First, I posted this on the Adeptus Windy City site already - if you read both threads, I'm sorry for the duplicate posting.

Second, I read through a few of the Tyranid threads as well as the long 4 page or so thread. I've seen this issue touched on in discussion, but I didn't get a good feel for a consensus. I appoligize if this has been definitely addressed elswhere... please direct me to the thread with link if it has. Otherwise, continue...

Question 1:
Is a player allowed to select a point for Deep Strike that is within 1" of enemy model(s)... For example - by placing a Deep Striking model in base to base with an enemy model?

Question 2:
Should a player deep striking a Mawloc (new Tyranid Trygon variant that has a special rule for deep strike mishap) be allowed to select a point for deep strike within 1" of an enemy model? (This model has a special rule for mishaps)

I understand this requires a technical reading of various rules. Those that are involved are summarized /paraphrased below for discussion purposes - not to recreate or copy rules as written...

1. Movement / Assault, RB: No model may move within 1" of the enemy accept in assault
2. Deep Strike, RB: Models may deploy to field from reserve, place one model from unit on field, roll dice for final location, placement of unit in final position counts as Movement, unit counts as moving, if "something goes wrong" unit rolls on mishap table
3. Mawloc, Tyranid Codex: Deep Strike rule, special mishap rule (if it suffers a mishap the player does not roll on the Mishap Table. It has a separate special effect)

As I understand it, the argument FOR allowing it goes... placement of a model in Deep Strike is not movement. It is just a place holder for the intended target location. Players in support of the interpretation prefer to place their Mawloc place holder within 1" of the enemy hoping for a "HIT" on the scatter or improving their odds to end up within 1" of the enemy. They argue that since movement does not occur until the models final destination is determined, they are not technically "moving" until after the scatter dice has been rolled.

As I understand it, the argument AGAINST allowing it goes... models may only intentionally move within 1" of the enemy in an assault. The Mishap table is for accidents occuring from Deep Strikes that did not go as planned (per the rule's reading.) The Mawloc has Deep Strike rule and deploys as normal. It's only exception is that *if* an mishap occurs, then it does not roll on the standard table. Therefore, all deep striking models (Mawlocs included) must select position placement at least 1" away from the enemy when deep striking. Such palace holders may not intentionally select a location that is within 1" of the enemy as that is the intended position which will count as movement when it appears.

(I have read further extreme arguments being made that one can allow their Mawloc to deep strike right on top of the enemy models, but as a deep striking model must be placed onto the battlefield (not on top of enemy models), it seems to be generally understood that starting your deep strike location on top of an enemy model not supported in the base rules)

Cheers,

Tac

I am of the school of thought that you play the Mawloc as you would any other deep striking unit. He does not have a special rule for deep striking, ONLY if he has a mishap. Once a mishap occurs, such as scattering onto enemy troops, then his special rule goes into affect.

Nothing in the Deep Strike rules allows him to specifically place himself on a unit. He must scatter onto said unit to trigger his special mishap rules.

I am at work right now and my Nid dex is at home, but is there a rule for the Mawloc if he scatters off the board? Does he move the minimum distance to get on the board or does he finally have to roll on the regular mishap table?

Tactica wrote:
Question 1:
Is a player allowed to select a point for Deep Strike that is within 1" of enemy model(s)... For example - by placing a Deep Striking model in base to base with an enemy model?

Yes. Why? Your are placing the model, where you would like it to arrive. Your are, not at this point, deploying the model.

You could, if you wanted, place the "first model" of that unit base-to-base with an enemy model or ontop of a rhino. If you don't scatter (or enough) then that very first model will be subject to the mishap table (and most likely all the other models of his squad) when you come to try and deploy them.. I.e base-to-base or on top of a rhino are either within 1" of an enemy model or impassable terrain, respectively.

Tactica wrote:Question 2:
Should a player deep striking a Mawloc (new Tyranid Trygon variant that has a special rule for deep strike mishap) be allowed to select a point for deep strike within 1" of an enemy model? (This model has a special rule for mishaps)

Using the above logic, you can now place your mawloc anywhere on the battlefield... When it comes to rolling on the mishap table (i.e due to being on top of a rhino!) you instead use the "Terror from the Deep" rule. HtH's

Tactica wrote:Question 1:
Is a player allowed to select a point for Deep Strike that is within 1" of enemy model(s)... For example - by placing a Deep Striking model in base to base with an enemy model?

Yes

Question 2:
Should a player deep striking a Mawloc (new Tyranid Trygon variant that has a special rule for deep strike mishap) be allowed to select a point for deep strike within 1" of an enemy model? (This model has a special rule for mishaps)

Yes

Razerous wrote:

Tactica wrote:
Question 1:
Is a player allowed to select a point for Deep Strike that is within 1" of enemy model(s)... For example - by placing a Deep Striking model in base to base with an enemy model?

Yes. Why? Your are placing the model, where you would like it to arrive. Your are, not at this point, deploying the model.

You could, if you wanted, place the "first model" of that unit base-to-base with an enemy model or ontop of a rhino. If you don't scatter (or enough) then that very first model will be subject to the mishap table (and most likely all the other models of his squad) when you come to try and deploy them.. I.e base-to-base or on top of a rhino are either within 1" of an enemy model or impassable terrain, respectively.

Tactica wrote:Question 2:
Should a player deep striking a Mawloc (new Tyranid Trygon variant that has a special rule for deep strike mishap) be allowed to select a point for deep strike within 1" of an enemy model? (This model has a special rule for mishaps)

Using the above logic, you can now place your mawloc anywhere on the battlefield... When it comes to rolling on the mishap table (i.e due to being on top of a rhino!) you instead use the "Terror from the Deep" rule. HtH's

So all you are doing is breaking rules to increase your chance to trigger Terror from the Deep? As mentioned before, I am at my office, but the rules lawyering of "you are placing your model where you would like it to arrive not deploying" is pretty weak and just cheesy. The point you WANT it to arrive is within 1" of a model, someplace that you are not allowed to then subsequently deploy. So you are intentionally setting yourself up to break a rule to trigger a Terror of the Deep.

I would have no problem if you deployed 2" away from my unit and then scattered onto it because that also takes into account that if you score a hit, I will get to fire on you. In your instance, you are not only hoping for a hit (since it would trigger the special rule) but also for the scatter in the right direction (which would trigger the special rule).

That is rules lawyering to an in-game advantage which is wrong, mmmkay?

In the Deep Strike rule, it states that you must place the model on the "battlefield" where you want it to appear. If you attempt to place a model on top of the enemy model, have you fulfilled the requirement to place your model on the "battlefield", or did you place your model on an "ememy model", which does not fulfill the requirements of "battlefield?"

Something to considere, I do not have my books with me (at work) but I believe page 13 or so states something about enemy models are considered impassible. I also believe there is a statement in the book (different page) about models must be placed on the field, no place holding with dice or imaginary placement of models temporarily. In other words, if they cannot occupy the intended space on their own, they cannot sit there.

Cheers,

Tac

Tactica wrote:In the Deep Strike rule, it states that you must place the model on the "battlefield" where you want it to appear. If you attempt to place a model on top of the enemy model, have you fulfilled the requirement to place your model on the "battlefield", or did you place your model on an "ememy model", which does not fulfill the requirements of "battlefield?"

Ah, but by that logic, you can never place it on the table.

"I place my model on the table."
"No, it's on the paint/flock/cloth that's on the table."

This would be akin to me wanting to deep strike a unit of Sky Claws on top of a an enemy unit or within 1" to specifically hope for a mishap roll that results in a delayed because I want to bring them in from reserves next turn, not this turn.

Mawloc just happens to have a rule that changes the rules for a mishap. The owning player needs to hope for a mishap, not engineer one.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gwar! wrote:

Tactica wrote:In the Deep Strike rule, it states that you must place the model on the "battlefield" where you want it to appear. If you attempt to place a model on top of the enemy model, have you fulfilled the requirement to place your model on the "battlefield", or did you place your model on an "ememy model", which does not fulfill the requirements of "battlefield?"

