special rule stating what happens if it would mishap from doing so.

 insaniak wrote:

 quickfuze wrote:
... but how do you place the model (in the event of a drop pod due to size) to mark before scatter? .

Common practice from my experience is just to say 'I'm centering it right on that guy's head' rather than actually placing the model before rolling scatter.

You have to place the model on the table first though using the deep strike rules. I believe page 14 of the BRB tells us that a model cannot be placed in impassable terrain and also page 13 of the BRB tells us that other models count as impassable terrain. i.e. you cannot place another model over another model.

This means that the terror of the deep special rule is a rule which negates this. Probably the reason why it needed to be FAQd in the first place since everything else is abundantly clear on how to proceed. i.e. you place a template on the table, move all the other models and you place the Mawloc while the unit takes hits from this process.

I will post the Terror from the Deep special rule for clarrification of what is mentioned.

"Terror from the Deep: If Mawloc Deep Strikes onto a point occupied by another model, do not roll on the Deep Strike Mishap table but instead do the following.

Place a large blast template directly over the spot the Mawloc is emerging from. Every Unit under the template suffers a number of Strength 6, AP2 hits equal to the number of models in that unit that are wholly or partially covered by the template. Vehicles are always struck on their rear armour. If any unit still has surving models under the template, move that unit by the minimum distance necessary to clear all models from beneath the template whilst maintaining squad coherency and avoiding impassable terrain. Units that were locked in combat prior to the Mawloc's attack must remain in base combat if possible, but otherwise models cannot be moved within 1" of an enemy model. Vehicles, including immobile vehicles, retain their orginial facing if they are moved. Any models that cannot be moved out of the way are destroyed. After all casualties have been determined, replace the large blast template with the Mawloc."




Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
It doesnt have a special rule stating it can be placed over another model during DS; it has a special rule stating what happens if it would mishap from doing so.

I suppose that is technically true as worded in the codex but the FAQ gives permission to do it, so the special rule does have permission to do it from a combination of both the codex and the FAQ.

Codex rule: "Terror from the Deep: If Mawloc Deep Strikes onto a point occupied by another model, do not roll on the Deep Strike Mishap table but instead do the following.

Place a large blast template directly over the spot the Mawloc is emerging from. Every Unit under the template suffers a number of Strength 6, AP2 hits equal to the number of models in that unit that are wholly or partially covered by the template. Vehicles are always struck on their rear armour. If any unit still has surving models under the template, move that unit by the minimum distance necessary to clear all models from beneath the template whilst maintaining squad coherency and avoiding impassable terrain. Units that were locked in combat prior to the Mawloc's attack must remain in base combat if possible, but otherwise models cannot be moved within 1" of an enemy model. Vehicles, including immobile vehicles, retain their orginial facing if they are moved. Any models that cannot be moved out of the way are destroyed. After all casualties have been determined, replace the large blast template with the Mawloc."


FAQ Rule: Q: Can a Mawloc choose to Deep Strike onto a point occupied by an
enemy model on purpose in order to use the Terror from the Deep special
rule? (p51)
A: Yes.

 DarthOvious wrote:
So when a Tyranid player is placing his Maloc over another unit he should mishap then?.

Of course not. The issue is whether or not he is allowed to place the Mawloc over another unit.

Terror gives him a special rule that applies if he would mishap due to other models, but there is no permission granted within that rule to choose to deep strike on top of another model.

Deep Strike likewise doesn't explicitly say 'Your initial placement can be on top of another model'... but does grant permission to place the initial model anywhere on the table, and the FAQ for the Mawloc clarifies that placing the deep striker on another model is fine.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DarthOvious wrote:
I believe page 14 of the BRB tells us that a model cannot be placed in impassable terrain and also page 13 of the BRB tells us that other models count as impassable terrain. i.e. you cannot place another model over another model.

Which rulebook are you looking at? Because in the 6th edition rules, pages 13 and 14 are in the Shooting section.

And enemy models don't count as impassable terrain in this edition.

As above. Youre looking at 5th edition.

It states models cannot move into impassable terrain, and DS PLACEMENT is not MOVEMENT.

 insaniak wrote:
Of course not. The issue is whether or not he is allowed to place the Mawloc over another unit.

How do you place it?

Terror gives him a special rule that applies if he would mishap due to other models, but there is no permission granted within that rule to choose to deep strike on top of another model.

Thats becase you don't place the model until after you do the template hits and then move the other models out the road. So it has a different placing mechanism for that model.

Deep Strike likewise doesn't explicitly say 'Your initial placement can be on top of another model'... but does grant permission to place the initial model anywhere on the table, and the FAQ for the Mawloc clarifies that placing the deep striker on another model is fine.

No. It changes the placement rules entirely for that model.

Which rulebook are you looking at? Because in the 6th edition rules, pages 13 and 14 are in the Shooting section.

And enemy models don't count as impassable terrain in this edition.

Ah you're correct, this was last edition when I saw this. My mistake.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
As above. Youre looking at 5th edition.

Yes, my mistake. I was thinking of a convo from last edition.

It states models cannot move into impassable terrain, and DS PLACEMENT is not MOVEMENT.

Yes, but you can't place a model over another model and you need to place the model first. The Mawloc rules are different because it changes the way you place the model.

"Terror from the Deep: If Mawloc Deep Strikes onto a point occupied by another model, do not roll on the Deep Strike Mishap table but instead do the following.

Place a large blast template directly over the spot the Mawloc is emerging from. Every Unit under the template suffers a number of Strength 6, AP2 hits equal to the number of models in that unit that are wholly or partially covered by the template. Vehicles are always struck on their rear armour. If any unit still has surving models under the template, move that unit by the minimum distance necessary to clear all models from beneath the template whilst maintaining squad coherency and avoiding impassable terrain. Units that were locked in combat prior to the Mawloc's attack must remain in base combat if possible, but otherwise models cannot be moved within 1" of an enemy model. Vehicles, including immobile vehicles, retain their orginial facing if they are moved. Any models that cannot be moved out of the way are destroyed. After all casualties have been determined, replace the large blast template with the Mawloc."

Notice that the Mawloc isn't placed on the table until you have done all your template hits and moved all the other models out the road. In normal deep strike you don't do this. You have to place the model on the table first.

"Yes, but you can't place a model over another model"
Do you have a rule for that? As I have a rule saying I can place the model ANYWHERE on the table.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
"Yes, but you can't place a model over another model"
Do you have a rule for that? As I have a rule saying I can place the model ANYWHERE on the table.

So when you roll a mishap for a unit and then you roll a result that lets me place your unit "ANYWHERE on the table" I can then choose to place them over another unit and instantly cause another deep strike mishap?

Ah, so the answer is NO, you dont have a rule saying that/. You can just say that.

Read the rest of the mishap result, and note it requires them to be in a valid location. Causing a mishap is not a valid location.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Ah, so the answer is NO, you dont have a rule saying that/. You can just say that.

Read the rest of the mishap result, and note it requires them to be in a valid location. Causing a mishap is not a valid location.

I thought that you has just clarrified that placing them over another unit was a valid location. Now I'm confused.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 quickfuze wrote:
... but how do you place the model (in the event of a drop pod due to size) to mark before scatter? .

Common practice from my experience is just to say 'I'm centering it right on that guy's head' rather than actually placing the model before rolling scatter.

But you see why RAW, that's wrong right?

you're told to place the model. You admit you didn't place the model.

Or you place it, and then remove it. You have complied with the rule as the rule does not require you to keep it in place while you roll scatter, etc.

since when do you support allowing extra words to a rule to change it's meaning? The rule says to place the model. Where is this rule that you can then move the model before the scatter movement?

Why don't you correct yourself here

nosferatu1001 wrote:
the clue is, you have to add additional words to get to the phrase you are claiming is written.

So you should label your argument HYWPI as it is clearly not RAW. the rule is you place the model and have no permissions to do anything else with it til after the scatter role.

sirlynchmob wrote:
since when do you support allowing extra words to a rule to change it's meaning? The rule says to place the model. Where is this rule that you can then move the model before the scatter movement?

WMS allows it, since it is hard to put the model exactly where you want.

 DeathReaper wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
since when do you support allowing extra words to a rule to change it's meaning? The rule says to place the model. Where is this rule that you can then move the model before the scatter movement?

WMS allows it, since it is hard to put the model exactly where you want.

That only works for terrain, not for stacking models on top of each other. a unit is not "a particular piece of terrain"

 DarthOvious wrote:

 insaniak wrote:


Deep Strike likewise doesn't explicitly say 'Your initial placement can be on top of another model'... but does grant permission to place the initial model anywhere on the table, and the FAQ for the Mawloc clarifies that placing the deep striker on another model is fine.

No. It changes the placement rules entirely for that model.

It most certanly does not. The question and anwser portion of those documents does not change any rules. Here is the relevent information from game's workshop's website.

Errata provide corrections to the errors that sometimes creep into our books. It is important to note that Errata carry the same 'authority' as the main rules and permanently modify published material; where one of our books says one thing and the errata changes this to something else, the errata takes precedence as the 'correct' version of that material. Amendments are changes made to our rules in order to make them work within a new context; the most common example would be when a new core rulebook is released which then has a knock-on effect of invalidating existing material. They are not designed to fix newly created weaknesses or shortfalls, but simply to ensure that no rule, unit, item of equipment or whatever else is left incompatible with the current edition of the game. FAQs, or Frequently Asked Questions are grey areas, points of confusion or places where rules can and have been interpreted in conflicting ways. For each FAQ we provide the answer as determined by the Games Development team; while these are not hard and fast rules text in the same way as Errata, they should be considered the 'official' interpretation.

Only the errata or amendments are actual changes in the rules, the questions only provide the official interpretation of the rules. The only rule in question for the Mawloc was the deep strike placement rules. There is no deep strike placement rule specifically for the Malwac so this question could only have been addressing all deep strike placement. The official interpretation is that you may deep strike onto a point occupied by an enemy model on purpose.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
"Yes, but you can't place a model over another model"
Do you have a rule for that? As I have a rule saying I can place the model ANYWHERE on the table.

On a model is not on the table. This is the RAW.

 DJGietzen wrote:

 DarthOvious wrote:

 insaniak wrote:


Deep Strike likewise doesn't explicitly say 'Your initial placement can be on top of another model'... but does grant permission to place the initial model anywhere on the table, and the FAQ for the Mawloc clarifies that placing the deep striker on another model is fine.

No. It changes the placement rules entirely for that model.

It most certanly does not. The question and anwser portion of those documents does not change any rules. Here is the relevent information from game's workshop's website.

I was talking about the rule in the Tyranid codex and a codex does have the authority to bypass rules from the BRB.

Only the errata or amendments are actual changes in the rules, the questions only provide the official interpretation of the rules. The only rule in question for the Mawloc was the deep strike placement rules. There is no deep strike placement rule specifically for the Malwac so this question could only have been addressing all deep strike placement. The official interpretation is that you may deep strike onto a point occupied by an enemy model on purpose.

Did you miss the part where I quoted the text from the TYRANID CODEX!!!!!!!!!!!!

 DJGietzen wrote:
The question and anwser portion of those documents does not change any rules.

I beg to differ.

From the BRB FAQ:

Q: Flyers are entitled to choose whether or not to use the Skyfire
special rule at the start of each Shooting phase. Can Swooping
Flying Monstrous Creatures also do this? (p49)
A: Yes.

Since there is no rule in the BRB giving FMCs the choice to Skyfire while Swooping, this is clearly a rules change.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dozer Blades wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
"Yes, but you can't place a model over another model"
Do you have a rule for that? As I have a rule saying I can place the model ANYWHERE on the table.

On a model is not on the table. This is the RAW.

Then I guess you cannot deep strike into area terrain such as the base of a ruin, or onto a battlement.

Badger has this one correct imo. If the game based measurements from a point in the centre of the board it would be groovy, but since it is played in the third dimension with no fixed centre all movement must be consider positive regardless of the facing of your model, reductions would come before movement whilst measuring the distance from A to B since the distance is 0 no further reduction could be made and therefore A and B are the same place (mishap city)

@happyjew

I agree with the first post, it does seem faq's will change rules.

I disagree with the second part. we have faq's stating you can deep strike onto battlements (building/terrain), and a skyshield(terrain) which is not a model but just terrain that you can deep strike onto. so we can see that deepstriking onto terrain has precedents and can be concluded to be RAW or at least RAI.

placing models on top of models has no precedents, nor anything hinting at allowing it. Models are not part of the table, terrain can be assumed to be part of the table. terrain can also be designed into the table.

 Dozer Blades wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
"Yes, but you can't place a model over another model"
Do you have a rule for that? As I have a rule saying I can place the model ANYWHERE on the table.

On a model is not on the table. This is the RAW.

Ruins / hills (not built in /etc can also not be used?

No, again, you ignored the context that was given earlier.

DarthOvious wrote:

 DJGietzen wrote:

 DarthOvious wrote:

 insaniak wrote:


Deep Strike likewise doesn't explicitly say 'Your initial placement can be on top of another model'... but does grant permission to place the initial model anywhere on the table, and the FAQ for the Mawloc clarifies that placing the deep striker on another model is fine.

No. It changes the placement rules entirely for that model.

It most certanly does not. The question and anwser portion of those documents does not change any rules. Here is the relevent information from game's workshop's website.

I was talking about the rule in the Tyranid codex and a codex does have the authority to bypass rules from the BRB.

Only the errata or amendments are actual changes in the rules, the questions only provide the official interpretation of the rules. The only rule in question for the Mawloc was the deep strike placement rules. There is no deep strike placement rule specifically for the Malwac so this question could only have been addressing all deep strike placement. The official interpretation is that you may deep strike onto a point occupied by an enemy model on purpose.

Did you miss the part where I quoted the text from the TYRANID CODEX!!!!!!!!!!!!

I was only replying to the portion I quoted. You used the pronoun "it" in a direct response to insaniak's statement. The subject of that statement was "the FAQ for the Mawloc", not the tyranid codex. You effectively said 'No. The FAQ for the Mawloc changes the placement rules entirely for that model.' and made no mention of the codex. If you intended your reply to be about the codex and not the FAQ you needed to state that in some way.

Happyjew wrote:

 DJGietzen wrote:
The question and answer portion of those documents does not change any rules.

I beg to differ.

From the BRB FAQ:

Q: Flyers are entitled to choose whether or not to use the Skyfire
special rule at the start of each Shooting phase. Can Swooping
Flying Monstrous Creatures also do this? (p49)
A: Yes.

Since there is no rule in the BRB giving FMCs the choice to Skyfire while Swooping, this is clearly a rules change.

I'll agree this should have been an amendment, but given the form of the question and the fact that this was not an amendment or errata the only logical inference would be that flying monstrous creatures are also flyers. (I disagree for many reasons) I don't play with any FMC, but how many are there that have skyfire to make this question even matter?

 DarthOvious wrote:
I thought that you has just clarrified that placing them over another unit was a valid location. Now I'm confused.

Putting them over another unit is a valid starting location for the deep strike process. It's not a valid location to deploy models, as it causes a mishap if they actually land there.

It looks like pretty much everything that needs to be said has been said, so I'm confused on how there's any argument still going on here.

- There are no such thing as "negative" inches, so you can only reduce the scatter distance to 0".
- If you manage to land on a unit with a Drop Pod after reducing the scatter as much as possible, you mishap.
- If you go off the table, you mishap.
- If you are somehow within 1" of an enemy unit (with your pre-measuring), you mishap.
- The rules don't say you can't try to drop on an enemy unit and hope you scatter off of it, but its a risky move with dubious benefit except in highly specific circumstances.