Ah, but by that logic, you can never place it on the table.

"I place my model on the table."
"No, it's on the paint/flock/cloth that's on the table."

I would say that paint/flock/cloth are representative of the "battlefield" while the model you want to place Mawloc on is representative of a unit ON the "battlefield."

Rules for model placement are covered in the BRB technically you cannot place the model on impassible terrain under RaW. However you are allowed to place a model within 1" of another model this is fine and not prohibitted.

To be honest I expect this to be FAQ'd because the rules are pretty obvious that in fact you are allowed to place the Mawloc dircetly on top of an enemy unit should you so wish. Heck that is the entire point of the model!! Though under RaW all you can do is place with next to an enemy unit.

This would be akin to me wanting to deep strike a unit of Sky Claws on top of a an enemy unit or within 1" to specifically hope for a mishap roll that results in a delayed because I want to bring them in from reserves next turn, not this turn.

Yes you can do this if you so choose it is pretty stupid as you have as much chance of having the unit land completely in the worse place or destroyed as you have of it being delayed...

I understand the RAW arguement that makes TFTD nearly useless.

I also understand the RAW arguement stating that it can be used as I think it was intended.

The Mawloc is a terrible unit overall, WS3, only 3 attacks, Ld 8, no shooting attacks whatsoever, no invul save, only a 3+ normal save, all this for 170 points.

to try and argue that the ability is overpowered is a rediculous one as well, it will scatter 2/3rds of the time, it can be used at MOST in an ideal situation 3 times, and he is left vulnerable to assault and close-range firepower after each use, and its just S6 AP2, terrible for hurting vehicles, even rear armor 10. marginally usefull for hitting terminators, but then you get into the debate about cover saves from a non-shooting attack...

FlingitNow wrote:Rules for model placement are covered in the BRB technically you cannot place the model on impassible terrain under RaW.

Wow, seriously...

Do you even read the rules? Models can be Deployed on or placed on Impassible Terrain just fine. They cannot MOVE onto Impassible Terrain or Through it, unless they are Jump Infantry who may land on top of it if they will fit there.

There is no rules in the 5th editon codex that does not allows you to deepstrike on any unit. The only reason why you don't want to deepstrike because of the mishap table. The Mawloc disreguards the mishap table, therfore you are allow to deepstrike with any penatlies.

Do you even read the rules? Models can be Deployed on or placed on Impassible Terrain just fine.

Do you? "Models may not be place in impassable terrain" BRB pg14...

Which takes us right back to the argument that some thing that deep striking is not movement. Really? That is the stance on which this whole argument is based? It is not movement, it is deployment?

So after Mawloc pops out via deepstrike, he can move his normal movement?

FlingitNow wrote:

Do you even read the rules? Models can be Deployed on or placed on Impassible Terrain just fine.

Do you? "Models may not be place in impassable terrain" BRB pg14...

Guess what? That's in the Movement rules! Deep Striking is not movement, nor is deployment.

Guess what? That's in the Movement rules! Deep Striking is not movement, nor is deployment.

So rules written in one section have no bearing on any other part of the rulebook now? It is in the movement section but it specifically states placement.

If you follow the DS process and try to DS onto an enemy unit how p off would the guy be when you dumped your Mawloc model on top of his lovingly painted Terminators, who promptly fell apart...

FlingitNow wrote:If you follow the DS process and try to DS onto an enemy unit how p off would the guy be when you dumped your Mawloc model on top of his lovingly painted Terminators, who promptly fell apart...

Errm... What?

You have been making less and less sense recently, but this just takes the biscuit.

Errm... What?

You have been making less and less sense recently, but this just takes the biscuit.

Cheers Gwar I'll take that as a compliament erm....

Procedure for DSing:

1. Place model (so if you're saying you can place on impassible terrain because you don't like the rule on pg 14 then you can place it on someone else's miniatures).
2. Model is now sitting on top of their miniatures, then you roll the scatter dice and 2d6.
3. see if a scatter occurs, requiring measuring from that placed model (still sitting on top of those now broken terminators) and place the model in it's new place. At this point you replace the Mawloc model with the large blast template if it is still on top of some of those broken Terminators (or indeed a different unit).

Now do you get it?

Or, you know, you could just hover the miniature over them like a normal person?
It's all a moot point anyway because the Mawlocks ability doesn't work as there is no such thing as a Blast Template anyway.

You do know that there is a little thing you can do called "holding the miniature above the terminators, until the terminators are moved out of the way".

My question is this. IF it does scatter into a squad who has to move? Who has the right away? Do you take the hits on the unit and stop the model regardless 1" similar to a Drop Pod?

broxus wrote:My question is this. IF it does scatter into a squad who has to move? Who has the right away? Do you take the hits on the unit and stop the model regardless 1" similar to a Drop Pod?

All models left underneath the Mawloc are moved as far as neccesary. This is NOT the way the rule is written exactly.

What does the codex say exactly?

Or, you know, you could just hover the miniature over them like a normal person?

Hovering is not placing...

It's all a moot point anyway because the Mawlocks ability doesn't work as there is no such thing as a Blast Template anyway.

woo hoo

Unless specified. Place the model anywhere on the table is easily read as specifying.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

FlingitNow wrote:Do you? "Models may not be place in impassable terrain" BRB pg14...

quote clipping ftw. Is impassable terrain ANYWHERE on the table? yes. Exception granted.

Is impassable terrain ANYWHERE on the table? yes. Exception granted.

Not specific enough to grant an exception I'm afraid.

Deepstrike rules are more specific than the general placement rules.

really.

FlingitNow wrote:

Is impassable terrain ANYWHERE on the table? yes. Exception granted.

Not specific enough to grant an exception I'm afraid.

And you know this how?

Deepstrike rules are more specific than the general placement rules.

They don't specifically override this rule the just state anywhere on the table, to be specific it would have to mention it was overriding this rule by saying including on impassible terrain it doesn't.

Brother Ramses wrote:So all you are doing is breaking rules to increase your chance to trigger Terror from the Deep? As mentioned before, I am at my office, but the rules lawyering of "you are placing your model where you would like it to arrive not deploying" is pretty weak and just cheesy. The point you WANT it to arrive is within 1" of a model, someplace that you are not allowed to then subsequently deploy. So you are intentionally setting yourself up to break a rule to trigger a Terror of the Deep.

I would have no problem if you deployed 2" away from my unit and then scattered onto it because that also takes into account that if you score a hit, I will get to fire on you. In your instance, you are not only hoping for a hit (since it would trigger the special rule) but also for the scatter in the right direction (which would trigger the special rule).

That is rules lawyering to an in-game advantage which is wrong, mmmkay?

Please explain to my WHY it is weak and chessy and importantly, breaking the rules. If you decide to post inflamatory remarks please be prepared to actually follow through otherwise it is trolling. If you cant find a reason (if you had the codex) and still posted it is trolling and if you simply think you are right but cant access a codex and post anyway, its still trolling. So when you do get a chnace to read the codex/rulebook, please explain why it "is breaking rules". Thanks.

It is not breaking a rule as the rule in question is not being broken. The rule is simply being followed (from my point of view, models/terrain/flock/paint all count as the battlefield) and then subsequently invoking more rules when the model gets to the stage of mishap.

Now as I see it, (assuming we use the large blast marker), the Terror from the deep rule is perfectly fine in its initial deployment (and I wont bring into the testy subject of the definition of "avoiding" and the context of the word "move" so thats alrite) of the str6 mouth-blast.

I would also have no problem deploying 2" away but I would prefer to deploy in the middle of the unit (as would a close-ranged shooting drop-pod squad/model) as it is allowed (again, read above, please explain how it is not allowed) by the rules. I am using the rules to provide myself with an in-game advantage but I have yet to see how it would be breaking the rules.

Here's my 2c (because I haven't seen the specific quote in here yet.)

p95 "First place one model from the unit anywhere on the table..."

Anywhere, pretty cut and dried.

Explicit is not required, only more specific.

FlingitNow wrote:They don't specifically override this rule the just state anywhere on the table, to be specific it would have to mention it was overriding this rule by saying including on impassible terrain it doesn't.