The fact you can only reduce to 0" and not start 'going the other way' has been well established in the larger W40K tournaments for a long, long while now. It is still a common mistake for newer players or players who aren't that familiar with rules they have not encountered/used often. But really, Drop Pods are not that complicated so I'm a bit surprised this argument has made it to 3 pages. Here's hoping it dies off!

 cowmonaut wrote:
It looks like pretty much everything that needs to be said has been said, so I'm confused on how there's any argument still going on here.

- There are no such thing as "negative" inches, so you can only reduce the scatter distance to 0".
- If you manage to land on a unit with a Drop Pod after reducing the scatter as much as possible, you mishap.
- If you go off the table, you mishap.
- If you are somehow within 1" of an enemy unit (with your pre-measuring), you mishap.
- The rules don't say you can't try to drop on an enemy unit and hope you scatter off of it, but its a risky move with dubious benefit except in highly specific circumstances.

The fact you can only reduce to 0" and not start 'going the other way' has been well established in the larger W40K tournaments for a long, long while now. It is still a common mistake for newer players or players who aren't that familiar with rules they have not encountered/used often. But really, Drop Pods are not that complicated so I'm a bit surprised this argument has made it to 3 pages. Here's hoping it dies off!

This.

the original placement of a deepstriking unit does not have to be a 'valid' or 'legal' placement of the 'start' space, the deepstrike rules on p36 of the BRB do not ask you to conform to this process.

for those saying that starting on top of your opponents models isn't placing the deepstriking unit. which would you prefer, someone trying to put the relatively heavy drop pod model over your minis to have the start location or would you rather they said, the start position is here, over this guys head? (I'm sure you'd rather they just said my start point is there)

your models are not considered terrain, impassable or not, so they do not conform to an invalid placement either. therefore, since this is a permissive ruleset, i.e. if a rule says you can then you can unless another says no, you can do so. since there is no rule in the book to say that you cannot start a deep strike action on top of another model, then you may do so.

however as has also been pointed out, trying to go into negatives is silly, you will reduce to the minimum distance which is 0, since any attempt to go any other direction is +x since your starting point is x, there are no negative values in warhammer 40k, they do not exist. (I defy you to show me an example where negative numbers are directly shown/exampled in the BRB or a codex)


Automatically Appended Next Post:
oh and to add to it, if you want to try to say that DS must conform in some way to the movement rules ect, look at Basic vs Advanced on P7, as Deepstrike is a SR it would override the normal movement rules as it doesn't ask you to conform to these presets, it simply states place the model.

 nutty_nutter wrote:

 cowmonaut wrote:
It looks like pretty much everything that needs to be said has been said, so I'm confused on how there's any argument still going on here.

- There are no such thing as "negative" inches, so you can only reduce the scatter distance to 0".
- If you manage to land on a unit with a Drop Pod after reducing the scatter as much as possible, you mishap.
- If you go off the table, you mishap.
- If you are somehow within 1" of an enemy unit (with your pre-measuring), you mishap.
- The rules don't say you can't try to drop on an enemy unit and hope you scatter off of it, but its a risky move with dubious benefit except in highly specific circumstances.

The fact you can only reduce to 0" and not start 'going the other way' has been well established in the larger W40K tournaments for a long, long while now. It is still a common mistake for newer players or players who aren't that familiar with rules they have not encountered/used often. But really, Drop Pods are not that complicated so I'm a bit surprised this argument has made it to 3 pages. Here's hoping it dies off!

This.

the original placement of a deepstriking unit does not have to be a 'valid' or 'legal' placement of the 'start' space, the deepstrike rules on p36 of the BRB do not ask you to conform to this process.

for those saying that starting on top of your opponents models isn't placing the deepstriking unit. which would you prefer, someone trying to put the relatively heavy drop pod model over your minis to have the start location or would you rather they said, the start position is here, over this guys head? (I'm sure you'd rather they just said my start point is there)

your models are not considered terrain, impassable or not, so they do not conform to an invalid placement either. therefore, since this is a permissive ruleset, i.e. if a rule says you can then you can unless another says no, you can do so. since there is no rule in the book to say that you cannot start a deep strike action on top of another model, then you may do so.

however as has also been pointed out, trying to go into negatives is silly, you will reduce to the minimum distance which is 0, since any attempt to go any other direction is +x since your starting point is x, there are no negative values in warhammer 40k, they do not exist. (I defy you to show me an example where negative numbers are directly shown/exampled in the BRB or a codex)


Automatically Appended Next Post:
oh and to add to it, if you want to try to say that DS must conform in some way to the movement rules ect, look at Basic vs Advanced on P7, as Deepstrike is a SR it would override the normal movement rules as it doesn't ask you to conform to these presets, it simply states place the model.

I agree with everything you said, and your reasoning behind it... But the indicated portion you have backwards. In a permissive rule set, you need permission to do something, or you cant do it.... Not the other way around.

I side with the argument that you can deep-strike wherever you like to start out, but without the ability to increase the scatter range I fail to see when someone would want to do this unless its to voluntarily force a mishap.

you can't increase the scatter range, only decrease it, my point was that the OP was saying he could start on top of models and then having rolled a hit and/or scatter he could move the pod to safety. my point was he couldn't since any distance from his original location (being x) is an increase, not a decrease.

with regards to the permissive bit.

you are permitted by the deepstrike rule to place the model anywhere on the table, you are not not allowed to place that model on top of enemy models, therefore you can place it upon them. apologies if it wasn't clear

 nutty_nutter wrote:
you are permitted by the deepstrike rule to place the model anywhere on the table, you are not not allowed to place that model on top of enemy models, therefore you can place it upon them. apologies if it wasn't clear

Clarify please because you just contradicted yourself.

icefire78 wrote:
I had an argument with a player from the FLGS the other day that is bugging the heck out of me. The argument was with drop pods and how the scatter system works with them. I have seen people drop pod on the middle of a unit as placement and then just move it to the closest side that the pod would land safely. This is where the argument began.

1. He was saying if you placed the drop pod in this situation and rolled a to hit your pod would immediately mishap on the basis that a to hit is not a scatter. I countered with the wording on PG. 6 of the BRB that a scatter is whenever you roll the scatter dice even if it came up as a hit you're still technically scattering. He then argued that if the drop pod would still mishap because you must reduce the scatter by minimum amount possible so that the pod couldn't go anywhere since it reduces itself to 0 and is still on the unit and thus mishaps.

You can't aim at a unit and expect to scatter clear if a "hit" is rolled, that's ridiculous and a gross stretch of the rules. I would rule a mishap as well.

Wait... was he trying to mishap? Or trying not to mishap? I'm confused.

Wah, my opponent wouldn't let me abuse the rules to put my flamer pod 1" away from his blob pretty much every time

No sympathy

 Byte wrote:
You can't aim at a unit, that's ridiculous and a gross stretch of the rules. I would mishap you as well.

Where is the stretch? If you aim at a unit, and you don't scatter off them, you mishap.

Sure, the rules might be a little vague on it, but forcing a mishap on yourself is not exactly giving yourself some sort of game-breaking advantage...

 insaniak wrote:

 Byte wrote:
You can't aim at a unit, that's ridiculous and a gross stretch of the rules. I would mishap you as well.

Where is the stretch? If you aim at a unit, and you don't scatter off them, you mishap.

Sure, the rules might be a little vague on it, but forcing a mishap on yourself is not exactly giving yourself some sort of game-breaking advantage...

Isn't that what I said? OP wanted to scatter to avoid if a Hit is rolled while targeting an enemy unit...

You didn't refer to the wanting to scatter off thing at all, no. Your post suggests that it was the aiming at a unit bit that you were objecting to.

 insaniak wrote:
You didn't refer to the wanting to scatter off thing at all, no. Your post suggests that it was the aiming at a unit bit that you were objecting to.

Ok, I should have quoted the OPs original post. Which was the content of this thread.

Tried to clarify my post.

sam918 wrote:
You can't place the DP on top of the opponents units before you roll to shatter. You need to place it in a legal position (1" from his units) before you roll. So that argument was pointless.

This.

 Homeskillet wrote:

sam918 wrote:
You can't place the DP on top of the opponents units before you roll to shatter. You need to place it in a legal position (1" from his units) before you roll. So that argument was pointless.

This.

Has been shown to be incorrect as the rules never say that.

- Removed by insaniak. This sort of post adds nothing constructive to the discussion -

 DJGietzen wrote:

I was only replying to the portion I quoted. You used the pronoun "it" in a direct response to insaniak's statement. The subject of that statement was "the FAQ for the Mawloc", not the tyranid codex. You effectively said 'No. The FAQ for the Mawloc changes the placement rules entirely for that model.' and made no mention of the codex. If you intended your reply to be about the codex and not the FAQ you needed to state that in some way.

The FAQ references the special rule from the Tyranid codex (Terror from the Deep), so yes it does. Are we done here? Or do I need to put you on my ignore list? I'm not going to get an argument about this.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 insaniak wrote:

 DarthOvious wrote:
I thought that you has just clarrified that placing them over another unit was a valid location. Now I'm confused.

Putting them over another unit is a valid starting location for the deep strike process. It's not a valid location to deploy models, as it causes a mishap if they actually land there.

Interesting, does deep strike itself count as a deployment?

 DarthOvious wrote:
[
Interesting, does deep strike itself count as a deployment?

Yes.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 quickfuze wrote:
... but how do you place the model (in the event of a drop pod due to size) to mark before scatter? .

Common practice from my experience is just to say 'I'm centering it right on that guy's head' rather than actually placing the model before rolling scatter.

But you see why RAW, that's wrong right?

you're told to place the model. You admit you didn't place the model.

Or you place it, and then remove it. You have complied with the rule as the rule does not require you to keep it in place while you roll scatter, etc.

Interesting facts about placing models and scattering.

Place the object onto the battlefield as instructed by the rule.
(roll scatter)
If a hit is rolled, the object does not move-leave it in place and resolve the remainder of the rule.
If an arrow is rolled, move the object the distance shown on the 2d6.

Hit = does not move, LEAVE IT IN PLACE.
Arrow = move the object the DISTANCE SHOWN on the 2d6.

This explodes the idea that it is possible to place and then remove.

Made up rubbish aside, the object/model must be placed and left in place while the rule is resolved.
That is RAW.
Exactly how you would deal with the possible consequences of this is your own concern.
AKA "please don't break/chip my models with your monolith" (no, not a euphemism).

Please stop inventing procedures and making things up, it does not help.

Question, is it always possible to place a deep striking model anywhere on the table?
Answer is no.
Two situations come immediately to mind (there may be more).

 DeathReaper wrote:

 nutty_nutter wrote:
you are permitted by the deepstrike rule to place the model anywhere on the table, you are not not allowed to place that model on top of enemy models, therefore you can place it upon them. apologies if it wasn't clear

Clarify please because you just contradicted yourself.

no I didn't I used a double negative (wasn't a mistype), not not = can/is


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 fuusa wrote:

 DarthOvious wrote:
[
Interesting, does deep strike itself count as a deployment?

Yes.

please back this up with a page reference and rule to support your claim here as this is your supposition.

Deepstrike is NOT a deployment, nor is the act of placing the model on it's target location part of the movement as it has yet to scatter to its actual start location. once scatter has been resolved it is then in its resting place for determining a mishap.

 nutty_nutter wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 nutty_nutter wrote:
you are permitted by the deepstrike rule to place the model anywhere on the table, you are not not allowed to place that model on top of enemy models, therefore you can place it upon them. apologies if it wasn't clear

Clarify please because you just contradicted yourself.

no I didn't I used a double negative (wasn't a mistype), not not = can/is

That explains it then, as it looked like a Typo.

 nutty_nutter wrote:

 fuusa wrote:

 DarthOvious wrote:
[
Interesting, does deep strike itself count as a deployment?

Yes.

please back this up with a page reference and rule to support your claim here as this is your supposition.

Deepstrike is NOT a deployment, nor is the act of placing the model on it's target location part of the movement as it has yet to scatter to its actual start location. once scatter has been resolved it is then in its resting place for determining a mishap.

No supposition, just RAW.

P124, arriving from reserve, para 5.
"... picks any one of the units arriving and deploys it, moving onto the table as described below.
Para 6.
"Models that are arriving by deep strike or outflank deploy using their special rules."

P36, arriving by deep strike para 1.
"... then deploy them as follows."
3rd bullet.
"Models deploying via deep strike."

There may be more, but I think the point is made.

 fuusa wrote:
No supposition, just RAW.

P124, arriving from reserve, para 5.
"... picks any one of the units arriving and deploys it, moving onto the table as described below.
Para 6.
"Models that are arriving by deep strike or outflank deploy using their special rules."

P36, arriving by deep strike para 1.
"... then deploy them as follows."
3rd bullet.
"Models deploying via deep strike."

There may be more, but I think the point is made.

So we can see here that arriving from reserve is deploying.

So what does this mean for the deepstriking rules?

1) Is it illegal to place your deep striking model on top of another unit?

2) Is it legal for me to choose to place a misplaced unit over a another unit to cause a mishap?

I'll wait to see what people say and how they explain this.

 DarthOvious wrote:


So we can see here that arriving from reserve is deploying.

So what does this mean for the deepstriking rules?

I didn't say that, there are debates to be had about arrives/arriving/arrive/arrived.
You may have multiple units arriving, but be deploying only 1 at any time.

Though I think nutty nutter is wrong (ie, deepstriking is deploying), I believe the reason he asked the question of me, is "when" is a unit deploying or deployed by deepstrike (apologies, if that's wrong).
In other words, the process of deepstrike is deploying, but the unit is not deployed until the end of it.

It would be convinient to be able to say, that you can't be deploying a unit, if it can't be deployed in the location you begin deploying it.
Can't though as far as I know.

If it is possible to place one unit over/on top of (and not in) another, that is cause for concern.
Imagine human (inhuman) pyramids firing over buildings, un-assaultable units towering over others and vehicles giving each other piggy-backs.

 fuusa wrote:

 DarthOvious wrote:


So we can see here that arriving from reserve is deploying.

So what does this mean for the deepstriking rules?

I didn't say that, there are debates to be had about arrives/arriving/arrive/arrived.
You may have multiple units arriving, but be deploying only 1 at any time.

OK, can I ask what you mean? Sorry I just got the impression that you were confirming that Deep Striking was indeed deployment. The rest of what I said I was asking questions in regards to how it fits with everything else. Can you aim your deep strike at another unit? Yes or no & why do you think that? Is it possible to cause a mishap with a misplaced unit? Yes or No and what is your reasoning behind it?

I didn't mean to impose anything on you, so I apologise if I did. I just thought that you were confirming deep strike as a deployment and then asked questions in regards to that.

Though I think nutty nutter is wrong (ie, deepstriking is deploying), I believe the reason he asked the question of me, is "when" is a unit deploying or deployed by deepstrike (apologies, if that's wrong).
In other words, the process of deepstrike is deploying, but the unit is not deployed until the end of it.

Ah OK, so despite that deep striking is deployment, it doesn't happen until the end of the process? I am correct here? So does this mean that somebody can choose to place their unit on top or another unit or not when deep striking? Please bear in mind I am asking a question here. I do not want to place words in your mouth or anything.

Thats OK. I asked a question in regards to mishaping a misplaced unit earlier. Someone else had indicated to me that I couldn't do it as this wouldn't be a legal deployment.