...and this is where your argument stops being RAW. You are interpreting what is and is not specific enough to override other rules. Deep Strike is a special rule(at least it is in the Tyranid codex), the rule you keep lovingly quoting on p14 SPECIFICALLY states that causality UNLESS it's overridden by a special rule. That's RAW.

"Not specific enough to grant an exception I'm afraid."

That's your opinion. Not RAW.

...and this is where your argument stops being RAW. You are interpreting what is and is not specific enough to override other rules. Deep Strike is a special rule(at least it is in the Tyranid codex), the rule you keep lovingly quoting on p14 SPECIFICALLY states that causality UNLESS it's overridden by a special rule. That's RAW.

"Not specific enough to grant an exception I'm afraid."

That's your opinion. Not RAW.

Though it was written as an oppinion it is still in fact RaW. Are you claiming that models disembarking can be placed in impassible terrain? The wording the same but it doesn't specifically override this rule hence it is not specific, hence all normal restrictions apply unless they are specifically overriden...

Does disembarking state to place models anywhere?

Or does it include statements allowing for the less specific rules -- which is what I have read.

Does disembarking state to place models anywhere?

Anywhere that is within 2" of the hull yes (it does also mention not within 1" of another model), no mention of impassible terrain hence by your argument you can disembark in/on to impassible terrain...

editing myself.
To be polite.

My response was previously covered, and is in the text.

FlingitNow wrote:

...and this is where your argument stops being RAW. You are interpreting what is and is not specific enough to override other rules. Deep Strike is a special rule(at least it is in the Tyranid codex), the rule you keep lovingly quoting on p14 SPECIFICALLY states that causality UNLESS it's overridden by a special rule. That's RAW.

"Not specific enough to grant an exception I'm afraid."

That's your opinion. Not RAW.

Though it was written as an oppinion it is still in fact RaW. Are you claiming that models disembarking can be placed in impassible terrain? The wording the same but it doesn't specifically override this rule hence it is not specific, hence all normal restrictions apply unless they are specifically overriden...

1. disembark is not a special rule.
2. the disembark rule specifically denies placement into impassable terrain(or within 1" of an enemy model) within its own rules.
3. The wordings of the Disembark rule and the Deep Strike special rule are in no way the same.

nice try, but perhaps you should work on your logic...and/or look over the rulebook a little closer.

There are three distinct phases to the turn.

1. Movement Phase
2. Shooting Phase
3. Assault Phase

Notice the distinct lack of a "Deep Strike" phase or a "Deployment" phase. They do not exist on their own at all. They fall under the movement phase and other then the special rules inclusive for each, they also follow rules for the phase they happen.

If you want to fight RAW on this, please list the page that showing "Deep Strike Phase" or Deployment phase. Page 9 of the BrB shows me the turn sequence and neither are listed.

So per page 9 and then with pg 95 Deep Strike rules referring your to pg 94 for Reserves, it takes place during the Movement Phase. Referring to the movement phase on page 9, the rule applicable to Mawloc would be:

MODELS IN THE WAY

A model may not move into or through the pace occupiedby another model (which is represented by its base or hull) or through a gap between friendly models that is smaller then its own base (or hull) size. A model cannot move so that it touches an enemy model during the Movement and Shooting phase - this is only possible during the in an assault during the Assault phase. To keep this distinction clear, a model may not move within 1" unless assaulting.

So, by intentionally trying to deep strike on or within 1" of an enemy unit, you are breaking the rules for the Movement Phase in which a Mawloc is deep striking.

** self edit **

You know what, nevermind; this has been discussed ad nauseum. There are several camps on the topic and how players choose to play the unit should be up to them.

agnosto wrote:Quick, run to a dictionary and look up the word "place"; I can promise you that there is no mention of "hover" anywhere in it.

Quick, read the rules of YMTC; I can promise you that you just broke one.

Are you insinuating that scatter is also movement? And that the rules as such also would invoke the reduction thereof?

kirsanth wrote:Deepstrike rules are more specific than the general placement rules.

When you're looking for specificity, you have to consider what you're trying to achieve.

If you're trying to determine whether placing a model in impassable terrain is legal, a rule that says the model may be placed anywhere on the table is less specific than a rule saying that a model may not be placed in a specific type of terrain.

Brother Ramses wrote:
So per page 9 and then with pg 95 Deep Strike rules referring your to pg 94 for Reserves, it takes place during the Movement Phase. Referring to the movement phase on page 9, the rule applicable to Mawloc would be:

Just because something occurs during the movement phase does not make it a movement action; this is a straight logical failure. If that were the case, then there would be no actions other than movement, shooting, and assault. Good luck playing that game. You could not use any psychic powers, embark/disembark transports, go to ground, etc...or all those now movement/shooting/assaulting now?

Brother Ramses wrote:
So, by intentionally trying to deep strike on or within 1" of an enemy unit, you are breaking the rules for the Movement Phase in which a Mawloc is deep striking.

Those aren't rules for the movement phase, they are rules for movement...note the difference?

Gwar! wrote:

agnosto wrote:Quick, run to a dictionary and look up the word "place"; I can promise you that there is no mention of "hover" anywhere in it.

Quick, read the rules of YMTC; I can promise you that you just broke one.

I could also suggest that you read the rules as "Unless a poster is using a word incorrectly in a very obvious manner, leave dictionary definitions out." You are certainly ignoring the word "place" entirely when it is most definitely in the RaW. I checked both American and British dictionaries and this is one of the situations where they present an exact match in meaning and usage.

agnosto wrote:You are certainly ignoring the word "place" entirely when it is most definitely in the RaW.

as are you certainly ignoring the also RAW word "anywhere."


If someone wants to go 100% RAW, then yes, you must place your Mawloc on top of their unit of Terminators. You could, however, reach an accord with them to use common sense(not RAW), and a pointed finger. RAW doesn't always make the most sense...in fact, the game is practically unplayable if you follow 100% RAW.

insaniak wrote:When you're looking for specificity, you have to consider what you're trying to achieve.

Not sure I agree. That would lead to a lot of problems with subjectivity.

insaniak wrote:If you're trying to determine whether placing a model in impassable terrain is legal, a rule that says the model may be placed anywhere on the table is less specific than a rule saying that a model may not be placed in a specific type of terrain.

A rule that says models cannot be placed there, is less general than a rule that says place a model anywhere when doing XXXX -- which DS rules are doing.

I would even go one step farther using RAW for the people that will completely insist under water boarding that Deep Strike isn't movement that a Mawloc cannot be placed on or within 1" of a model.

MODELS IN THE WAY

A model may not move into or through the pace occupiedby another model (which is represented by its base or hull) or through a gap between friendly models that is smaller then its own base (or hull) size. A model cannot move so that it touches an enemy model during the Movement and Shooting phase - this is only possible during the in an assault during the Assault phase. To keep this distinction clear, a model may not move within 1" unless assaulting.

So, say that I do agree that Deep Striking is not movement. Per RAW it takes place "At the start of his Movement phase,....". Note is doesn't say before his Movement phase, it says "at the start...", meaning the Movement phase has already started. Well we have this gem:

"A model cannot move so that it touches an enemy model during the Movement and Shooting phase -...."

Note that it does not specify the model's movement phase, just the Movement and Shooting phase. So it wouldn't matter if you do not consider Deep Striking movement, it takes place during THE Movement phase so therefore you cannot be touching a model in the Movement phase. But that isn't it either. If you follow up with the rest of the sentence and following sentence,

"- this is only possible during the in an assault during the Assault phase. To keep this distinction clear, a model may not move within 1" unless assaulting."

When a Mawloc deep strikes, it is not during the Assault phase. You can argue that deep striking is not movement, but it is still taking place during the Movement phase, not the Assault phase. When a Mawloc is deep striking, he is not assaulting. You can argue that deep striking is not movement, but that does not lift the restriction of being within 1" of a model unless assaulting.

Even if DS = move, DS does not occur until after the scatter is determined.

And as such the prohibitions on movement are based upon its landing. Otherwise you could prohibit an opponents movement on the theoretical assumption that a model may (or did!) move with an inch of an enemy.

nardman wrote:
Those aren't rules for the movement phase, they are rules for movement...note the difference?

Really? If you look on page 11, the huge title of the page is,

THE MOVEMENT PHASE

and that rule is on that page, under the title.

"A model cannot move so that it touches an enemy model during the Movement and Shooting phase"
"- this is only possible during the in an assault during the Assault phase. To keep this distinction clear, a model may not move within 1" unless assaulting."

These are the only 2 important portions of Brother Ramses last rambling post.

More specifically:

"A model cannot move so that"

and

"To keep this distinction clear, a model may not move within 1" unless assaulting."

These are the verbs within these sentences....these are the actions which are restricted.

So the prohibition on the TftD is that "move = counts as"?

Brother Ramses wrote:

nardman wrote:
Those aren't rules for the movement phase, they are rules for movement...note the difference?

Really? If you look on page 11, the huge title of the page is,

THE MOVEMENT PHASE

and that rule is on that page, under the title.

It's actually a sub-heading underneath "Movement Distance," which is also underneath a paragraph describing infantry movement...which is underneath another paragraph which states: "For the time being we'll just explain how squads of infantry move..."

...Which would be describing a move action, specifically for infantry(although not important for this argument), again, NOT fully emcompassing the whole of the Movement Phase.


Try again rules lawyer.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

kirsanth wrote:So the prohibition on the TftD is that "move = counts as"?

No, the prohibition of TFtD is that a Deep Strike is a movement action...which, as far as anyone has argued, isn't supported by the RAW.

Was the model not physically moved?

I could completely agree that deep strike is not movement, but you cannot disagree that the model did indeed change location within the physical realm correct?

It is just as easy for me to get into an argument over semantics of a word such as "move" as shown above.

However, if they Mawloc did indeed not "move" during his deep strike that took place during the Movement phase, is it then able to then make a normal 6" move?

kirsanth wrote:

insaniak wrote:When you're looking for specificity, you have to consider what you're trying to achieve.

Not sure I agree. That would lead to a lot of problems with subjectivity.

How else do you determine whether the specific rule you're looking for applies to the situation? It's all relatvie to what you're trying to achieve.

A rule that says models cannot be placed there, is less general than a rule that says place a model anywhere when doing XXXX -- which DS rules are doing.

That was my point, yes.

You're placing a model. One rule says you can place the model anywhere. Another rule says you can not place them in a specific type of terrain.

The only outcome that breaks no rule is to not place them in the forbidden location.

nardman wrote:

agnosto wrote:You are certainly ignoring the word "place" entirely when it is most definitely in the RaW.

as are you certainly ignoring the also RAW word "anywhere."


If someone wants to go 100% RAW, then yes, you must place your Mawloc on top of their unit of Terminators. You could, however, reach an accord with them to use common sense(not RAW), and a pointed finger. RAW doesn't always make the most sense...in fact, the game is practically unplayable if you follow 100% RAW.

We'll just have to disagree.

I would just have to say, that your model being on top of my model does not constitute being "placed" upon the table; it is in fact on my model which is not a permanent fixture of the table. So, yes, feel free to place your model anywhere on the table. I will even argue that you be able to place it in base to base with my model; however, you may not place it on top of any of my models.

nardman wrote:

Brother Ramses wrote:

nardman wrote:
Those aren't rules for the movement phase, they are rules for movement...note the difference?

Really? If you look on page 11, the huge title of the page is,

THE MOVEMENT PHASE

and that rule is on that page, under the title.

It's actually a sub-heading underneath "Movement Distance," which is also underneath a paragraph describing infantry movement...which is underneath another paragraph which states: "For the time being we'll just explain how squads of infantry move..."

...Which would be describing a move action, specifically for infantry(although not important for this argument), again, NOT fully emcompassing the whole of the Movement Phase.


Try again rules lawyer.

Are you serious? The rules out pointed out are what happens during the Movement phase. If if you do not deny that deep striking is not movement, it still happens during the Movement phase. There are rules pertaining to what you can do during the Movement phase. I am not talking about the Mawlocs personal moving/deep striking, but the rules that apply to the Movement phase.

Me the rules lawyer? You are trying to convince me that Models in the Way is not part of the Movement Phase. LOL!

Placing a model any time vs Placing a model when DS rules apply.
which is more specific?

Brother Ramses wrote:Was the model not physically moved?

For all purposes of game rules, whether a model is physically moved or not has no bearing upon whether it has "moved." If you want to get into a logical twist of that sort, how far did your models move from your case to your deployment area? The "physical realm" makes no difference, that's not how games operate. The importance is the category of action peformed.

Furthermore, Deep Strike is a Mission Special Rule, not a "movement phase" rule or a "Reserves" rule. The Reserves rules(Arriving from Reserve, and Outflank) utilize normal movement within their rules, and are therefore subject to the movement restrictions. Deep Strike does not, therefore, whether you are physically moving the model or not, you are NOT performing a normal move action.

You're not looking at whether you can place the model.
You're looking at where you can place the model.

So the rule addressing a specific location is more specific than a rule referring to anywhere on the board.


There is nothing in the Deep Strike rules that specifically over-rides the prohibition on placing a model in Impassable Terrain.

So, again, even if you're not sure which reference is more specific, without a specific over-ride both conditions must apply.

ie:
- You have a rule that says the model can be placed anywhere.
- You have a rule that says that the model can not be placed in impassable terrain.

If you place the model in impassable terrain, since the first rule doesn't specifically over-ride the second, you have broken the second rule.

Therein lies the disconnect.

Generally, one is not allowed to place models XXX
DS says place anywhere.

vs.

DS says place anywhere.
Generally, one is not allowed to place models XXX

agnosto wrote:
We'll just have to disagree.

I would just have to say, that your model being on top of my model does not constitute being "placed" upon the table; it is in fact on my model which is not a permanent fixture of the table. So, yes, feel free to place your model anywhere on the table. I will even argue that you be able to place it in base to base with my model; however, you may not place it on top of any of my models.

Agree to disagree is fair enough. In reality, I view the RAW interpretation of either circumstance to be broken, as I would never physically place my model on top of someone else's out of respect. I just wish people could look at these rules arguments objectively, as the game mechanics they specifically are. The point I'm trying to argue is that from a strictly RAW perspective, Deep Strike DOES allow for placement anywhere. Whether or not that's how the game should be played is a separate question altogether.


FWIW, I've never played an opponent who has argued with me using a die to represent the center of my deep-striking model's base.

kirsanth wrote:Generally, one is not allowed to place models XXX
DS says place anywhere.

...without specifically over-riding the prohibition.

So it still applies.

nardman wrote:

agnosto wrote:
We'll just have to disagree.

I would just have to say, that your model being on top of my model does not constitute being "placed" upon the table; it is in fact on my model which is not a permanent fixture of the table. So, yes, feel free to place your model anywhere on the table. I will even argue that you be able to place it in base to base with my model; however, you may not place it on top of any of my models.

Agree to disagree is fair enough. In reality, I view the RAW interpretation of either circumstance to be broken, as I would never physically place my model on top of someone else's out of respect. I just wish people could look at these rules arguments objectively, as the game mechanics they specifically are. The point I'm trying to argue is that from a strictly RAW perspective, Deep Strike DOES allow for placement anywhere. Whether or not that's how the game should be played is a separate question altogether.


FWIW, I've never played an opponent who has argued with me using a die to represent the center of my deep-striking model's base.

And that's where we'll disagree because my point is that on the table is not on my model.

Anywho, I enjoy these discussions; they take me back to the legal classes I took before I decided being a lawyer was not for me. There's nothing wrong with a healthy disagreement if we can do it in a civilized manner (i.e. minus name calling, etc) and I truly feel that the truth is usually somewhere in the middle, inside any controversy.

FWIW, I still think we should be able to shoot it with a thunderfire cannon if it's coming up from under the ground.

nardman wrote:

Brother Ramses wrote:Was the model not physically moved?