It would be convinient to be able to say, that you can't be deploying a unit, if it can't be deployed in the location you begin deploying it.
Can't though as far as I know.

OK

If it is possible to place one unit over/on top of (and not in) another, that is cause for concern.
Imagine human (inhuman) pyramids firing over buildings, un-assaultable units towering over others and vehicles giving each other piggy-backs.

I think the consensus is that if it does land on the position then it is a mishap. Its just being argued that you can choose to place the unit over another unit before scattering. If you roll a hit then its a mishap, if you roll a scatter then scatter the unit.

If deep striking is a deployment, not saying it actually is or isn't, but in the case that it is then what do the deployment rules say about placing models?

 fuusa wrote:

 nutty_nutter wrote:

 fuusa wrote:

 DarthOvious wrote:
[
Interesting, does deep strike itself count as a deployment?

Yes.

please back this up with a page reference and rule to support your claim here as this is your supposition.

Deepstrike is NOT a deployment, nor is the act of placing the model on it's target location part of the movement as it has yet to scatter to its actual start location. once scatter has been resolved it is then in its resting place for determining a mishap.

No supposition, just RAW.

P124, arriving from reserve, para 5.
"... picks any one of the units arriving and deploys it, moving onto the table as described below.
Para 6.
"Models that are arriving by deep strike or outflank deploy using their special rules."

P36, arriving by deep strike para 1.
"... then deploy them as follows."
3rd bullet.
"Models deploying via deep strike."

There may be more, but I think the point is made.

P124 is countered by P7 basic vs advanced, meaning that the restrictions imposed in P124 are ignored.

P36 para one, yes your referring to the method for deployment, this is a whole package of 3 point process, not just bits and bobs of it.

3rd bullet: deploying is the same as deployed, however they cannot be considered deployed until this step and until all 3 steps are complete, as this is the third step and as such would be the first time the SR confirms you are deployed (i.e. after scatter) anything before this point is not deployment which as such is not restricted by the normal rules for it.

you will trigger a mishap after all three steps are complete, not before.

At what point in the basic deploynent rules or even the deepstrike rules are you given permission to deploy ontop of enemy or friendly models? Just curious as it's a permissive rule set.

Also when asked to "place" the model when deepstriking how are models considered terrain for the purposes of wms? I was always under the assumption that of you could not place the lead model then it was not a valid location.

First, place one model from the unit anywhere on the table, in the position where you would like it to arrive, and roll for scatter to determine the model's final position.

A model cannot move within 1" of an enemy model unless they are charging into close combat in the Assault phase.

Heh, good point Bausk. Unless something overrules that second quote (found on Page 10), you can't. You have to place the model on the table and you aren't allowed to have one of your models within 1" of an enemy model except for in close combat.

 cowmonaut wrote:

First, place one model from the unit anywhere on the table, in the position where you would like it to arrive, and roll for scatter to determine the model's final position.

A model cannot move within 1" of an enemy model unless they are charging into close combat in the Assault phase.

Heh, good point Bausk. Unless something overrules that second quote (found on Page 10), you can't. You have to place the model on the table and you aren't allowed to have one of your models within 1" of an enemy model except for in close combat.

DS placement and the subsequent scatter is not movement. Once the pod lands then it counts as having moved.

Which doesn't change my question Reaper. Where in the deployment or deepstrike rules are you given permission to place the model somewhere it can't physucally be placed? Specifically on friendly or enemy models.

 Bausk wrote:
Which doesn't change my question Reaper. Where in the deployment or deepstrike rules are you given permission to place the model somewhere it can't physucally be placed? Specifically on friendly or enemy models.

In the rules that say place the model anywhere on the table.

So to you anywhere on the table is as broad and specific as you need? So perhaps the gaming table has a lip that isn't apart of the gaming area. I suppose that lip would be fair game as well as it is somewhere on the table. perhaps you're playing on the floor, does this mean we can't deepstrike because there is no table?

How about that word there in that rule 'place'. Does pointing your finger at a location and saying there in that unit count as placing a model? Can you phyically place a model on another model? For that instance can you even place a model on another models base?

As models are clearly not the table or terrain are you placing your model on the table and if you are, by some great stretch of imagination, how can you justify using wms which clearly states it applys to terrain?

Cowmonaut - again, read your quote carefully. note it says you cannot "MOVE within...", not "PLACE within...". Placing here is not equal to movement; page 10 does not apply

Bausk - "Can you" place the model on top of another model? Yes, I can. Is it a good idea? Well it might be an unpopular move with the opponent, depending on the models involved, but that does not make it impossible.

"anywhere on the table", with table already defined as the gaming area earlier in the book (to shoot down your strawman argument), is sufficiently clear permission to do exactly that - place it anywhere

Find the restriction. Page and para

 nutty_nutter wrote:
P124 is countered by P7 basic vs advanced, meaning that the restrictions imposed in P124 are ignored.

No, page 124 tells you that you must deploy reserves and includes deep strikers. It is relevant, just not complete in this case.

 nutty_nutter wrote:
P36 para one, yes your referring to the method for deployment, this is a whole package of 3 point process, not just bits and bobs of it.

Yes and it proves (again) that deep strike is a method of deployment.

 nutty_nutter wrote:
3rd bullet: deploying is the same as deployed, however they cannot be considered deployed until this step and until all 3 steps are complete, as this is the third step and as such would be the first time the SR confirms you are deployed (i.e. after scatter) anything before this point is not deployment which as such is not restricted by the normal rules for it.

Please read the rules again.
A unit is not considered deployed after scatter.

 nutty_nutter wrote:
you will trigger a mishap after all three steps are complete, not before.

Assumed arrival from reserves.

Example.
I have a unit of 5 models that I am now deploying (but have not yet deployed the unit), in that I am in the (3-point) process (though I would include a 4th, possibly, that of rolling for reserves).

I place 1 model and roll for scatter (2 stages complete).
My first model ends up in a crowded spot, surrounded by models that only it can be placed in.
At this point, am I deploying the unit, or has it been deployed?
I am still deploying the unit.

When I go to place my other 4 models, I can't.
The last stage, that of placing the models in the unit, cannot be completed.
This will trigger a mishap roll, while I was deploying, not after I had deployed.

 cowmonaut wrote:

First, place one model from the unit anywhere on the table, in the position where you would like it to arrive, and roll for scatter to determine the model's final position.

A model cannot move within 1" of an enemy model unless they are charging into close combat in the Assault phase.

Heh, good point Bausk. Unless something overrules that second quote (found on Page 10), you can't. You have to place the model on the table and you aren't allowed to have one of your models within 1" of an enemy model except for in close combat.

The problem with that, is its preventing movement, not placing.
The placed model cannot be said to have moved, in rules terms, despite travelling from your case to the table.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Bausk wrote:
Which doesn't change my question Reaper. Where in the deployment or deepstrike rules are you given permission to place the model somewhere it can't physucally be placed? Specifically on friendly or enemy models.

In the rules that say place the model anywhere on the table.

Deepstrike placement is circumstantial, proving that rule can be superceded (again).

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Cowmonaut - again, read your quote carefully. note it says you cannot "MOVE within...", not "PLACE within...". Placing here is not equal to movement; page 10 does not apply

Bausk - "Can you" place the model on top of another model? Yes, I can. Is it a good idea? Well it might be an unpopular move with the opponent, depending on the models involved, but that does not make it impossible.

"anywhere on the table", with table already defined as the gaming area earlier in the book (to shoot down your strawman argument), is sufficiently clear permission to do exactly that - place it anywhere

Find the restriction. Page and para

As I said earlier, when I challenged this, I have two instances in mind.
Permission to place is limited (again and again).

Then state them, rather than dancing around the subject.

Yay Nos isn't ignoring me anymore. lol

So where is the citation for being able to place or even deploy on another model? Can't seem to find one in my brb.

Oh and it wasn't Strawman, it was sarcasm and a prod to actually get someone to answer my question.

"place anywhere"

Are you placing a restriction on the "anywhere"? If so please state where this restriction can be found.

If you still claim there is a restriction then I will ask you where the specific permission to place the DS within a 7" by 4" by 12" tall forest is, given you are restricting "anywhere" with no rules support.

Lmao it like the page two argument all over again.

Anywhere on the table Nos and you have to actually physically place the model. If you didn't have to place the model physically on the table it would say you can point to a location and say "there".

So for arguments sake lets say that's a legal placement, as the initial model is on or within 1" of an enemy model the unit mishaps before scattering or what?

 Bausk wrote:
Lmao it like the page two argument all over again.

What, where you were asked to provide some rules, and failed?

Bausk wrote:Anywhere on the table Nos and you have to actually physically place the model.

Already covered. Try reading just a little furtyher up. It is indeed entirely possible for me to place the model on top of one of your models. Whether it is advisable to or not is another question, but not one the rules care about. So you're happy that I place my DS Mechanicus Titan Carrier (100% metal!) on top of your finecast figures? After all, you are wanting to play strict rules....

Bausk wrote:If you didn't have to place the model physically on the table it would say you can point to a location and say "there".

Yawn. Already covered. Seriously, you do yourself no favours when you have clearly not bothered to read others posts.

Bausk wrote:So for arguments sake lets say that's a legal placement, as the initial model is on or within 1" of an enemy model the unit mishaps before scattering or what?

No, because the rules for DS state you determine mishap after determining the [b]final[b] positionof the unit, not where the unit would like to turn up (remember initial placement is not actually placing the "unit", but where conceptually you want the unit to arrive- there is, at that point, no unit there, it is just a marker)

All of these have been covered before - perhaps you could refresh your memory of the thread a little before positng again?

The deep strike special makes no mention of the initial placement needing to be legal or not
"First, place one model from the unit anywhere on the table, in the position where you would like it to arrive..." pg36 BRB and scatter and so on.

It not until the Seep Strike Mishaps section that placement becomes an issue.

My take on it would be that you can aim for the squad but if you don't scatter fair enough away you mishap.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
"place anywhere"

Well to be precise its "Anywhere on the table"

Are you placing a restriction on the "anywhere"? If so please state where this restriction can be found.

Yes I am placing a restriction on it. For instance you are not placing your drop pod in my bath tub.

I know, I'm sorry. I couldn't help myself with this one and I knew exactly what you meant but I just like being a goof sometimes.

ok ... let me get this right .... you want to argue that you have the ability to place a model anywhere, and this includes on top an enemy model.

If this is the tactic someone wants to take then if they mishap and were to be displaced could I then place them in an exact same manner causing another mishap and another roll on the DS mishap table?

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Then state them, rather than dancing around the subject.

Say please.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
"place anywhere"

Are you placing a restriction on the "anywhere"? If so please state where this restriction can be found.

I can place my deep striking model anywhere on the table without restriction then?
Just to confirm, that is what you are saying, isn't it???
All I need is one example where this is not possible and you will be proved wrong.

So, I place my model on the top floor of a ruin.

 OIIIIIIO wrote:
ok ... let me get this right .... you want to argue that you have the ability to place a model anywhere, and this includes on top an enemy model.

If this is the tactic someone wants to take then if they mishap and were to be displaced could I then place them in an exact same manner causing another mishap and another roll on the DS mishap table?

I already asked this question myself.

RAW I don't give a monkey's. The rule says you need to place the model and there is no way in hell I am letting someone place their models on top of mine and breaking them. The minute they try that is the minute I stop the game and tell them to get lost.

 fuusa wrote:
So, I place my model on the top floor of a ruin.

It's like a specific exception doesn't prove the statement incorrect or something.
Yes, there are limitations that are specifically pointed out. Have you found one that forbids placing on top of another model yet, or are you just trolling?

rigeld2 wrote:

 fuusa wrote:
So, I place my model on the top floor of a ruin.

It's like a specific exception doesn't prove the statement incorrect or something.

So, in your words, what we actually have, in the RAW of the rulebook, is a specific exception to the "anywhere" argument?
Well done, you are right.

rigeld2 wrote:
Yes, there are limitations that are specifically pointed out.

Thankyou, so Nos is wrong again.

rigeld2 wrote:
Have you found one that forbids placing on top of another model yet, or are you just trolling?

So, in your mind, I must be doing one or the other?
Either I have found that rule, or I'm trolling.

So, that means that you are wrong yet again, as I have not found a rule to do this, I don't know that such a rule exists.
What I have been doing, is pointing out errors in the arguments being used (by both sides).
You see that as trolling then?

 fuusa wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Yes, there are limitations that are specifically pointed out.

Thankyou, so Nos is wrong again.

No, he's not.

rigeld2 wrote:
Have you found one that forbids placing on top of another model yet, or are you just trolling?

So, in your mind, I must be doing one or the other?
Either I have found that rule, or I'm trolling.

So, that means that you are wrong yet again, as I have not found a rule to do this, I don't know that such a rule exists.
What I have been doing, is pointing out errors in the arguments being used (by both sides).
You see that as trolling then?

It's not an error. At all. Yes, there are specific exceptions to a rule - that does not mean the statement is invalid. In fact it supports the statement in that you must have a specific exception.
The rule is that all models move 6". I can point to that rule. The statement is not correct. The fact that specific models have allowance to move more does not disprove the statement that all models move 6".

If I recall correctly I cited many rules that were relevant to the previous discussion, none of which you addressed. Page two was your flimsy excuse to cover all arguments, never disputed page two only it's relevance to the discussion.

You can try to place your model on top of mine physically though I doubt it would end well for the limbs you use to attempt it.

And no it was not covered, it was hand waved with WMS which only applies to terrain. Last time I checked models were not terrain.

Also last time I checked the initial model was apart of the unit that intended to deepstrike. What are the mishap rules in regards to models being placed on or within an inch of enemy models again?

You know, I remember exactly how pointless and circular this argument was in the previous edition....

rigeld2 wrote:

 fuusa wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Yes, there are limitations that are specifically pointed out.

Thankyou, so Nos is wrong again.

No, he's not.

He said that a model deep striking has the permission to be placed anywhere on the table.
Is that true or not?
I have come up with a situation where that cannot happen.

Can I place my deep striking model on the top level of a ruin???

If you say yes, you are ignoring/breaking RAW.
If you say no, then there must be at least somewhere encompassed by anywhere, where this is not possible.

So, I'll ask you again ...
Can I place my deep striking model on the top level of a ruin???
Yes or no?

 fuusa wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 fuusa wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Yes, there are limitations that are specifically pointed out.

Thankyou, so Nos is wrong again.

No, he's not.

He said that a model deep striking has the permission to be placed anywhere on the table.
Is that true or not?
I have come up with a situation where that cannot happen.

Can I place my deep striking model on the top level of a ruin???

If you say yes, you are ignoring/breaking RAW.
If you say no, then there must be at least somewhere encompassed by anywhere, where this is not possible.

So, I'll ask you again ...
Can I place my deep striking model on the top level of a ruin???
Yes or no?

When discussing rules every absolute statement must be assumed to also include the words "unless stated otherwise". Because typing that out every time gets tiring and redundant.
Your attempt to enforce that statement just to prove nos wrong smacks less of trying to enforce accuracy and more of just wanting to poke nos.

rigeld2 wrote:
When discussing rules every absolute statement must be assumed to also include the words "unless stated otherwise". Because typing that out every time gets tiring and redundant.

Allright, in these terms then.

I can place a model anywhere on the table unless stated otherwise.
Which follows that there may be somewhere (that is part of anywhere) could have an unless stated otherwise.
Deepstrike model on top of ruin = unless stated otherwise.

He was claiming anywhere means anywhere which, by your measure may not be true.
It is not true.
He is wrong, thankyou for your help in proving it.

rigeld2 wrote:
Your attempt to enforce that statement just to prove nos wrong smacks less of trying to enforce accuracy and more of just wanting to poke nos.

Nos was wrong, is telling him so, a device to annoy, or enforcing accuracy?

Model on the ruin.
You still haven't answered the question, yes or no???

 fuusa wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
When discussing rules every absolute statement must be assumed to also include the words "unless stated otherwise". Because typing that out every time gets tiring and redundant.

Allright, in these terms then.

I can place a model anywhere on the table unless stated otherwise.
Which follows that there may be somewhere (that is part of anywhere) could have an unless stated otherwise.
Deepstrike model on top of ruin = unless stated otherwise.

He was claiming anywhere means anywhere which, by your measure may not be true.
It is not true.
He is wrong, thankyou for your help in proving it.

No - he's not. You're arbitrarily forcing him to have to type "unless stated otherwise" and ignoring every other poster in any thread in YMDC that does the same thing.
He's quoting a rule. You're pretending he's not. He's. Not. Wrong.

Is this statement wrong?

Models move up to 6" in the Movement phase.

 fuusa wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 fuusa wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Yes, there are limitations that are specifically pointed out.

Thankyou, so Nos is wrong again.

No, he's not.

He said that a model deep striking has the permission to be placed anywhere on the table.
Is that true or not?
I have come up with a situation where that cannot happen.

Can I place my deep striking model on the top level of a ruin???

If you say yes, you are ignoring/breaking RAW.
If you say no, then there must be at least somewhere encompassed by anywhere, where this is not possible.

So, I'll ask you again ...
Can I place my deep striking model on the top level of a ruin???
Yes or no?

Better question, can I place my Deep Striking unit on top of a battlement, yes or no?

rigeld2 wrote:

He is wrong, thankyou for your help in proving it.

No - he's not. You're arbitrarily forcing him to have to type "unless stated otherwise" and ignoring every other poster in any thread in YMDC that does the same thing.
He's quoting a rule. You're pretending he's not. He's. Not. Wrong.

Is this statement wrong?

Models move up to 6" in the Movement phase.

@Fuusa, as much as you seem to need to correct Nosferatu, it's entirely irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

Is there a restriction to "anywhere on the table" that prevents you from aiming your deep-striking drop pod on top of an opponents model? That's the only question that people were discussing, not the clear restriction regarding top level of a ruin (as it is .. go figure .. a clear restriction, stated in the rules, whereas the actual question being defended/debated/argued is not given a restriction within the rules).

 fuusa wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Is this statement wrong?

Models move up to 6" in the Movement phase.

Why should I answer your questions when you evade one I have asked, what how many times now?
Tell you what, you answer me, I'll answer you.
That fair?

No, you cannot place on the top floor of a Ruin. That doesn't prove nos' statement wrong.

Anywhere means anywhere even though there is a clear restriction to be found.

Anywhere means anywhere unless you find a restriction. You found a restriction. A restriction that has literally nothing to do with the discussion at hand.

He has said, right there that I can place this model anywhere and that is sufficiently clear permission to place it anywhere.
Sufficiently clear that there is no-where I cannot place this model is wrong.

Given the context of the discussion, no - it's not wrong.

Why would anyone care either way? Is people intentionally mishapping their deep strikers some huge, commonly occurring problem, or what?

no you cannot as the ruin placement is covered in the DS rule.

as for your counter arguements to my statements, I think you need to re-read the rules not me.

the depstrike rule is a special rule which overrides any and all basic rules, this includeds deployment, movement and any other page you may wish to try to use to enforce that the rule doesn't function.

the only thing that can prevent a special rule is another special rule.

the final location is used to determin the final location of the unit that is using the deepstrike rule, at this point you are asked to check if it conforms with usual restrictions for deployment, if you are not able to conform you suffer a misshap.

in terms of placing on top of a unit of models, as units are not impassable they are valid locations to target, again as has been said many times, it is very possible to place a drop pod (for example) on top of a unit in a manner that it touches the table, however as the person who doesn't place the model would take alot of issues with puting a big lump on top of thier models so its perfectly acceptable to put the ypothetical start point (and if your really trying to say otherwise you are either a) trolling or b) a phallis that I would be glad to not play against)

the fact of the matter is, there are plenty of arguements suporting the fact that a model may have a start point for the deepstrike on top of another, the arguements agasint are very weak thus far over the course of the thread, mainly taking aspects of the rule instead of the whole package in an attempt to break it.

the deep strike rules haven't altered much for the last couple of editions if even at all, its highly unlikely its as comlex as some of you are trying to make it sound.

 Crimson wrote:
Why would anyone care either way? Is people intentionally mishapping their deep strikers some huge, commonly occurring problem, or what?

This is YMTC where people come while at work to vent frustrations!

Its a Mishap btw.

Rorschach9 wrote:
@Fuusa, as much as you seem to need to correct Nosferatu, it's entirely irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

Is there a restriction to "anywhere on the table" that prevents you from aiming your deep-striking drop pod on top of an opponents model? That's the only question that people were discussing, not the clear restriction regarding top level of a ruin (as it is .. go figure .. a clear restriction, stated in the rules, whereas the actual question being defended/debated/argued is not given a restriction within the rules).

Not irrelevant.
He was using "anywhere" as part of a justification or permission to place the model on another model, where there is no explicit permission with the exception of ruins/buildings to do that.

Is there a restriction to "anywhere on the table" that prevents you from aiming your deep-striking drop pod on top of an opponents model? Not as far as I know.
Is there a restriction to prevent deploying infantry on a vehicle, or a vehicle on top of a vehicle (assume in open-ground)???

If I see anyone (that is anyone) saying something that I think is incorrect, I feel entirely justified to challenge it if I wish.

rigeld2 wrote:
No, you cannot place on the top floor of a Ruin. That doesn't prove nos' statement wrong.

rigeld2 wrote:
Given the context of the discussion, no - it's not wrong.

It certainly does, in the context he was actually talking about.
Anywhere means anywhere so there is an absence of no-where.

rigeld2 wrote:
Is this statement wrong?

Models move up to 6" in the Movement phase.

As you know, its circumstantial and cannot be absolute.

Like anywhere means anywhere is circumstantial and cannot be absolute, in the manner that it was being used (ie, in context with what was said, not necessarily as part of the greater thread).

 fuusa wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Is this statement wrong?

Models move up to 6" in the Movement phase.

As you know, its circumstantial and cannot be absolute.

Like anywhere means anywhere is circumstantial and cannot be absolute, in the manner that it was being used (ie, in context with what was said, not necessarily as part of the greater thread).

Please open your rulebook and look at the first sentence on the right side of page 10. See how it's an exact quote?
Now, open your rulebook to page 36 and find the first bullet point on the left side. Read the first sentence. See how it's an absolute statement?
See how you're requiring an unnecessary burden? Nos essentially quoted a rule and you said he's wrong.

Ah, for a minute I thought fuusa wasnt trolling. My mistake.

Every rule is true apart from the exception. Point is, there is no restriction on placing your model on top of another, therefore the general permission is sufficient.

If youd like to come on topic at some point, and stop trolling, feel free.

Bausk - finally you rread it! So again, where is your RULES based argument saying I CANNOT place my model on yours? Threads of internet tough guy violence aside, I am entirely within the rules in doing so.

Of course, reasonable people, those I play in real life, dont see the issue in just pointing to the spot if it is at all awkward, but hey - you wanted rules. Rules were given, and given you failed - yet again - to refute, your concession is accepted.

Again you focus on the irrelevant and gloss over the actual substace, funny how you avoid arguments by doing that.

WMS doesn't apply to models as models are not terrain, the table includes terrain but as models are not terrain they are not included in the generalization. Unless you'd like to cite a rule stating that models are terrain then neither the generalized "Anywhere on the table" or WMS do not apply to models.

I'm failing to see where "anywhere on the table..." is getting interpreted to be anything but the physical tabletop/game surface.

Q: Are models free to move underneath a
Swooping Flying Monstrous Creature? (p49) A: Yes, though enemy models must finish their move at least 1" away from the Flying Monstrous Creature’s base.

Ok, so enemy models must finish their move 1" away. Ok.

Page 49 Flying Monstrous Creatures, Swooping. Add the following bullet point: • Models that physically fit under a Swooping Flying Monstrous Creature can move beneath it. Likewise, a Swooping Flying Monstrous Creature can end its move over such models. However, when moving this way, enemy models must still remain 1" away from the base of the Swooping Flying Monstrous Creature, and the Swooping Flying Monstrous Creature cannot end its move with its base within 1" of other enemy models.’

See the underline I put. Ok, so if a model can physically fit under another model (or maybe conversely, the model fits over the model) it can go there, but must still end its movement 1" away.

Q: Can models move through other friendly models? (p10) A: No. Models that are an exception to this rule, such as Jump Infantry or Jetbikes, will state this clearly in their rules.

Ok hm, so friendly models cannot move through each other. And that means that my SM tac squad models cannot move through my SM termie squad models. To me, this means I cannot place my drop pod on top of my own squad models. The FAQ denies me permission to move any friendly model through each other. On the other hand, my assault marines models can move through both my tac squad models, and my termie squad models. Heck, if they wanted to, they could move through both in one turn. Also, if I allied with eldar, my eldar jetbikes models could move through the assault squad models, the tac squad models and my termie squad models!


Does the book show a rule about not moving units/models through enemy units/models?

Crimson wrote:
Why would anyone care either way? Is people intentionally mishapping their deep strikers some huge, commonly occurring problem, or what?

Ive honestly had this happen to me before, and before reading this discussion, I thought it was ok. But then that was when I knew nothing about SM and I had a greyknight player seriously place the pod over my unit, roll a scatter 2 inches (to little to avoid my unit), then move it what, 10" where it suited him best because of the IGS rule at a glance appears that way. I never thought anything of it. It makes SENSE that way, but as we all know, what happens in the game does not match reality. Like Torrent flamers. They go around corners for Emperors sake! GR. Anyway.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Steel-W0LF wrote:
I'm failing to see where "anywhere on the table..." is getting interpreted to be anything but the physical tabletop/game surface.

Me too, but this to me (at least the earlier pages) has been one of the most fun and enlightening discussions on YMDC in a loooonnng time.

The elephant in the room that everyone is ignoring (anywhere on the table).


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Page 10? You cant even move within 1" of an enemy. You have to move around. Also, WMS is for terrain that can damage your model.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, if you can land on models, because they are terrain, where in the rulebook does it give you permission to move terrain per turn?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
page 30 under falling back, and trapped. It clearly brings up this

This is an exception to the normal ruies for moving that state that a model cannot move through a space occupied by another model.

Also, under trapped it tells what happens to a model or a unit that cannot move without doubling back due to enemies, friendlies or impassable.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
And uh, it tells you what would happen if a model was to land on top of another model under deep strike mishaps.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, where in the rules does it tell what a scatter die does exactly? Whos to say When I roll double 1's and an arrow I dont just place the unit right where I want to, ignoring the result?

 Bausk wrote:
Again you focus on the irrelevant and gloss over the actual substace, funny how you avoid arguments by doing that.

WMS doesn't apply to models as models are not terrain, the table includes terrain but as models are not terrain they are not included in the generalization. Unless you'd like to cite a rule stating that models are terrain then neither the generalized "Anywhere on the table" or WMS do not apply to models.

I never even mentioned WMS there, nice strawman however.

Anywhere (minus explicit restrictions) is generally considered to mean exactly that.

(No, you do not need to classify models as terrain for this to work - your second strawman)

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 Bausk wrote:
Again you focus on the irrelevant and gloss over the actual substace, funny how you avoid arguments by doing that.

WMS doesn't apply to models as models are not terrain, the table includes terrain but as models are not terrain they are not included in the generalization. Unless you'd like to cite a rule stating that models are terrain then neither the generalized "Anywhere on the table" or WMS do not apply to models.

I never even mentioned WMS there, nice strawman however.

Anywhere (minus explicit restrictions) is generally considered to mean exactly that.

(No, you do not need to classify models as terrain for this to work - your second strawman)

Ah, deep strike restricts landing fully, or partially on another model.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, to place the model via the deep strike rules, you must place the model in the place you would like it to arrive, and then roll for scatter. If you place it on another model (saying that you could place the model on top of another model) Does that mean you want the mishap?

The fact that they tell you to place the model on the table IMO precludes you from placing on models, though I think you might be able to place it within 1" prior to scatter.


In an actual game, would I prevent a player from doing this though:
No, because if he's allowed to place his deepstrikers on my models and roll scatter, more than likely intentionally mishapping. If he rolls a result that allows me to place the unit, I'll re-place them where they would mishap again and hopefully get "lost".

 Steel-W0LF wrote:
The fact that they tell you to place the model on the table IMO precludes you from placing on models, though I think you might be able to place it within 1" prior to scatter.


In an actual game, would I prevent a player from doing this though:
No, because if he's allowed to place his deepstrikers on my models and roll scatter, more than likely intentionally mishapping. If he rolls a result that allows me to place the unit, I'll re-place them where they would mishap again and hopefully get "lost".

But for the result "misplaced" you are required to "deploy" them in a different location. Not "place" them again. So this doesnt work. This explicitly prohibits deploying in impassable terrain and you dont roll for scatter again.

Your opponent may deploiy anywhere on the table[...](excluding impassable and lethal terrain, but including difficult terrain[...]in a valid deepstrike formation but without rolling to scatter again.

Also see how this explicitly restricts what "anywhere on the table" means as opposed to the initial deepstrike placement step that you guys are arguing about?

Basimpo wrote:
Does that mean you want the mishap?

Yes, absolutely. If you'd read the thread Nos is arguing that it's a permitted Deep Strike attempt because some people were claiming it was illegal.

He never (absolute with no exceptions) said you don't mishap. In fact he's said repeatedly that you do. Reading is fun.

 Mywik wrote:

 Steel-W0LF wrote:
The fact that they tell you to place the model on the table IMO precludes you from placing on models, though I think you might be able to place it within 1" prior to scatter.


In an actual game, would I prevent a player from doing this though:
No, because if he's allowed to place his deepstrikers on my models and roll scatter, more than likely intentionally mishapping. If he rolls a result that allows me to place the unit, I'll re-place them where they would mishap again and hopefully get "lost".

But for the result "misplaced" you are required to "deploy" them in a different location. Not "place" them again. So this doesnt work. This explicitly prohibits deploying in impassable terrain and you dont roll for scatter again.

Your opponent may deploiy anywhere on the table[...](excluding impassable and lethal terrain, but including difficult terrain[...]in a valid deepstrike formation but without rolling to scatter again.

Also see how this explicitly restricts what "anywhere on the table" means as opposed to the initial deepstrike placement step that you guys are arguing about?

The argument for pages has been that models are not terrain, and that "anywhere on the table" means anywhere....... If its good enough for initial marker placement, its good enough for when I can place them as it does say "anywhere on the board".

This is something I dont ever expect to come up though, as if you disallow increasing scatter range, there is not much point to placing deepstrikers on top of enemy models. And I think everyone is pretty much agreed that you cant increase the range they scatter to avoid mishap.

So instead of using an actual rule that doesn't apply you made up a rule similar to WMS that allows you to hypothetically place the model. Thanks for clearing that up Nos. List your post as how you would play it next time rather than claiming made up rules are RAW.