For all purposes of game rules, whether a model is physically moved or not has no bearing upon whether it has "moved." If you want to get into a logical twist of that sort, how far did your models move from your case to your deployment area? The "physical realm" makes no difference, that's not how games operate. The importance is the category of action peformed.

Furthermore, Deep Strike is a Mission Special Rule, not a "movement phase" rule or a "Reserves" rule. The Reserves rules(Arriving from Reserve, and Outflank) utilize normal movement within their rules, and are therefore subject to the movement restrictions. Deep Strike does not, therefore, whether you are physically moving the model or not, you are NOT performing a normal move action.

The Deep Strike rules tell you to refer to the Reserves rule on how to utilize it. The Reserves rule dictates that it takes place at the start of the movement phase. Deep Strike is not only a Mission Special Rule or else Jump Infantry or units with the Deep Strike rule in their entry would not be able to use it whenever they feel like.

As far as "move" versus "move", the rules on page 11 make no distinction between the two. Mawloc deep strikes, fine. You cannot then [i]move[/i] the model onto another or move him within 1" unless assaulting.

And honestly, the argument presented by you is to try to gain an advantage in-game via twisting of the rule set. Deep strike and scatter dice go hand in hand, and yet you are trying to get around the in-game mechanic to which a scatter dice represents by trying to skew the odds closer in your favor of landing directly on or within 1" of an enemy.

I on the other hand am not trying to circumvent the purpose of the scatter dice and its relationship to deep striking. I am clearly allowing the in-game mechanic to which the scatter dice represents to take place without trying to kill the chances of Terror of the Deep nor increase the chance of it triggering.

insaniak wrote:

kirsanth wrote:Generally, one is not allowed to place models XXX
DS says place anywhere.

...without specifically over-riding the prohibition.

So it still applies.

For the love of...

You're arguing a point of view, not a rule. There is nothing to be gained here.

Be a mod and lock this crap.

Brother Ramses wrote:I am of the school of thought that you play the Mawloc as you would any other deep striking unit. He does not have a special rule for deep striking, ONLY if he has a mishap. Once a mishap occurs, such as scattering onto enemy troops, then his special rule goes into affect.

Nothing in the Deep Strike rules allows him to specifically place himself on a unit. He must scatter onto said unit to trigger his special mishap rules.

I am at work right now and my Nid dex is at home, but is there a rule for the Mawloc if he scatters off the board? Does he move the minimum distance to get on the board or does he finally have to roll on the regular mishap table?

Please quote me the line that says I can't place my marker in impassable terrain / on top of enemy models. . .

Also, I would BET this gets FAQ'ed in the Mawloc's favor. Why institute a rule that gets used only by accident? And for the record, I think you not letting it work is twisting what the movement rules says in YOUR favor, not the other way around. And I don't even play nids, so I'm objective =P

Fizyx wrote:You're arguing a point of view, not a rule. There is nothing to be gained here.

When two people disagree on an interpretation of the rules, discussing points of view is generally what it comes down to, yes. What is potentially gained from that is an understanding of the other person's point of view.

Be a mod and lock this crap.

Locking a thread because someone disagrees with me is the exact opposite of appropriate behaviour for a mod.

There are a couple of different arguments running here ... so long as there is still civil (and relatively on-topic) discussion going on, there's no reason to lock it.

apwill4765 wrote:Please quote me the line that says I can't place my marker in impassable terrain / on top of enemy models. . .

Also, I would BET this gets FAQ'ed in the Mawloc's favor. Why institute a rule that gets used only by accident? And for the record, I think you not letting it work is twisting what the movement rules says in YOUR favor, not the other way around. And I don't even play nids, so I'm objective =P

p.14 RB: "Models may not be placed in impassible terrain"

You can't place a model on top of another one for your deep strike position because enemy models are considered impassible terrain (as are friendlies), but there is nothing I can see that stops you from placing it in B2B.

Dracos wrote:

apwill4765 wrote:Please quote me the line that says I can't place my marker in impassable terrain / on top of enemy models. . .

Also, I would BET this gets FAQ'ed in the Mawloc's favor. Why institute a rule that gets used only by accident? And for the record, I think you not letting it work is twisting what the movement rules says in YOUR favor, not the other way around. And I don't even play nids, so I'm objective =P

p.14 RB: "Models may not be placed in impassible terrain"

You can't place a model on top of another one for your deep strike position because enemy models are considered impassible terrain (as are friendlies), but there is nothing I can see that stops you from placing it in B2B.

That would be a quote from the movement rules. From deepstrike rules: "first place one model from the unit ANYWHERE on the table, in the position you would like the unit to arrive, and roll the scatter dice."

Also, this is NOT a movement, it is a deployment: "roll for arrival of these units as specified in the rules for reserves and then DEPLOY them as follows"

Also, that "on my models is not on the table" stuff is bull-hockey. If that's true, then you can't deepstrike on top of 3 story terrain pieces either.
In those following rules it makes NO mention restricting placement into impassable terrain.

So, yea.

apwill4765 wrote:That would be a quote from the movement rules. From deepstrike rules: "first place one model from the unit ANYWHERE on the table, in the position you would like the unit to arrive, and roll the scatter dice."

Also, this is NOT a movement, it is a deployment: "roll for arrival of these units as specified in the rules for reserves and then DEPLOY them as follows"

The section the rule is from is irrelevant, it says you can't place them in impassible terrain, and deep strike wants you to place models.

Any action you take whereby you are placing your models on impassible terrain is breaking that rule.

FYI, you can't deploy in impassible terrain normally either.

Dracos wrote:

apwill4765 wrote:That would be a quote from the movement rules. From deepstrike rules: "first place one model from the unit ANYWHERE on the table, in the position you would like the unit to arrive, and roll the scatter dice."

Also, this is NOT a movement, it is a deployment: "roll for arrival of these units as specified in the rules for reserves and then DEPLOY them as follows"

The section the rule is from is irrelevant, it says you can't place them in impassible terrain, and deep strike wants you to place models.

Any action you take whereby you are placing your models on impassible terrain is breaking that rule.

FYI, you can't deploy in impassible terrain normally either.

The section the rule is from is quite relevant, because the rules for each phase is specific to that phase.

What? Yes you can. Please quote from the deployment section of the rules that says I can't deploy in impassable terrain.

The exact same rule as applies to Deep Strike applies to normal deployment. You can't place models in impassable terrain.

Where that rule is located in the rulebook is irrelevant.

insaniak wrote:The exact same rule as applies to Deep Strike applies to normal deployment. You can't place models in impassable terrain.

Where that rule is located in the rulebook is irrelevant.

PLEASE quote me the passage that says I can't place my models in impassable terrain. I can't move them once I am there, but please let's quote rules and not our opinions.

Also, nowhere in the deepstrike passage does it say that these models use the normal rules for moving on the turn they arrive.

apwill4765 wrote:PLEASE quote me the passage that says I can't place my models in impassable terrain. I can't move them once I am there, but please let's quote rules and not our opinions.

p.14 RB: "Models may not be placed in impassible terrain"

Dracos wrote:

apwill4765 wrote:PLEASE quote me the passage that says I can't place my models in impassable terrain. I can't move them once I am there, but please let's quote rules and not our opinions.

p.14 RB: "Models may not be placed in impassible terrain"

Again, from the terrain section, not the deepstrike or deployment section, which are the relevant passages. "For now, we're going to discuss terrain only in terms of how infantry move through it" BRB Same page. Basically, does not apply to deepstriking. Forcing a mishap is perfectly legal, and the only argument against is "waah it hurts my army". There's no rules leg to stand on. I guess we will see when the FAQ comes out.

Okay let me play devil's advocate for a second here. If rules from previous sections really are irrelevant, then how do you know what a unit is? It tells you to deploy units, and that some units have deep strike, but it does not explain what a unit is.

See how your method of reading the rules does not work? The rulebook builds each section up on top of and in addition to rules from previous sections.

Dracos wrote:Okay let me play devil's advocate for a second here. If rules from previous sections really are irrelevant, then how do you know what a unit is? It tells you to deploy units, and that some units have deep strike, but it does not explain what a unit is.

See how your method of reading the rules does not work? The rulebook builds each section up on top of and in addition to rules from previous sections.

No but I don't apply rules for drawing LOS to declaring an assault either. LOS rules have no bearing on who I can assault, because nowhere am I restricted to assaulting units I have LOS to. Nowhere am I restricted from deploying units in impassable terrain, as per the DEPLOYMENT rules. Because deepstrike is defined as a DEPLOYMENT, the movement rules have no bearing.

pg 14 finishes the oft quoted "Models may not be placed in impassible terrain" phrase with "unless specified otherwise".

Place anywhere is a specification that "anywhere" is ok for placement. Which is otherwise stating, and more specific, being that it is for DS not general placement rules.

Really, the whole sentence does matter.

kirsanth wrote:pg 14 finishes the oft quoted "Models may not be placed in impassible terrain" phrase with "unless specified otherwise".

Place anywhere is a specification that "anywhere" is ok for placement. Which is otherwise stating, and more specific, being that it is for DS not general placement rules.

Really, the whole sentence does matter.

My new name shall forever more be known as the "on the table" dude, as "anywhere on the table". I know, I know; it's much easier to be obtuse and refuse to believe that "on the table" means it actually must physically take up space "on the table" and not "on your opponent's model which happens to be 'on the table".

kirsanth wrote:pg 14 finishes the oft quoted "Models may not be placed in impassible terrain" phrase with "unless specified otherwise".

Place anywhere is a specification that "anywhere" is ok for placement. Which is otherwise stating, and more specific, being that it is for DS not general placement rules.

Really, the whole sentence does matter.

Thank you, an even better argument. The rules for deepstrike say ANYWHERE on the table people!!!! Is there something about the word ANYWHERE that is unclear? Please answer that if you wish to continue this argument. If you address that specific argument then there is a point to continue the discussion. If you ignore it I'll wait for the FAQ


Automatically Appended Next Post:

agnosto wrote:

kirsanth wrote:pg 14 finishes the oft quoted "Models may not be placed in impassible terrain" phrase with "unless specified otherwise".

Place anywhere is a specification that "anywhere" is ok for placement. Which is otherwise stating, and more specific, being that it is for DS not general placement rules.

Really, the whole sentence does matter.

My new name shall forever more be known as the "on the table" dude, as "anywhere on the table". I know, I know; it's much easier to be obtuse and refuse to believe that "on the table" means it actually must physically take up space "on the table" and not "on your opponent's model which happens to be 'on the table".

Agnosto: When deepstriking, you place the mawloc on the table AFTER the intervening models have been moved, as per "Terror from the Deep" rules. If you deepstrike onto impassable terrain with a normal unit, it mishaps (AKA, never placed). When am I setting my model on top of yours? Answer: never.

apwill4765 wrote:No but I don't apply rules for drawing LOS to declaring an assault either.

Of course you wouldn't. But if there is a rule in the LOS section that applies to models in close combat, then it still applies.

The rule that has been quoted multiple times in this thread is in the movement section... but is not a movement rule... because it refers to 'placing' models in impassable terrain, not 'moving' models in it.


So it applies any time you want to place a model in impassable terrain, unless a rules specifically says otherwise.

'Specifically' meaning the rule would have to actually state that the model can be placed in impassable terrain.

kirsanth wrote:pg 14 finishes the oft quoted "Models may not be placed in impassible terrain" phrase with "unless specified otherwise".

Place anywhere is a specification that "anywhere" is ok for placement. Which is otherwise stating, and more specific, being that it is for DS not general placement rules.

Really, the whole sentence does matter.

Actually that is not what it says. The rule continues "unless the models concerned have a special rule in their profile granting them an exception (like being able to fly above the terrain) or both players agree to it."

So you can strike the part about players agreeing, cause that is actually irrelevant.

However, now we come to what a special rule would have to say to grant an exception. To me, it would have to say in the special rule that it may alter its interaction with impassible terrain. Examples of this are Skimmers and Jump Infantry. These are special rules found in the profile that specify that they can go over impassible terrain and land on it in some cases.

Deep strike makes no such exception, and therefore still is bound by this limitation.

apwill4765 wrote:
Agnosto: When deepstriking, you place the mawloc on the table AFTER the intervening models have been moved, as per "Terror from the Deep" rules. If you deepstrike onto impassable terrain with a normal unit, it mishaps (AKA, never placed). When am I setting my model on top of yours? Answer: never.

There's nothing in the Mawloc's rule that exempts him from deep strike rules just the negative consequences of a mishap. You must follow the rules up to and until it is determined that the Mawloc's special rules is even valid. Which means, say it with me people; "Place your model anywhere on the table." thanks.

insaniak wrote:

apwill4765 wrote:No but I don't apply rules for drawing LOS to declaring an assault either.

Of course you wouldn't. But if there is a rule in the LOS section that applies to models in close combat, then it still applies.

The rule that has been quoted multiple times in this thread is in the movement section... but is not a movement rule... because it refers to 'placing' models in impassable terrain, not 'moving' models in it.


So it applies any time you want to place a model in impassable terrain, unless a rules specifically says otherwise.

'Specifically' meaning the rule would have to actually state that the model can be placed in impassable terrain.

Please see my above argument. What does ANYWHERE mean insaniak? That is specifically where the deepstrike rules say a model may be placed. Does it have to say "anywhere, including clear, difficult, dangerous, and impassable"? No, because anywhere means:

an-y-where. adv. : in, at, or to any place.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

agnosto wrote:

apwill4765 wrote:
Agnosto: When deepstriking, you place the mawloc on the table AFTER the intervening models have been moved, as per "Terror from the Deep" rules. If you deepstrike onto impassable terrain with a normal unit, it mishaps (AKA, never placed). When am I setting my model on top of yours? Answer: never.

There's nothing in the Mawloc's rule that exempts him from deep strike rules just the negative consequences of a mishap. You must follow the rules up to and until it is determined that the Mawloc's special rules is even valid. Which means, say it with me people; "Place your model anywhere on the table." thanks.

Yes. and so it goes like this

1. Place Mawloc on enemy models
2. Roll Scatter
3. If hit, see mishap rules for mawloc, he still has not been placed, he has just mishapped.
4. oh wait, mawloc has special rules EXEMPTING HIM from normal mishap rules.



. . .So where is he breaking deepstrike rules? He isn't, get over it.

apwill4765 wrote:
Yes. and so it goes like this

1. Place Mawloc on enemy models
2. Roll Scatter
3. If hit, see mishap rules for mawloc, he still has not been placed, he has just mishapped.
4. oh wait, mawloc has special rules EXEMPTING HIM from normal mishap rules.



. . .So where is he breaking deepstrike rules? He isn't, get over it.

Yes, but enemy models are not "the table", so you're not meeting the requirement of "placing your model anywhere on the table" now are you?

And the on the table dude strikes again.

agnosto wrote:

apwill4765 wrote:
Yes. and so it goes like this

1. Place Mawloc on enemy models
2. Roll Scatter
3. If hit, see mishap rules for mawloc, he still has not been placed, he has just mishapped.
4. oh wait, mawloc has special rules EXEMPTING HIM from normal mishap rules.



. . .So where is he breaking deepstrike rules? He isn't, get over it.

Yes, but enemy models are not "the table", so you're not meeting the requirement of "placing your model anywhere on the table" now are you?

And the on the table dude strikes again.

Look at the sequence again, I have placed them in order from first to last for your convenience. The model's final placement is not determined until after scatter is rolled. The rest works itself out.


EDIT: Also, impassable terrain (i.e. enemy models) are on the table. Or aren't they?

Apwill, what is the Deployment phase? I can't find it in the turn sequence at all.

Brother Ramses wrote:Apwill, what is the Deployment phase? I can't find it in the turn sequence at all.

Bro. Ramses, what does "anywhere" mean? Dictionary.com is down =*(

What is terrain?
Is it allowed to include paint, for example?
Is it not part of the gaming surface that is defined?


the issue is that "anywhere" is allowed in a specific catagory of placement.

apwill4765 wrote:

Look at the sequence again, I have placed them in order from first to last for your convenience. The model's final placement is not determined until after scatter is rolled. The rest works itself out.