Also good to see it's about the time that you fallback on callimg strawman on every generalized thread based statement. Can't wait for the next step of your argument procedure where you repeatedly post an ultimatum to concede and refuse to address any counter claims.

 Bausk wrote:
So instead of using an actual rule that doesn't apply you made up a rule similar to WMS that allows you to hypothetically place the model. Thanks for clearing that up Nos. List your post as how you would play it next time rather than claiming made up rules are RAW.

Also good to see it's about the time that you fallback on callimg strawman on every generalized thread based statement. Can't wait for the next step of your argument procedure where you repeatedly post an ultimatum to concede and refuse to address any counter claims.

#

personalized attacks on people go against the forum rules for YMDC.

also again, the question has to be asked as to why my point has not been addressed by you and others of your mind set.

I can, quite easily place my drop pod, on top of your models while simultaneously touching the table. I could even place the drop pod upside down on the basis there is no rule saying I couldn't do so so that your infantry model is within the leaves at the centre of the lip, I'm sure you would rather I didn't place my large heavy model in a position to damage your models or would you for the sake of as written?

secondly, can you please point to the place within the Deep Strike Special rule that dictates that you cannot start within another unit, I specify it this way as the Deep Strike Rule is a Special Rule and as such ignores any other deployment, movement and or other rule that you wish to use that is not a Special Rule, this is layed out on P7 of basic vs advanced. with Deep Strike being an Advanced rule, it overrides any contradicting basic rules, in this instance, movement, deployments ect until the rule says to check for these things to apply.

the deepstrike rule as a whole is a 3 part process (4 if you include the roll for reserves)

you place the model

you roll for scatter

you deploy

the rule as a whole then goes on to say what happens during the end result, you check that the unit can deploy legally, in the hypothetical situation where you started on top of a unit and rolled a hit on the scatter dice, you find this isn't a legal position to deploy in (no surprises there) which in turn results in a miss-hap.

it is a very clear process that you follow, and as you have pointed out numerous times, your models are not counted as terrain, as such they do not qualify as invalid targets of a starting location as specified by the rule itself.


again however I don't see why you would actually care this much about it, if your opponent wants to intentionally cause a misshap, go ahead and let them, they have a 1/6 chance of killing the unit, 2/6 chance of allowing you to place the unit somewhere else and 3/6 chance of the unit being held back for another turn, non of these results are a bad thing for you, you have either placed the unit in some Difficult terrain in a corner of the map making it useless and having to test to see if it dies, its killed itself or its not on the table for you to deal with. keep in mind that if you wipe everything off the table and you have both had your game turn and he has nothing on the table you win automatically and score the max possible VP's for the match.

Also dakka is not a substitute for the rule book, but thanks for spelling out the deepstrike rule almost in full.

And that wasn't an attack on Nos, it's a commentary on his standard arguments.

I digress. What is the table defined as, is the the gaming board including everything on it or is it the gaming board only including the terrain?

When asked to place a model you're being asked to place the model retroactively in a legal position (read as on its base) and specifically with vehicles once placed you're not permitted to alter it's facing so clearly placing your drop pod upside down is not a legal placement.

a drop pod has no base


Automatically Appended Next Post:
only a conformed opinion of what the base should be, there isn't a rule that is specific to the actual placement of the pod and there isn't a rule or description to say what the right way up or wrong way up the pod should be.

this is where common sense comes in that says which way is the right way up on it.

and your right, that isn't defined, but neither is your unit. so really your own arguments counters itself, your unit is there, but it is undefined, do we count it? I assume so, but it isn't on the restriction list of where to place a model, so as such, anywhere on the table that is neither lethal or impassable terrain is a valid target until the deepstrike rule says it is, which is when a misshap happens.

as for spelling out a rule, in some instances explaining the process is required to bring a discussion back on track, I did not quote the rule, just he process that the rule adheres to.

Did I say the drop pod has a base? It, along with other vehicles without a base, have a top and bottom along with the front side and rear facing only a moron would position a vehicle upside down and claim it's legal. Stating that there is no rule against something makes it legal has been repeatedly proven to be a fallacy as 40k is a permissive rule set.

As with that very blatant conclusion that a nonbased vehicle still actve on the table must be on it's bottom the very obvious conclusion that you can't place a model anywhere that is already occupied by another model. Models and units are defined in the rule book repeatedly to so I'm not sure why you're staring they are not.


Leathal terrain is just a passable terrain piece with a special rule attached to it, no different than placing in area terrain. Impassable terrain is usually a terrain piece that is tall, unscaleable and unable to be embarked. impassable terrain is a ridiculous placement unless you scatter enough to clear the terrain, risky but if you can place the model on the terrain then yes its legal.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Models however are never defined as either terrain or the gaming area, only as occupying terrain or the gaming area. No where in the brb is there permission for one model to be positioned ontop of the models hull or base. Some exceptions extend to moving over/past/though, but this is not the same as being positioned on.

 Bausk wrote:
Did I say the drop pod has a base? It, along with other vehicles without a base, have a top and bottom along with the front side and rear facing only a moron would position a vehicle upside down and claim it's legal. Stating that there is no rule against something makes it legal has been repeatedly proven to be a fallacy as 40k is a permissive rule set.

As with that very blatant conclusion that a nonbased vehicle still actve on the table must be on it's bottom the very obvious conclusion that you can't place a model anywhere that is already occupied by another model. Models and units are defined in the rule book repeatedly to so I'm not sure why you're staring they are not.


Leathal terrain is just a passable terrain piece with a special rule attached to it, no different than placing in area terrain. Impassable terrain is usually a terrain piece that is tall, unscaleable and unable to be embarked. impassable terrain is a ridiculous placement unless you scatter enough to clear the terrain, risky but if you can place the model on the terrain then yes its legal.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Models however are never defined as either terrain or the gaming area, only as occupying terrain or the gaming area. No where in the brb is there permission for one model to be positioned ontop of the models hull or base. Some exceptions extend to moving over/past/though, but this is not the same as being positioned on.

What about battlements?

 Bausk wrote:
Did I say the drop pod has a base?

yes

here:

Bausk wrote:When asked to place a model you're being asked to place the model retroactively in a legal position (read as on its base)

also worth pointing out that in a purely RAW your making that part up, implication is not the same as written, as there is actually no defined bottom or top of a given model, common sense dictates what is the top and bottom but its never spelt out. I was giving a silly example to go with your silly (imo) arguments about this rule.

Bausk wrote:Leathal terrain is just a passable terrain piece with a special rule attached to it, no different than placing in area terrain. Impassable terrain is usually a terrain piece that is tall, unscaleable and unable to be embarked. impassable terrain is a ridiculous placement unless you scatter enough to clear the terrain, risky but if you can place the model on the terrain then yes its legal.

technically true, however it would not be legal placement for the mishap table result of a 2-3, I do apologise for mixing up the initial placement with a specified restriction within the rule.

Bausk wrote:Models however are never defined as either terrain or the gaming area, only as occupying terrain or the gaming area. No where in the brb is there permission for one model to be positioned ontop of the models hull or base. Some exceptions extend to moving over/past/though, but this is not the same as being positioned on

correct, in terms of normal movement, shooting, assaulting and all the other normal rules that fall into the BASIC ruleset, however with regards to the DeepStrike Special Rule, the permission is given to place the unit ANYWHERE on the table, as you have already pointed out, your unit is undefined, as such they can be considered both there and not there, there are no rules to say what they are and there are no rules to say that the space they currently occupy upon the game table is excluded from the anywhere.

its a very simple process, I have permission within this permissive rule set, to place my model anywhere on the table I wish. there is no restriction on that placement in the given rule as the rule in question is the deepstrike rule, not the movement rule, not the shooting rule and not even the terrain rule. we are dealing with the deepstrike rule, until the rule says to get anything else involved, all that is true at that moment is the deepstrike rule and the deepstrike rule alone.

the rule itself, once placement and scatter has been determined doesn't even go outside itself to check validity, it has its own inbuilt error checker, the mishap table with its own set of restrictions and trigger events, all of which conform to the basic rule set, but have been included within the rule.

once the rule has been resolved you progress from there, the unit has done one of 2 things, it is now either on the table having arrived from deepstrike OR it has suffered a mishap.

there are no other possible outcomes from this rule.

A slight HIWPI sidestep from the debate...
If your opponent wanted to place a pod for a deliberate mishap, would anyone object?

 grendel083 wrote:
A slight HIWPI sidestep from the debate...
If your opponent wanted to place a pod for a deliberate mishap, would anyone object?

I'd have to wonder at their motivations. If they are so confident they can mishap and just go back into reserves I'd want to check their dice before and after they roll. Make sure there is a one pip on the die and such.

I would base it more on who would ever consider doing this? who would rather risk destroying the force deep striking in just to keep them off the table for another round?

Read base as in the slot base a model is on and the base of the hull, I said bottom of the vehicle to be clearer.

models are also defined before the phase break down. Units are defined in their own section, specific models are also defined in their own section.

Basic v advanced =/= rules never interact. In this case the definition of what a model amd unit is applys as much as any other section in the rule book.

There is permission tp place the lead model anywhere on the table (read as anywhere on the distinct playable area) yes. But this is not the same as permission to place the lead model on top of another model or unit.

My point with vehicles not having a RAW expressly defined top and base (bottome of the hull) but it being blatant RAI unwritten is that it's similar to my argument.

While it's not expressly spelled out that you can't place a model ontop of another model or unit it's blatant that its not possible to do so physically. And unlike WMS and its exception for terrain there is no exception listed anywhere in all of 40k allowing a model to be placed on top of abother model or unit that is active/alive.

The table (read as playable area) is not defined as far as I'm aware but as models are and nowhere in thier definition or description are there defined as the table are not the table obviously.

So they are by extension not an applicable location by definition.

 nutty_nutter wrote:
the final location is used to determin the final location of the unit that is using the deepstrike rule, at this point you are asked to check if it conforms with usual restrictions for deployment, if you are not able to conform you suffer a misshap.

The final location of what exactly?

If you are deploying a unit, by following the instructions, you will have one model on the table (lets assume 10 man infantry unit).
At this point, the unit has not been deployed, models are deploying.
If, whilst placing models, you find that you cannot deploy them, you mishap.
= you mishap while deploying models, not after the unit has deployed.

It could be the first model that you attempt to place that causes the mishap, zero models or units deployed.
The second model causing mishap leaving 9 models that were never deployed and so on.
Deploying a unit is sequential, in that you place models sequentially, after scatter you can mishap at any point.

 nutty_nutter wrote:
in terms of placing on top of a unit of models, as units are not impassable they are valid locations to target, again as has been said many times, it is very possible to place a drop pod (for example) on top of a unit in a manner that it touches the table, however as the person who doesn't place the model would take alot of issues with puting a big lump on top of thier models so its perfectly acceptable to put the ypothetical start point (and if your really trying to say otherwise you are either a) trolling or b) a phallis that I would be glad to not play against)

Where am I really trying to say otherwise?
Find it.
So put an end to your insults please.

 nutty_nutter wrote:
the fact of the matter is, there are plenty of arguements suporting the fact that a model may have a start point for the deepstrike on top of another, the arguements agasint are very weak thus far over the course of the thread, mainly taking aspects of the rule instead of the whole package in an attempt to break it.

I think that's probably true, but I'm not trying to break anything, I am pointing out what's wrong in some of the claims.

 nutty_nutter wrote:
the deep strike rules haven't altered much for the last couple of editions if even at all, its highly unlikely its as comlex as some of you are trying to make it sound.

Maybe not, but with the change re-models formerly being impassable terrain, the greater view has changed.

rigeld2 wrote:
Nos essentially quoted a rule and you said he's wrong.

Untrue.
He did far more than quote a rule, that is clear if you would but read without blinkers.
He said anywhere is anywhere and demanded a restriction.
Restriction found.

Even he didn't defend himself, you defended him saying he was right.
Shortly after he broaches this point again, but this time it looks like this ...

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Anywhere (minus explicit restrictions) is generally considered to mean exactly that.

Funny how that has changed, isn't it? Why has he felt the need to change what he previously thought to be true?
You know, the exact point I was criticising him about???
He was asking for a restriction he thought was not there, it is.
He knows he's wrong, ^ that is a cloaked admission, thank-you.

 Bausk wrote:

Also good to see it's about the time that you fallback on callimg strawman on every generalized thread based statement. Can't wait for the next step of your argument procedure where you repeatedly post an ultimatum to concede and refuse to address any counter claims.

 nutty_nutter wrote:

 Bausk wrote:
So instead of using an actual rule that doesn't apply you made up a rule similar to WMS that allows you to hypothetically place the model. Thanks for clearing that up Nos. List your post as how you would play it next time rather than claiming made up rules are RAW.

Also good to see it's about the time that you fallback on callimg strawman on every generalized thread based statement. Can't wait for the next step of your argument procedure where you repeatedly post an ultimatum to concede and refuse to address any counter claims.

#

personalized attacks on people go against the forum rules for YMDC.

@bausk.
This is proof that the truth is no defence.

 Bausk wrote:
Read base as in the slot base a model is on and the base of the hull, I said bottom of the vehicle to be clearer.

models are also defined before the phase break down. Units are defined in their own section, specific models are also defined in their own section.

Basic v advanced =/= rules never interact. In this case the definition of what a model amd unit is applys as much as any other section in the rule book.

There is permission tp place the lead model anywhere on the table (read as anywhere on the distinct playable area) yes. But this is not the same as permission to place the lead model on top of another model or unit.

My point with vehicles not having a RAW expressly defined top and base (bottome of the hull) but it being blatant RAI unwritten is that it's similar to my argument.

While it's not expressly spelled out that you can't place a model ontop of another model or unit it's blatant that its not possible to do so physically. And unlike WMS and its exception for terrain there is no exception listed anywhere in all of 40k allowing a model to be placed on top of abother model or unit that is active/alive.

The table (read as playable area) is not defined as far as I'm aware but as models are and nowhere in thier definition or description are there defined as the table are not the table obviously.

So they are by extension not an applicable location by definition.

but yet you are altering the wording of the rules to suite your purpose.

self editing a rule with a 'read as' is substituting the rule as written with your personal interpretation, i.e. you enter the how you would play it.

note that at no point have I ever said that it utilises the WMS rule, as there is not a need to, the hypothetical placement is a matter of courtesy, but we seem to end up in an endless cycle that your digging your heels in to circumvent the placement of a model, the fact is that there still is no explicitly stated rule to say you cannot place upon another unit as permission has already been given for anywhere to literally mean anywhere on the table and there is no preventative placement, if I wanted to I could place my deepstrike point on impassable terrain, it will result in mishap if I roll a hit, there is no real difference in the matter in terms of how the rule works and functions, placement will not result in a mishap but the final location does, this is the important part of the rule.

you still have not answered the question I ask of why do you care this much about someone wanting to force a mishap upon themselves as being a problem with the rule.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
@fuusa you have appeared to have skipped over the last couple of posts and dredged up a few older ones, please view my previous post where I explain the process that is involved.

also to address a couple of your posts, your taking a view of my posts out of context, my point is still valid in that the deep strike rule is a self contained rule that needs to be satisfied in its own error correction process before external rules interfere, this is the fundamentals of how basic vs advanced works

No, he just was tired of being attacked for no reason.
He demanded a restriction in the context of the discussion.
I have "but read without blinders".
I'm done with this because it's technically off topic.

 nutty_nutter wrote:

 Bausk wrote:
Read base as in the slot base a model is on and the base of the hull, I said bottom of the vehicle to be clearer.

models are also defined before the phase break down. Units are defined in their own section, specific models are also defined in their own section.