EDIT: Also, impassable terrain (i.e. enemy models) are on the table. Or aren't they?

Deep strike sequence per RaW, pg 95:
"First place one model from the unit anywhere on the table...."
That's before scatter dice are rolled or anything else. So yeah, I get the sequence.

I don't classify models as terrain except where movement is concerned as that's spelled out in the book so in my mind terrain is part of the table; however, using logic, one may come to the conclusion that since models move, they're not part of the table.

Makes me long for the old days in fantasy when there was that one spell that let you drop a piece of terrain on an enemy unit; now THAT was fun!




Automatically Appended Next Post:

kirsanth wrote:What is terrain?
Is it allowed to include paint, for example?
Is it not part of the gaming surface that is defined?

Way to have fun with it!

We both know what they mean when they talk about the table and my models go home with me so they're not part of the table.

apwill4765 wrote:
Yes. and so it goes like this

1. Place Mawloc on enemy models
2. Roll Scatter
3. If hit, see mishap rules for mawloc, he still has not been placed, he has just mishapped.
4. oh wait, mawloc has special rules EXEMPTING HIM from normal mishap rules.



. . .So where is he breaking deepstrike rules? He isn't, get over it.

Okay so step one you place the MAwloc.

Already at step one there is a problem, since you are placing him. The two rules even use the same word "place".

You then tell us in point 3, that despite having already instructed us to place the model, that we have not placed it yet. This is quite overtly self-contradictory, and must be rejected.

When is anywhere not anywhere? When conditions/rules exist that limit the scope of anywhere which is listed in the Movement Phase section of the rulebook. The very same section that deep strike happens to take place.

Just for the record, LOS does affect close combat. LOS would dictate if you could shoot said unit you wish to charge and since there are rules that you can only assault that which you shoot, the unit you wish to assault would have also had to been in your LOS if you had shot at them.

Look, rules interacting with other rules.

Dracos wrote:

apwill4765 wrote:
Yes. and so it goes like this

1. Place Mawloc on enemy models
2. Roll Scatter
3. If hit, see mishap rules for mawloc, he still has not been placed, he has just mishapped.
4. oh wait, mawloc has special rules EXEMPTING HIM from normal mishap rules.



. . .So where is he breaking deepstrike rules? He isn't, get over it.

Okay so step one you place the MAwloc.

Already at step one there is a problem, since you are placing him. The two rules even use the same word "place".

You then tell us in point 3, that despite having already instructed us to place the model, that we have not placed it yet. This is quite overtly self-contradictory, and must be rejected.

No.... the model's final location is not determined until after scatter, at which point you roll on the mishap table. The initial placement is allowed "ANYWHERE ON THE TABLE".

Anywhere, means, anywhere

Dracos wrote:Okay so step one you place the MAwloc.

Already at step one there is a problem, since you are placing him. The two rules even use the same word "place".

But since terrain is disallowed, so is paint, flock, debris, felt, or anything that is not the table.

There is a problem with THIS reading.
Anywhere during DS = more specific than impassible terrain during placement.

apwill4765 wrote:

Dracos wrote:

apwill4765 wrote:
Yes. and so it goes like this

1. Place Mawloc on enemy models
2. Roll Scatter
3. If hit, see mishap rules for mawloc, he still has not been placed, he has just mishapped.
4. oh wait, mawloc has special rules EXEMPTING HIM from normal mishap rules.



. . .So where is he breaking deepstrike rules? He isn't, get over it.

Okay so step one you place the MAwloc.

Already at step one there is a problem, since you are placing him. The two rules even use the same word "place".

You then tell us in point 3, that despite having already instructed us to place the model, that we have not placed it yet. This is quite overtly self-contradictory, and must be rejected.

No.... the model's final location is not determined until after scatter, at which point you roll on the mishap table. The initial placement is allowed "ANYWHERE ON THE TABLE".

Anywhere, means, anywhere

Except on another model or within 1" of a model.

Brother Ramses wrote:When is anywhere not anywhere? When conditions/rules exist that limit the scope of anywhere which is listed in the Movement Phase section of the rulebook. The very same section that deep strike happens to take place.

Just for the record, LOS does affect close combat. LOS would dictate if you could shoot said unit you wish to charge and since there are rules that you can only assault that which you shoot, the unit you wish to assault would have also had to been in your LOS if you had shot at them.

Look, rules interacting with other rules.

That's a joke right? So, units without ranged weapons can never assault? Good to know, pesky- genestealers. You don't need LOS for assault, and assault is not affected AT ALL by LOS. As you said, SHOOTING is affected by line of sight.

And no, the scope is limited earlier and specifically discarded by deepstriking rules later on! the doesn't say "anywhere you can normally move". It says anywhere, and there's just no way around that.

Brother Ramses wrote:When is anywhere not anywhere? When conditions/rules exist that limit the scope of anywhere which is listed in the Movement Phase section of the rulebook. The very same section that deep strike happens to take place.

Just for the record, LOS does affect close combat. LOS would dictate if you could shoot said unit you wish to charge and since there are rules that you can only assault that which you shoot, the unit you wish to assault would have also had to been in your LOS if you had shot at them.

Look, rules interacting with other rules.

Actually that's only IF you shoot at them; you don't have to shoot to assault; however if the unit does shoot, and wants to assault, it must assault the unit it shot at.

I didn't see anything that says you have to have LOS to assault...though that would make sense because how could you assault something you can't see?

Brother Ramses wrote:

apwill4765 wrote:

Dracos wrote:

apwill4765 wrote:
Yes. and so it goes like this

1. Place Mawloc on enemy models
2. Roll Scatter
3. If hit, see mishap rules for mawloc, he still has not been placed, he has just mishapped.
4. oh wait, mawloc has special rules EXEMPTING HIM from normal mishap rules.



. . .So where is he breaking deepstrike rules? He isn't, get over it.

Okay so step one you place the MAwloc.

Already at step one there is a problem, since you are placing him. The two rules even use the same word "place".

You then tell us in point 3, that despite having already instructed us to place the model, that we have not placed it yet. This is quite overtly self-contradictory, and must be rejected.

No.... the model's final location is not determined until after scatter, at which point you roll on the mishap table. The initial placement is allowed "ANYWHERE ON THE TABLE".

Anywhere, means, anywhere

Except on another model or within 1" of a model.

Nope, sorry. It doesn't say that. It says "anywhere", and then "on the table", and then a period. I know you want it to really bad, but it doesn't.

apwill4765 wrote:

Anywhere, means, anywhere

Thanks for setting this up for me.... and on the table means, on the table...

I owe you 1 beer.

Edit, there really needs to be a beer smiley.... uhhhh, this is the closest thing I could find.

I am not saying that a unit that can't shoot can't assault or that a unit has to shoot to assault. I was only pointing out that rules in different sections interact unlike Apwill who thinks section rules are irrelevant to other rules.

Brother Ramses wrote:I am not saying that a unit that can't shoot can't assault or that a unit has to shoot to assault. I was only pointing out that rules in different sections interact unlike Apwill who thinks section rules are irrelevant to other rules.

How do they interact? The assault section says "units may only assault units that they shot at" (paraphrased). This is stated in the assault section, making it relevant to assaults.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

agnosto wrote:

apwill4765 wrote:

Anywhere, means, anywhere

Thanks for setting this up for me.... and on the table means, on the table...

I owe you 1 beer.

Edit, there really needs to be a beer smiley.... uhhhh, this is the closest thing I could find.

A trophy will do =D as I'm pretty sure this will be FAQ'ed my way. But yea, your models are on the table aren't they?

apwill4765 wrote:

Brother Ramses wrote:

apwill4765 wrote:

Dracos wrote:

apwill4765 wrote:
Yes. and so it goes like this

1. Place Mawloc on enemy models
2. Roll Scatter
3. If hit, see mishap rules for mawloc, he still has not been placed, he has just mishapped.
4. oh wait, mawloc has special rules EXEMPTING HIM from normal mishap rules.