Basic v advanced =/= rules never interact. In this case the definition of what a model amd unit is applys as much as any other section in the rule book.

There is permission tp place the lead model anywhere on the table (read as anywhere on the distinct playable area) yes. But this is not the same as permission to place the lead model on top of another model or unit.

My point with vehicles not having a RAW expressly defined top and base (bottome of the hull) but it being blatant RAI unwritten is that it's similar to my argument.

While it's not expressly spelled out that you can't place a model ontop of another model or unit it's blatant that its not possible to do so physically. And unlike WMS and its exception for terrain there is no exception listed anywhere in all of 40k allowing a model to be placed on top of abother model or unit that is active/alive.

The table (read as playable area) is not defined as far as I'm aware but as models are and nowhere in thier definition or description are there defined as the table are not the table obviously.

So they are by extension not an applicable location by definition.

but yet you are altering the wording of the rules to suite your purpose.

self editing a rule with a 'read as' is substituting the rule as written with your personal interpretation, i.e. you enter the how you would play it.

note that at no point have I ever said that it utilises the WMS rule, as there is not a need to, the hypothetical placement is a matter of courtesy, but we seem to end up in an endless cycle that your digging your heels in to circumvent the placement of a model, the fact is that there still is no explicitly stated rule to say you cannot place upon another unit as permission has already been given for anywhere to literally mean anywhere on the table and there is no preventative placement, if I wanted to I could place my deepstrike point on impassable terrain, it will result in mishap if I roll a hit, there is no real difference in the matter in terms of how the rule works and functions, placement will not result in a mishap but the final location does, this is the important part of the rule.

you still have not answered the question I ask of why do you care this much about someone wanting to force a mishap upon themselves as being a problem with the rule.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
@fuusa you have appeared to have skipped over the last couple of posts and dredged up a few older ones, please view my previous post where I explain the process that is involved.

also to address a couple of your posts, your taking a view of my posts out of context, my point is still valid in that the deep strike rule is a self contained rule that needs to be satisfied in its own error correction process before external rules interfere, this is the fundamentals of how basic vs advanced works

I love it when trying to explain something people seem to focus on irrelevance and miss context. I am not altering the wording of the rules, I was generalizing the term base, then thought that might confuse people so I then referred to the base of the hull as the bottom later in the post. I did not say you are using WMS. I referenced WMS in my previous post, if you followed the context, to point out that you don't have permission to place a model in a location that is occupied by another model. Impassable terrain is different as you are legally able to place models on terrain, there are even exceptions for such an allowance with impassable terrain funnily enough. No such allowance is ever granted for models/units.

Lets go over a few points.

* I don't contest that the model may be placed anywhere on the Table. It's reasonable to assume that 'The Table' refers to the playable area within the confines of the 'Table edge' (as per falling back and reserve walk on's etc) including terrain while allowing for all relevant exceptions.

* Models and units are defined and described thought the rule book. In none of these definitions are they identified as being; The table, terrain or otherwise able to be stacked on top of each others bases or hulls of active models (not wrecked) at any point in a game.

* When scattering a vehicle you are not permitted to change the facing, this retroactively affects your initial placement requiring it to be on the base of its hull.

* You are asked to place the lead model anywhere on the Table. You are not asked to say that the lead model is in a roughly defined location and no such permission outside of WMS for terrain exists.

* Lack of express denial does not equate to permission.


And to answer your irrelevant question; Where WMS you can easily hold the model in place on the terrain piece to determine the location, something you are unable to achieve doing this ridiculous move. Which opens to perception differences, that are easily and often mistakenly exploited, in location and distance that you would not get with actually placing the model.

Bausk - reported for yet again attacking the poster.

Back on ignore

Fuusa - no, I wasnt wrong. Every "absolute" statement in a ruleset like this has to have (allowing for exceptions), because that is how the ruleset is constructed and extended. I am glad you get pleasure from irrelevancies.

So, "anywhere" meaning just that - anywhere (barring the exceptions listed) as it does in all normal rulesets - can anyone cite a rule stating you CANNOT then place it on top of another model?

Further refusal will be assumed to acceptance of the RAW.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Bausk - reported for yet again attacking the poster.

Back on ignore

Fuusa - no, I wasnt wrong. Every "absolute" statement in a ruleset like this has to have (allowing for exceptions), because that is how the ruleset is constructed and extended. I am glad you get pleasure from irrelevancies.

So, "anywhere" meaning just that - anywhere (barring the exceptions listed) as it does in all normal rulesets - can anyone cite a rule stating you CANNOT then place it on top of another model?

Further refusal will be assumed to acceptance of the RAW.

But it does not say anywhere. It is a restricted statement.

It says anywhere on the table.

I'm sorry you don't seem to get what a table surface is... But that doesn't suddenly make models, or hovering in mid air, part of the table.

I'm sorry you dont get that that precludes placing the models within forests. According to your restricted definition of "the table"

Good job the context of "the table" actually talks about the entire gaming surface. Try again.

Exactly the point steel. Just going to prewelcome you to Nos' ignore list now to save time.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
I'm sorry you dont get that that precludes placing the models within forests. According to your restricted definition of "the table"

Good job the context of "the table" actually talks about the entire gaming surface. Try again.

Are forests and terrain part of the gaming surface?
Yes definately.

Are players units/models part of the gaming surface?
Nope.

Keep trying.

 Steel-W0LF wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
I'm sorry you dont get that that precludes placing the models within forests. According to your restricted definition of "the table"

Good job the context of "the table" actually talks about the entire gaming surface. Try again.

Are forests and terrain part of the gaming surface?
Yes definately.

Are players units/models part of the gaming surface?
Nope.

Keep trying.

players units/models are not a part of the gaming surface, but the table under them is and as such is included in anywhere...

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Steel-W0LF wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
I'm sorry you dont get that that precludes placing the models within forests. According to your restricted definition of "the table"

Good job the context of "the table" actually talks about the entire gaming surface. Try again.

Are forests and terrain part of the gaming surface?
Yes definately.

Are players units/models part of the gaming surface?
Nope.

Keep trying.

players units/models are not a part of the gaming surface, but the table under them is and as such is included in anywhere...

Being a permissive rule set and all, you'll have to provide a direct quote stating that you can place your models directly on top of enemy models because they are part of the gaming table.

Because there are tons of examples as to why this is not true. Fliers cant even be over the top of models and they in theory never come near the ground while flying around.

I never said " you can place your models directly on top of enemy models because they are part of the gaming table. " re-read my post...

 DeathReaper wrote:
I never said " you can place your models directly on top of enemy models because they are part of the gaming table. " re-read my post...

And you're still wrong.

Flyers are the PERFECT example... They are given permission to ignore all terrain on the table, yet still cant have their base "on top" of other models. Dangerous, difficult, impassible...they don't care. But models? Nope cant go there.

You are instructed to "Place your drop pod on the table...." or a single model in the case of other deep strikers. If your model doesn't fit and cant reach the gaming surface....too bad, find another location. Find a direct quote where its stated this can be a theoretical location hovering in mid air over another players models heads.

 Steel-W0LF wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
I never said " you can place your models directly on top of enemy models because they are part of the gaming table. " re-read my post...

And you're still wrong.

Flyers are the PERFECT example... They are given permission to ignore all terrain on the table, yet still cant have [Move so that they finish with] their base "on top" of other models. Dangerous, difficult, impassible...they don't care. But models? Nope cant go there.

Fixed that for you with the red...

You are instructed to "Place your drop pod on the table...." or a single model in the case of other deep strikers. If your model doesn't fit and cant reach the gaming surface....too bad, find another location. Find a direct quote where its stated this can be a theoretical location hovering in mid air over another players models heads.

Quite a different situation than the Flyer issue, as you are not moving the DS, you are placing the model anywhere on the table...


(And the Flyer is not a perfect example, it in fact does not apply at all).

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Steel-W0LF wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
I never said " you can place your models directly on top of enemy models because they are part of the gaming table. " re-read my post...

And you're still wrong.

Flyers are the PERFECT example... They are given permission to ignore all terrain on the table, yet still cant have [Move so that they finish with] their base "on top" of other models. Dangerous, difficult, impassible...they don't care. But models? Nope cant go there.

Fixed that for you with the red...

You are instructed to "Place your drop pod on the table...." or a single model in the case of other deep strikers. If your model doesn't fit and cant reach the gaming surface....too bad, find another location. Find a direct quote where its stated this can be a theoretical location hovering in mid air over another players models heads.

Quite a different situation than the Flyer issue, as you are not moving the DS, you are placing the model anywhere on the table...


(And the Flyer is not a perfect example, it in fact does not apply at all).

And no matter how much you try and discount it.... hovering a drop pod in the air over a units heads is not "on the table". even if you set it down in top of the unit its not "on the table".

Still waiting for any example of something being allowed on the game board on top of an enemy unit........

 insaniak wrote:

 DarthOvious wrote:
... as I'm sure the deepstriking rules will say that you're not allowed to place a deepstriking unit over another unit already on the table.

They don't.

Not saying I disagree with you but the Mawloc does have a special rule which states that it can do this anyway..

No it doesn't

.

Actually IIRC the Mawloc states you move the models you want to appear under aside to place the Mawloc and it's base, moving the models a minimum distance of 1" from impassible terrain and maintaining coherency..

 Steel-W0LF wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Steel-W0LF wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
I never said " you can place your models directly on top of enemy models because they are part of the gaming table. " re-read my post...

And you're still wrong.

Flyers are the PERFECT example... They are given permission to ignore all terrain on the table, yet still cant have [Move so that they finish with] their base "on top" of other models. Dangerous, difficult, impassible...they don't care. But models? Nope cant go there.

Fixed that for you with the red...

You are instructed to "Place your drop pod on the table...." or a single model in the case of other deep strikers. If your model doesn't fit and cant reach the gaming surface....too bad, find another location. Find a direct quote where its stated this can be a theoretical location hovering in mid air over another players models heads.

Quite a different situation than the Flyer issue, as you are not moving the DS, you are placing the model anywhere on the table...


(And the Flyer is not a perfect example, it in fact does not apply at all).

And no matter how much you try and discount it.... hovering a drop pod in the air over a units heads is not "on the table". even if you set it down in top of the unit its not "on the table".

Still waiting for any example of something being allowed on the game board on top of an enemy unit........

The rules say to " place one model from the unit anywhere on the table" (36)

There is the permission...

On models, thier bases or their hull still isn't the table. Yes ypu have permission to place it on the table under those models but sadly without being able to actually place the model so it's only touching the table/terrain then you're not following the raw. unless you have permission to place on models, bases and hulls or or hypothetically place on them or even temporarily move those models bases and hulls thwn you're plumb out of luck.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Steel-W0LF wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Steel-W0LF wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
I never said " you can place your models directly on top of enemy models because they are part of the gaming table. " re-read my post...

And you're still wrong.

Flyers are the PERFECT example... They are given permission to ignore all terrain on the table, yet still cant have [Move so that they finish with] their base "on top" of other models. Dangerous, difficult, impassible...they don't care. But models? Nope cant go there.

Fixed that for you with the red...

You are instructed to "Place your drop pod on the table...." or a single model in the case of other deep strikers. If your model doesn't fit and cant reach the gaming surface....too bad, find another location. Find a direct quote where its stated this can be a theoretical location hovering in mid air over another players models heads.

Quite a different situation than the Flyer issue, as you are not moving the DS, you are placing the model anywhere on the table...


(And the Flyer is not a perfect example, it in fact does not apply at all).

And no matter how much you try and discount it.... hovering a drop pod in the air over a units heads is not "on the table". even if you set it down in top of the unit its not "on the table".

Still waiting for any example of something being allowed on the game board on top of an enemy unit........

The rules say to " place one model from the unit anywhere on the table" (36)

There is the permission...

Yup. You sure got permission to place it on the table.

Now find where it says players models are "the table". In fact if "the table" is not a clear statement, when they mishap why dont I just place them on some one elses table? Its a table and they obviosly never said it had to be the game surface we are playing on, or you wouldnt be trying these hovering model shenanigans.

You are instructed to place it on the table. You are not given permission to move or touch the opponents model. If you can place a drop pod on top of an enemy unit with the drop pod on the table top, and without touching or moving the opponents models, I'd like to see it.

I dont need to find where it says "players models are "the table"" because I am putting the model on the table right where the opposing model is, but it just wont fit due to real lify physics. I have permission to place it so we take note of where it is and we are golden.

 Steel-W0LF wrote:
You are instructed to place it on the table. You are not given permission to move or touch the opponents model. If you can place a drop pod on top of an enemy unit with the drop pod on the table top, and without touching or moving the opponents models, I'd like to see it.

I just did it, though I had to put the drop pod so the doors open towards the sky instead of fold out like a flower in a downward motion.

text removed.
Reds8n

I cited rules, the fact that you are Ignoring page 36 does not help your argument. (Therefore 1st graph not made up, it has actual rules support).

How is my second sentence " irrelevant and stoopid [Sic]"

Ah so you can't place your model where another model is and have to make up a rule similar to WMS that applies to models, so where is that in the rule book?

If that drop pod scatters I assume you're going to maintain its facing exactly and deploy it illegally upsidown or are you going to make up another rule so you can deploy it legally in its upright position?

 Bausk wrote:
If that drop pod scatters I assume you're going to maintain its facing exactly and deploy it illegally upsidown or are you going to make up another rule so you can deploy it legally in its upright position?

Hold on there, what rule tells you that the drop pod can not be in any position you wish it to be in?

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Bausk wrote:
If that drop pod scatters I assume you're going to maintain its facing exactly and deploy it illegally upsidown or are you going to make up another rule so you can deploy it legally in its upright position?

Hold on there, what rule tells you that the drop pod can not be in any position you wish it to be in?

Do it at a tournament so a referee can boot you to the corner. There is TFG and then there is this. Vehicles are pretty rigid on their deployments, directions and firing arcs. It would be about like trying to argue that if I glue a 45 degree firing arc cannon to the side instead(Vindicator comes to mind.) I can now make a shot from side instead of front armor. Though I can't help but think of WHY I would want to do this except for maybe just to see if anyone tries to hand me a safety helmet.

But more on the subject at hand, I agree with the general consensus.

While it is silly to Deep Strike onto something unless you are DSing a Mawloc, it can be intentionally done but that does not mean the drop pod can rest there without mishap. The whole reason for the mishap table is a risk versus reward when trying to get that jihad unit or incrediably specialized death star to grips with its target. By negating the risk 100%, wheres the fun?

Sorry for all the edits...I really shouldn't post at 4 am.

No one said it could "rest there without mishap" it would mishap if it did not scatter far enough...

 DeathReaper wrote:
No one said it could "rest there without mishap" it would mishap if it did not scatter far enough...

The direct hit he is complaining about being unable to force to scatter from begs to differ.

Steel - so you have made up a distinction between the terrain and models? Despite all being considered a part of te table?

Cool story.

There's also no rule stating that models have to bestandin on thier base, by your implication we could lay the models on the side and play that way to avoid tlos. Good job reaper.

there's no rule stating that any model is to stand upright while active on the table (except laying one over to sinnify gtg) because players are not assumed to be morons. Again just because there is.no express denial does not mean you are permitted to do it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And tell Nos models are defined clearly thoughout the bpok and are never cited as being the table, terrain or any playable surface.

 Crimson wrote:
Why would anyone care either way? Is people intentionally mishapping their deep strikers some huge, commonly occurring problem, or what?

Its because someone is wrong on the internet.

Crimson - given the relatively low chances of death from mishpa in 6th - 1/6, down from 1/1 in 4th - it can be a way to keep important but fragile units off the table until later in the game, when they are more useful to you. A unit of 5 plaguebearers on turn two is less useful than on turn 3, 4, etc.

 Mywik wrote:

But for the result "misplaced" you are required to "deploy" them in a different location. Not "place" them again. So this doesnt work. This explicitly prohibits deploying in impassable terrain and you dont roll for scatter again.

So? Just put them over another unit on the board and cause a mishap. What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

Your opponent may deploiy anywhere on the table[...](excluding impassable and lethal terrain, but including difficult terrain[...]in a valid deepstrike formation but without rolling to scatter again.

Also see how this explicitly restricts what "anywhere on the table" means as opposed to the initial deepstrike placement step that you guys are arguing about?

I think you should re-read what it says. It says anywhere on the table. Only exceptions are impassable & lethal terrain.

Darth - again, "deploy" is a key word different to "place"

Deploy cannot be on top of other models, as it refers back to the deployment rules. "Place" has no such inherent restrictions, despite certain people attempting to claim otherwise

 DarthOvious wrote:

 Mywik wrote:

But for the result "misplaced" you are required to "deploy" them in a different location. Not "place" them again. So this doesnt work. This explicitly prohibits deploying in impassable terrain and you dont roll for scatter again.

So? Just put them over another unit on the board and cause a mishap. What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

So? You've just broken a rule. As Nos' said. Theres a difference between placement and deployment.
You deploying a unit that had "Misplaced"-Result isnt even remotely the same as an initial deepstrike placement.

I think you should re-read what it says. It says anywhere on the table. Only exceptions are impassable & lethal terrain.

When deploying the unit note how it also says you have to find a spot where the whole "deepstrike" circle can be completed. So theres an additional restriction. Again, note the difference between the deepstrike placement rules and the misplaced result rules. You definitely dont deepstrike again (and therefor cant mishap again). The opponent deploys (given the restrictions in the "misplaced"-result rules) the unit.



Additionally. I dont understand the hostility that is noticable in this thread. Please stop taking rules discussions personal! Thanks.

 nutty_nutter wrote:

personalized attacks on people go against the forum rules for YMDC.

also again, the question has to be asked as to why my point has not been addressed by you and others of your mind set.

I can, quite easily place my drop pod, on top of your models while simultaneously touching the table. I could even place the drop pod upside down on the basis there is no rule saying I couldn't do so so that your infantry model is within the leaves at the centre of the lip, I'm sure you would rather I didn't place my large heavy model in a position to damage your models or would you for the sake of as written?

I find it ironic that in your last post you mention that you would refuse to play anyone who argues against this type of deep strike method and then you go on to claim you can place your model upside down during this process. It might not be RAW because the language used can be interpretated in an ambigious way but its clear beyond belief that this type of stunt is not RAI.

Sir please be advised that I played against you and you attempted this sort of stuff I would just pack my models and leave. THIS KIND OF CRAP IS NOT IN THE SPIRIT OF THE GAME.

The deep striking rules say you need to place the model on the table. You do not have permission to remove the model again unless you scatter. If you roll a hit the model stays in place. If you are wanting to place your freaking drop pod on top of my models because you interpret models as being part of the table, I will not allow it and it as it can potentially cause damage to my models.

Once again, you do not get permission to point on the table and go "I will place it there", you have to place it on the table with only express permission to remove it off the table again in the event that you actually scatter. If you roll a hit the rules says that the model stays put. If you have not placed the model to begin with then it cannot stay put on its position on the table. End of story.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 nutty_nutter wrote:
a drop pod has no base

Roflmao.

Seriously? This is your argument? At this point you are just messing around with the English language to alter the rules to say things it doesn't say. The drop pod has a base. Heck, even the instructions for gluing it together recognises its a base.

Darth - not by what the game defines as a base it doesnt. It has a bottom of the model, but not a 40k -base.

Initial placement CAN be on another model. You have no rule against this, and we have rules allowing this. If you wish to play strict rules silly games, then I will indeed place the model on top of your model and leave it there on a hit, until I remove it due to the mishap (which you seem to forget will imediately happen...)

If you are, however, slightly reasonable then pointing to where I want it placed will be sufficient, if it would be otherwise awkward.

Your hostility in this thread - where you appear to be confusing a discussion about the rules of the game, and an actual game in progress in real life - is telling. Please step away from the keyboard for a little, reread and note the difference.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
I'm sorry you dont get that that precludes placing the models within forests. According to your restricted definition of "the table"

Indeed it does. Luckily though we have FAQs and examples where it is expressed as being allowed. We do not have permission for anything else though i.e. models and as pointed out the rules for the Mawloc cannot be used since the terror fo the deep rules change the deployment method for the mawloc explicitely.

Good job the context of "the table" actually talks about the entire gaming surface. Try again.

And since when were models considered "the gaming surface"?

RAW there may not be anything that stops this but its clear beyond belief that this is not RAI. Its a silly argument and anyone who wants to argue that such a thing should be legal in a game is a silly player who I will refuse to play against on the basis that it is not in the spirit of the game. I am not allowing any player to place his models on top of my models in such a fashion. I have enough broken models to worry about as it is without my opponents contributing to the matter by shoving their drop pods on top of my fire warriors.

At this point everyone is bending the meanings of English words to suit their own arguments. They want to define table as including models placed on the table. They expect that every english word in the rulebook must be defined explicitely in order for the rules to be clear and I'm sorry but I find this to be totally ridiculous.

 DarthOvious wrote:


RAW there may not be anything that stops this but its clear beyond belief that this is not RAI. Its a silly argument and anyone who wants to argue that such a thing should be legal in a game is a silly player who I will refuse to play against on the basis that it is not in the spirit of the game. .

You dont know the intent of the designers. Therefor you cant claim it. Its not a silly argument and someone playing the game by its rules is in fact within the spirit of the game. Also please take note that not everything what people are arguing here is automatically their HIWPI.


You practically concessing your point and still claiming you would pack up your models over someone trying to play by the rules is telling.

 DeathReaper wrote:
I dont need to find where it says "players models are "the table"" because I am putting the model on the table right where the opposing model is, but it just wont fit due to real lify physics. I have permission to place it so we take note of where it is and we are golden.

Well you're not placing the model in that instance and thus are not following the rule. You need to place the model on the table. If you cannot place the model then you are not following the rule. Note that you do not remove the model afterwards either. If you roll a hit the model stays put, so you do not have permission to remove the model UNLESS you scatter in which case you can remove the model at that point and then place it in its scattered position.

 Steel-W0LF wrote:
You are instructed to place it on the table. You are not given permission to move or touch the opponents model. If you can place a drop pod on top of an enemy unit with the drop pod on the table top, and without touching or moving the opponents models, I'd like to see it.

I just did it, though I had to put the drop pod so the doors open towards the sky instead of fold out like a flower in a downward motion.

No you didn't. You need to place the model on the table, not just say "there, I will place it there". You actually need to place the model not just state where you want to place it and guess what? You'll find very few players who will let you place your drop pod on top of their models because you want to interpretate their models being part of the table.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Bausk wrote:
If that drop pod scatters I assume you're going to maintain its facing exactly and deploy it illegally upsidown or are you going to make up another rule so you can deploy it legally in its upright position?

Hold on there, what rule tells you that the drop pod can not be in any position you wish it to be in?

Its called the rule of common sense.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Darth - again, "deploy" is a key word different to "place"

What is good for the goose is good for the gander. The rulebook has been quoted to show that deepstrike is a deployment. Its just that people here have argued the unit doesn't get deployed until the deep strike scatter is resolved. This however means the same for the mishap table. It doesn't get deployed until the scatter is resolved. meaning I can choose to place the deepstriking unit over another unit and then after that it mishaps again because it can't deploy without being within 1" of a unit.

Deploy cannot be on top of other models, as it refers back to the deployment rules. "Place" has no such inherent restrictions, despite certain people attempting to claim otherwise

And you miss the point that deep strike is a deployment.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mywik wrote:

So? You've just broken a rule. As Nos' said. Theres a difference between placement and deployment.
You deploying a unit that had "Misplaced"-Result isnt even remotely the same as an initial deepstrike placement.

No dice. Deep striking is a form of deployment and you mishap as soon as a model cannot be placed legally. if you deep strike, get a hit and you can place the first model, you still mishap if the next model cannot be placed within 1". Like I said what is good for the goose is good for the gander.

The very fact that you want to restrict the very rule that you are using just says it all here. There is no difference between placing by deep strike and by placing by mishap. They are still getting placed by the deep strike rule and they are still both deployments. The deep strike rule specifically refers to itself as a deployment. So if you cannot deploy over another unit as you claim then you cannot deep strike over another unit then. If you want to claim that the unit doesn't get deployed until after the deep strike is resolved then a mishapped unit can placed over another unit since the deep strike rule doesn't get resolved until after you place the mishapped unit.

When deploying the unit note how it also says you have to find a spot where the whole "deepstrike" circle can be completed. So theres an additional restriction. Again, note the difference between the deepstrike placement rules and the misplaced result rules. You definitely dont deepstrike again (and therefor cant mishap again). The opponent deploys (given the restrictions in the "misplaced"-result rules) the unit.

The misplaced rule states this:

"Misplaced. Your opponent may deploy the unit anywhere on the table"

So if deployment doesn't get resolved until after deep strike is resolved, then you can place it over another unit and then mishap.

Additionally. I dont understand the hostility that is noticable in this thread. Please stop taking rules discussions personal! Thanks.

I'm not being hostile at all. Your reading too much into what I am saying.

No dice. Deep striking is a form of deployment and you mishap as soon as a model cannot be placed legally. if you deep strike, get a hit and you can place the first model, you still mishap if the next model cannot be placed within 1". Like I said what is good for the goose is good for the gander.

Doesnt matter. The point isnt if deepstrike is a kind of deployment. The point is that "Misplaced" isnt deepstriking. Its the opponent deploying the models in a legal position. Thats it. Where in the misplaced results does it tell you that you "deepstrike" again? It doesnt so its not deepstrike anymore.

No dice. Deep striking is a form of deployment and you mishap as soon as a model cannot be placed legally. if you deep strike, get a hit and you can place the first model, you still mishap if the next model cannot be placed within 1". Like I said what is good for the goose is good for the gander.

The very fact that you want to restrict the very rule that you are using just says it all here. There is no difference between placing by deep strike and by placing by mishap. They are still getting placed by the deep strike rule and they are still both deployments. The deep strike rule specifically refers to itself as a deployment. So if you cannot deploy over another unit as you claim then you cannot deep strike over another unit then. If you want to claim that the unit doesn't get deployed until after the deep strike is resolved then a mishapped unit can placed over another unit since the deep strike rule doesn't get resolved until after you place the mishapped unit.

Im not even arguing that point. I am arguing that "Misplaced" isnt deepstrike at all and therefor you cant mishap while being deployed by your opponent after suffering "Misplaced"

The misplaced rule states this:

"Misplaced. Your opponent may deploy the unit anywhere on the table"

So if deployment doesn't get resolved until after deep strike is resolved, then you can place it over another unit and then mishap.

Show permission in the "Misplaced" rules to deepstrike the unit you are allowed to deploy.

Darth - so if I follow the rules, and you prevent me from doing so, *I* am the "bad guy" in your eyes?

Odd. I've even pointed out the usual compromise position, that every player I have ever met does - whcih is to make note of the location. This avoids broken models.

Now, if you make me place the model anyway, thats your issue - it isnt mine any longer.

Misplaced is not Deepstrike, stop conflating the two terms. You cannot Mishap from Misplaced, because you are being deployed NOT deepstriking.

Its fairly obvious where the rules lie, and they do not back up your position. And yes, your tone here IS hostile. Reread what you wrote, and imagine how someone who does not know the inflection you are placing would read it.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Darth - not by what the game defines as a base it doesnt. It has a bottom of the model, but not a 40k -base.

Like I said, at this point you are debating definitions of the English language in order to make your point. The drop pod does indeed have a base as recognised by common sense. It may not be RAW but certainly RAI and by common sense it does. To argue otherwise is to argue silly semantics that just ruin the entire game for everybody.

It is an unreasonable expectation to expact GW to define every single part of the game in every single circumstance. At some point in the rules common sense needs to be applied and its not common sense to deploy a drop pod upside down on the table. This is not within the spirit of the game. The point of the game is to have fun and not make silly arguments about how you are legally entitled to deploy your drop pod upside down just because GW didn't go out their way to define every single english word used within their rulebook.

Initial placement CAN be on another model. You have no rule against this, and we have rules allowing this. If you wish to play strict rules silly games, then I will indeed place the model on top of your model and leave it there on a hit, until I remove it due to the mishap (which you seem to forget will imediately happen...)

Same as above. RAW it may not state that you can't but its clear by common sense principles and by RAI that doing this is a completely bogus move that will earn you a smack in the head for trying to take the rulebook and bend every little thing you want from it. Placing your unit on my model is NOT placing it on the table and your unrealistic expectation of GW to define what they mean by every single english word i.e. table, is just that, an unrealistic expectation. Using common sense and RAI we can determine that table means the actual bloody table and also terrain placed upon the table (Since we have FAQs to clarrify this). We do not have a FAQ to demonstrate that other models can be classified as part of the table.

If you are, however, slightly reasonable then pointing to where I want it placed will be sufficient, if it would be otherwise awkward.

Like I said, saying where you want to place it is not actually placing it and no, you cannot place it on top of my models since you do not have express permission to do so and also its clear beyond daylight thats its not RAI. Everything that lets you place a model on top of a space occupied by another model has explicit rules detailing that you need to move the other models out the road first.

For instance, the Mawlocs rule state that the other models need to be moved out the road first before you place the Mawloc. If you are Tank Shocking another unit, yet again you have rules telling you to move the tank shocked unit out the road before proceeding.

The fact of the matter is this. No two separate distinct items can occupy the same place at the same time. This is against the laws of physics. Thus placing your models over my models is not placing them on the table, because my units are placed on the table whereas you placed your unit on top of my models. Also pointing to a point on the table is still not placing the model on the table. The model needs to be on the table NOT ON A POINT on the table but on the table. This means that the model needs to fully occupy itself on the table NOT ON A POINT on the table. Others have stated they can place a model on the table as well as another model, but once again, it needs to be on the table NOT ON THE TABLE AND ANOTHER MODEL.

Please note that: On the table =/= On the table and another model.

Your hostility in this thread - where you appear to be confusing a discussion about the rules of the game, and an actual game in progress in real life - is telling. Please step away from the keyboard for a little, reread and note the difference.

The point of the matter is that the rulebook clearly states within the spirit of the game section that common sense needs to be applied and arguing over the rulebook because the RAW doesn't make something clear thats obviously not RAI is just arguing silly semantics. Use a little common sense here. Its not kosher to place your models on top of somebody elses models, no mater what. The rules also state that you need to physically place the model on the table. RAI its clear you are not supposed to place you model on top of other peoples models, thereby breaking their models and their property in the process. Models were not designed to have other models placed on top of them like that. The table and terrain are a different story since they were designed with such a condition in mind.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mywik wrote:

You dont know the intent of the designers. Therefor you cant claim it. Its not a silly argument and someone playing the game by its rules is in fact within the spirit of the game. Also please take note that not everything what people are arguing here is automatically their HIWPI.

Absolute hogwash. Its clear beyond belief that RAI you cannot place your models on top of others. Enough with the semantics and enough with the RAW and "Oh yeah ya can" snarkiness. You can either play the game in an amicable fashion or you can just not play the game at all because nobody will play you because you argue for such rediculous easter eggs within the rules.

Of course its not how anybody would play it but that much is abundantly clear since they would actually like to get a game to begin with. I have not argued that it is not RAW but arguing that RAW is the only consideration in a rulebook which explicitly states that you are not to use the rulebook as the be all and end all gaming Bible is just not on. Remember that the rulebook explicitely states that misunderstandings may occur and that common sense may need to be used. Its part of the game.

You practically concessing your point and still claiming you would pack up your models over someone trying to play by the rules is telling.

No its not telling at all. The reason being is because although I do play within the rules to a specific extent, when its clear beyond belief that something is not in the spirit of the game or is not RAI then common sense needs to prevail. Once again, I do not use the rulebook as the be all and end all gaming Bible with no room for interpretation. Everything needs to be interpretated and pretty much anything can be misinterpretated to say something that is not what is meant.

 DarthOvious wrote:


It is an unreasonable expectation to expect GW to define every single part of the game in every single circumstance. At some point in the rules common sense needs to be applied and its not common sense to deploy a drop pod upside down on the table. This is not within the spirit of the game. The point of the game is to have fun and not make silly arguments about how you are legally entitled to deploy your drop pod upside down just because GW didn't go out their way to define every single english word used within their rulebook.

And you dont think that its an unreasonable expectation that GW isnt printing their rules into the rulebook but the customer has to use his "imagination" to find the intent? No ... in reality the rules tell you what to do. You just refuse to accept them. You failed to provide any proof to your assertions so far and have been constantly proven wrong.

Absolute hogwash. Its clear beyond belief that RAI you cannot place your models on top of others. Enough with the semantics and enough with the RAW and "Oh yeah ya can" snarkiness. You can either play the game in an amicable fashion or you can just not play the game at all because nobody will play you because you argue for such rediculous easter eggs within the rules.

Intent is never a good point to bring up ... you still cant give any proof of what the intent is while other people have shown you what the RAW are telling us. You already acknowledged that so move on and realise you are arguing a house rule. You cant proof your interpretation of what the intent is. Its not clear (at least not to your interpretation) ... and what i wrote is not "hogwash" but again you get hostile. I will stop arguing with you at this point. Wer're already at the point where all relevant rules have been quoted to death. I think the reader is able to draw his own conclusions.

HF GL

 Mywik wrote:
Doesnt matter. The point isnt if deepstrike is a kind of deployment. The point is that "Misplaced" isnt deepstriking. Its the opponent deploying the models in a legal position. Thats it. Where in the misplaced results does it tell you that you "deepstrike" again? It doesnt so its not deepstrike anymore.

So where does the misplaced rule appear? Because the last time I noticed, it was under the deep strike rules. The unit is deep striking, its just not deep striking where it wants to deep strike.

Im not even arguing that point. I am arguing that "Misplaced" isnt deepstrike at all and therefor you cant mishap while being deployed by your opponent after suffering "Misplaced"

Of of course, I forgot that misplaced appears in the movement section of the rulebook............. Wait a minute, no it doesn't. Misplaced appears in the deep stirke rules. it even appears on the DEEP STRIKE MISHAP TABLE.

Please do me a favour and actually try to argue a valid point. Telling me that a misplaced result is not a deep strike when it occurs under the rule for deep strike isn't going to convince me otherwise.

Show permission in the "Misplaced" rules to deepstrike the unit you are allowed to deploy.

Its under the deep strike rules. The unit is still deploying by deep strike, its just not deep striking where it wants to. This is abundantly clear.

Again ... please cite the portion of the "misplaced" rule or any other rule that gives you permission to deepstrike the unit after suffering "misplaced" or concede. Page and para please.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Darth - so if I follow the rules, and you prevent me from doing so, *I* am the "bad guy" in your eyes?

Yes, you are the bad guy. You are the very definition of TFG trying to make the rules read what you want them to read. trying to get every little thing you want from the rules despite the fact that its clearly not RAI. That is pretty much the defintion of TFG and nobody likes TFG.

You have been shown again and again why this line of thought is just not productive for the gaming setting. You've have been showing time and time again where even if there was a slight gap in the rules which allows you to do this RAW, its by no means intentional.

Odd. I've even pointed out the usual compromise position, that every player I have ever met does - whcih is to make note of the location. This avoids broken models.

Taking note of a location is not placing said model on the location. Everything in the game that tells you to take note of a location tells you to do so. i.e. Ymgarl Genestealers, noting where they enter play.

Now, if you make me place the model anyway, thats your issue - it isnt mine any longer.

And I will pack up my models and not play you and I can gurantee you that plenty of other players would do the same thing. If you are willing to bend the interpretation of the rules in such a way in a game then I don't want to play you. End of story. Its clear beyond daylight that this is not RAI but if you wish to do it anyway then I will wonder what other TFG stuff you would wish to pull out later during the game.

Its clear that you place the model and you only have express permission to move it in the case that it scatters. You cannot say "I will place it there". Thjis does not place the model and you are not allowed to remove it again. If you place it ontop of my models then you are not placing it on the table. You also have to place the model on the table NOT on the table & another model. You do not have express permission to place it on a model on any point.

Misplaced is not Deepstrike, stop conflating the two terms. You cannot Mishap from Misplaced, because you are being deployed NOT deepstriking.

Deep strike is a deployment, so your statement doesn't make sense, also misplaced appears under the deep striking rules. You're not going to find the misplaced rules in the movement section of the book.

Its fairly obvious where the rules lie, and they do not back up your position. And yes, your tone here IS hostile. Reread what you wrote, and imagine how someone who does not know the inflection you are placing would read it.

I know what the rules imply and they nowhere near imply what you want in this situation. If you think my tone is hostile then I will point out it is no less hostile than yours. So if you want me to stop being hostile with my tone then go and grab a mirror and have a look at yourself. Your language used to defend your position was no less confrontational than mine.

Once again, stop trying to have your cake and eat it. You want to dictate the whole terms of this conversation by being as hostile as you want and by bending the English language as much as you want and by ignoring the points made as much as you want and by ignoring common sense as much as you want, meanwhile breaking every single one of these rules yourself.

Darth - I think it is clear that debate isnt possible here. You are simply arguing.

Please, play by your houserule all you want to - as pointed out, the compromise position is also one (yet you seem to tink I am not saying that it is - I am) - just realise it is one.

You cannot, CANNOT, Mishap from a Misplaced result. It is entirely impossible to do so. Your refusal to accept this does not alter the fact

 Mywik wrote:

And you dont think that its an unreasonable expectation that GW isnt printing their rules into the rulebook but the customer has to use his "imagination" to find the intent? No ... in reality the rules tell you what to do. You just refuse to accept them. You failed to provide any proof to your assertions so far and have been constantly proven wrong.

Bald Assertion Fallacy. I have shown multiple times why this sort of thinking is not within the spirit of the game or the spirit of the rules. I have explained the process of actually placing your model on the table and not on top of anybody elses models. You do not have permission to place your model on top of mine. End of story.

Intent is never a good point to bring up ... you still cant give any proof of what the intent is while other people have shown you what the RAW are telling us. You already acknowledged that so move on and realise you are arguing a house rule. You cant proof your interpretation of what the intent is. Its not clear (at least not to your interpretation) ... and what i wrote is not "hogwash" but again you get hostile. I will stop arguing with you at this point. Wer're already at the point where all relevant rules have been quoted to death. I think the reader is able to draw his own conclusions.

Why is intent never a good thing to bring up? Sometimes intent is clear because common sense prevails rather than just assuming you're allowed to do anything you want in the game unless the rulebook explicitly forbids it. According to you because the rulebook doesn't explicitly state that I cannot urinate on your models, then that means that I can urinate on top of your models. Afterall show me the rule in the rulebook which says that I can't.

If you want to end the conversation then fine, but I have no less been hostile than both you or Nos for that matter. You have both been adamant in your views that the rulebook must explicitely state that a model cannot be placed on top of another model when deepstriking and you have continuously ignored the fact that the model must be placed on the table, not on another model and not another model and the table at the same time.

 DarthOvious wrote:

 Mywik wrote:

And you dont think that its an unreasonable expectation that GW isnt printing their rules into the rulebook but the customer has to use his "imagination" to find the intent? No ... in reality the rules tell you what to do. You just refuse to accept them. You failed to provide any proof to your assertions so far and have been constantly proven wrong.

Bald Assertion Fallacy. I have shown multiple times why this sort of thinking is not within the spirit of the game or the spirit of the rules. I have explained the process of actually placing your model on the table and not on top of anybody elses models. You do not have permission to place your model on top of mine. End of story

You can write "End of Story" as often as you like but that doesnt make you right. You have shown nothing. You have shown how you think the rules should work and claimed this is the intent of the designers.

Why is intent never a good thing to bring up? Sometimes intent is clear because common sense prevails rather than just assuming you're allowed to do anything you want in the game unless the rulebook explicitly forbids it. According to you because the rulebook doesn't explicitly state that I cannot urinate on your models, then that means that I can urinate on top of your models. Afterall show me the rule in the rulebook which says that I can't.

If you want to end the conversation then fine, but I have no less been hostile than both you or Nos for that matter. You have both been adamant in your views that the rulebook must explicitely state that a model cannot be placed on top of another model when deepstriking and you have continuously ignored the fact that the model must be placed on the table, not on another model and not another model and the table at the same time.

Intent is never a good thing because you never have a proof of it unless you ask the person that was intending something what he/she was intending. But go on with your "holier than thou"-attitude

Again your example shows what your intent seems to be and its not having a healthy conversation.

Is it just me, or is it crazy that when there is a clear break in the game like this, one person can still claim to be the only correct person and say everybody else's assertations and coming to a different conclusion is 'strawman' or other underhanded attacks.

Ease up on your 'I am God of the Rules' and go post on other forum parts to show you aren't here just to argue with people and throw around snide things like 'your strawman arguements have nothing on my pure logic that is not capable of being wrong!'

Some people just need to calm down and understand that different perspectives of where the permissions reside from this situation allow for multiple conclusions and subsequent necessary house rulings.

As I do not feel that anywhere on the table means on my models, HIWPI is it cannot start on top of my models because that is my interpretation of RAW. If another player disagreed, we'd dice it off because we could disagree as to what 'anywhere on the table' means.

 Mywik wrote:
Again ... please cite the portion of the "misplaced" rule or any other rule that gives you permission to deepstrike the unit after suffering "misplaced" or concede. Page and para please.

I already have, its under the deep strike rule, the entry is on the deep strike mishap table in the deep strike section of the rules and the unit must be placed in a deep strike formation. What part of the deep strike rule do you not understand? The unit is arriving by deep strike. it is using the deep strike rule to deploy. Just because the unit mishapped then this doesn't mean it is no longer arriving from deep strike. If its no longer arriving by deep strike then what reserve rule are you using for the unit to arrive? Are you all of a sudden using the outflank rules to deploy? No, you're not. Are you all of a suddent using the Callidus Assassins Polymorphine rule to arive? No you're not. Are you all of a sudden now a Ymgarl Genestealer? No you're not. Are you all of a sudden a flyer and flying in from the table edge? No you're not.

The deep strike mishap table is part of the deep strike rules and you're still using the deep strike rule to deploy. To argue otherwise is deny the obvious.

This is exactly what I mean when I say that you and Nos are no less confrontational than I or anybody else in this thread. The fact that you want to deny that a unit which is using the deep strike rules to deploy is not actually using the deep strike rule is stubbourness in its complete sense.

 DarthOvious wrote:

 Mywik wrote:
Again ... please cite the portion of the "misplaced" rule or any other rule that gives you permission to deepstrike the unit after suffering "misplaced" or concede. Page and para please.

I already have, its under the deep strike rule, the entry is on the deep strike mishap table in the deep strike section of the rules and the unit must be placed in a deep strike formation. What part of the deep strike rule do you not understand? The unit is arriving by deep strike. it is using the deep strike rule to deploy. Just because the unit mishapped then this doesn't mean it is no longer arriving from deep strike. If its no longer arriving by deep strike then what reserve rule are you using for the unit to arrive? Are you all of a sudden using the outflank rules to deploy? No, you're not. Are you all of a suddent using the Callidus Assassins Polymorphine rule to arive? No you're not. Are you all of a sudden now a Ymgarl Genestealer? No you're not. Are you all of a sudden a flyer and flying in from the table edge? No you're not.

The deep strike mishap table is part of the deep strike rules and you're still using the deep strike rule to deploy. To argue otherwise is deny the obvious.

This is exactly what I mean when I say that you and Nos are no less confrontational than I or anybody else in this thread. The fact that you want to deny that a unit which is using the deep strike rules to deploy is not actually using the deep strike rule is stubbourness in its complete sense.

Theres no permission to deepstrike in my rulebook. Theres permission to deploy but no permission to deepstrike.

If you happen to have a misplaced result - why are you following the deepstrike and not the "misplaced" rules. The book more than certainly tells you to. If misplaced is using "deepstrike" why is the paragraph not referring to it and instead tells you a different sequence, with different wording?

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Darth - I think it is clear that debate isnt possible here. You are simply arguing.

An argument which you have started and you refuse to listen to what others have told you. RAW you may argue some small gap and I do mean a small gap which is not clear, but as shown it is abundantly clear that RAI this is not allowed. Do you honestly think that the rules would state that it is acceptable for you to place your models on top of somebody elses models? Do you really think this is intended? Do you really think that GW intend for you to physically place your drop pod on top of a unit of fire warriors, breaking them in the process? And yet the rule calls for you to actually place the model. It does not give you permission to note or write or point out a location for such an instance. They intend for you to actually place the model in a legit manner.

Please, play by your houserule all you want to - as pointed out, the compromise position is also one (yet you seem to tink I am not saying that it is - I am) - just realise it is one.

Call it a houserule all you want but that isn't going to change the matter at hand at all. The rulebook is very clear in what it says in that the rulebook is a guide and not all rules are 100% defined to a tee and are in anyway air tight. However it is abundantly clear to recognise RAI by the spirit of the game and its been shown without a doubt that RAI is that placing your drop pod on top of other peoples models =/= equal placing your drop pod on the table.

The semantics come about because you want to apply your own definition of what it means by the word "table". Well I will only supply at this point a dictionary defintion of term table for you.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/table?s=t

And before you argue about terrain, we have permission with FAQs to say we can place models in terrain. We do not have any express permission to place models on top of other models.

You cannot, CANNOT, Mishap from a Misplaced result. It is entirely impossible to do so. Your refusal to accept this does not alter the fact

And yet you don't explain why. You just assert it.

Notice I do not argue that you can actually mishap from a misplaced result. I only argue that you can using the defintion of deep strike that you have provided. If you can place your model over another model when using deep strike then why can't I? You have not answered this in way shape or form and the reason why you haven't is because it shows RAI that you cannot choose to place your unit over another unit when deep striking. Its just not in the spirit of the rules.

 DarthOvious wrote:

You cannot, CANNOT, Mishap from a Misplaced result. It is entirely impossible to do so. Your refusal to accept this does not alter the fact

And yet you don't explain why. You just assert it.

.

He did. But i'll happily repeat it. The misplaced result tells you exactly how to treat models that suffered a "misplaced" result which is different to the deepstrike rules and doesnt involve scattering or rolling on the mishap table (which are not the only differences to deepstrike).