. . .So where is he breaking deepstrike rules? He isn't, get over it.

Okay so step one you place the MAwloc.

Already at step one there is a problem, since you are placing him. The two rules even use the same word "place".

You then tell us in point 3, that despite having already instructed us to place the model, that we have not placed it yet. This is quite overtly self-contradictory, and must be rejected.

No.... the model's final location is not determined until after scatter, at which point you roll on the mishap table. The initial placement is allowed "ANYWHERE ON THE TABLE".

Anywhere, means, anywhere

Except on another model or within 1" of a model.

Nope, sorry. It doesn't say that. It says "anywhere", and then "on the table", and then a period. I know you want it to really bad, but it doesn't.

How about following the path of the rule instead of bogging down on the Deep Strike section.

1. Deep Strike section tells you to follow Reserve Rules to determine arrival of deep striking units.
2. Reserves rule tells you how to deep strike and when, during the Movement phase.
3. Movement phase instructs you that you cannot move to touch an enemy model or move within 1" of them unless it is the Assault phase.

That sequence is from the book, not me just blowing smoke here. As much as you want to stop at ANYWHERE in the Deep Strike section, you still have to continue to the Reserves rule and then the Movement phase which specifically defines ANYWHERE.

apwill4765 wrote:

A trophy will do =D as I'm pretty sure this will be FAQ'ed my way. But yea, your models are on the table aren't they?

There's always two sides to every discussion and both are equally valid until one is proven wrong.

My model is on the table; however, if you place your model on mine, your model is not sharing the table space, it's sitting on my model. That's like saying that me standing next to Bill Gates makes me a rich guy (I wish).

Anywho, it's been fun, folks; I'm off ta bed. Have a good evening.

I don't feel like arguing it out here, but I will say that at my stores, and at the tournaments I run, I do not allow deepstriking units to be placed on top of impassable terrain, and count models as impassable. So Mawlocs cannot be placed on top of enemy units.

Brother Ramses wrote:

apwill4765 wrote:

Brother Ramses wrote:

apwill4765 wrote:

Dracos wrote:

apwill4765 wrote:
Yes. and so it goes like this

1. Place Mawloc on enemy models
2. Roll Scatter
3. If hit, see mishap rules for mawloc, he still has not been placed, he has just mishapped.
4. oh wait, mawloc has special rules EXEMPTING HIM from normal mishap rules.



. . .So where is he breaking deepstrike rules? He isn't, get over it.

Okay so step one you place the MAwloc.

Already at step one there is a problem, since you are placing him. The two rules even use the same word "place".

You then tell us in point 3, that despite having already instructed us to place the model, that we have not placed it yet. This is quite overtly self-contradictory, and must be rejected.

No.... the model's final location is not determined until after scatter, at which point you roll on the mishap table. The initial placement is allowed "ANYWHERE ON THE TABLE".

Anywhere, means, anywhere

Except on another model or within 1" of a model.

Nope, sorry. It doesn't say that. It says "anywhere", and then "on the table", and then a period. I know you want it to really bad, but it doesn't.

How about following the path of the rule instead of bogging down on the Deep Strike section.

1. Deep Strike section tells you to follow Reserve Rules to determine arrival of deep striking units.
2. Reserves rule tells you how to deep strike and when, during the Movement phase.
3. Movement phase instructs you that you cannot move to touch an enemy model or move within 1" of them unless it is the Assault phase.

That sequence is from the book, not me just blowing smoke here. As much as you want to stop at ANYWHERE in the Deep Strike section, you still have to continue to the Reserves rule and then the Movement phase which specifically defines ANYWHERE.

Yea, why get bogged down by the deepstrike section of the rules when we are talking about deepstriking? /boggle.

The deepstrike rules say refer to reserve rules for determining the ARRIVAL of these units. This only applies to rolling for whether they come in on a certain term (4+ turn 2, 3+ turn 3 etc). After that, you follow the deepstrike rules for deepstriking. Crazy thought, I know.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

agnosto wrote:

apwill4765 wrote:

A trophy will do =D as I'm pretty sure this will be FAQ'ed my way. But yea, your models are on the table aren't they?

There's always two sides to every discussion and both are equally valid until one is proven wrong.

My model is on the table; however, if you place your model on mine, your model is not sharing the table space, it's sitting on my model. That's like saying that me standing next to Bill Gates makes me a rich guy (I wish).

Anywho, it's been fun, folks; I'm off ta bed. Have a good evening.

So if your models are on the bottom floor of ruins, and my models deepstrike on the next floor up, directly above, my models aren't on the table? odd..

mikhaila wrote:I don't feel like arguing it out here, but I will say that at my stores, and at the tournaments I run, I do not allow deepstriking units to be placed on top of impassable terrain, and count models as impassable. So Mawlocs cannot be placed on top of enemy units.

good show. I believe raw agrees with you. I have not seen a single cogent reason to dismiss the rule found on p.14.

mikhaila wrote:I don't feel like arguing it out here, but I will say that at my stores, and at the tournaments I run, I do not allow deepstriking units to be placed on top of impassable terrain, and count models as impassable. So Mawlocs cannot be placed on top of enemy units.

Why do the Mawlocs even have this rule then? Just in case they accidentally deepstrike onto a unit? That is the silliest thing I've ever heard of, and it would happen so infrequently that the mawloc is worthless once he gets on the table. Just take a trygon for the 95/100 times he WONT land enemy units.

When someone says terrain is not "on the table" I wonder where their models move.

apwill4765 wrote:

So if your models are on the bottom floor of ruins, and my models deepstrike on the next floor up, directly above, my models aren't on the table? odd..

You know you can't deep strike into a building and you can only deep strike onto the ground floor of ruins (page 95).

Now quit sucking me back into the discussion; the wife's making exaggerated yawning noises signaling my 2nd bedtime warning.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

apwill4765 wrote:

mikhaila wrote:I don't feel like arguing it out here, but I will say that at my stores, and at the tournaments I run, I do not allow deepstriking units to be placed on top of impassable terrain, and count models as impassable. So Mawlocs cannot be placed on top of enemy units.

Why do the Mawlocs even have this rule then? Just in case they accidentally deepstrike onto a unit? That is the silliest thing I've ever heard of, and it would happen so infrequently that the mawloc is worthless once he gets on the table. Just take a trygon for the 95/100 times he WONT land enemy units.

Place it next to a unit, you've still got a 1 in 6 chance for a "hit" and odds are favorable at hitting the unit anyway.

agnosto wrote:

apwill4765 wrote:

So if your models are on the bottom floor of ruins, and my models deepstrike on the next floor up, directly above, my models aren't on the table? odd..

You know you can't deep strike into a building and you can only deep strike onto the ground floor of ruins (page 95).

Now quit sucking me back into the discussion; the wife's making exaggerated yawning noises signaling my 2nd bedtime warning.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

apwill4765 wrote:

mikhaila wrote:I don't feel like arguing it out here, but I will say that at my stores, and at the tournaments I run, I do not allow deepstriking units to be placed on top of impassable terrain, and count models as impassable. So Mawlocs cannot be placed on top of enemy units.

Why do the Mawlocs even have this rule then? Just in case they accidentally deepstrike onto a unit? That is the silliest thing I've ever heard of, and it would happen so infrequently that the mawloc is worthless once he gets on the table. Just take a trygon for the 95/100 times he WONT land enemy units.

Place it next to a unit, you've still got a 1 in 6 chance for a "hit" and odds are favorable at hitting the unit anyway.

EDIT: whoah, something really screwed up this post.

kirsanth wrote:When someone says terrain is not "on the table" I wonder where their models move.

It's an easy use of logic to arrive at the conclusion of terrain being part of the table and models being treated as terrain. Who said terrain is not on the table? I said that puting your model on my model does not mean that your model is on the table as my model is not a piece of terrain it's just treated as terrain in reference to movement.

Now, if I had a unit that was a roving hillock or something we'd have to talk about it.

apwill4765 wrote:Please see my above argument. What does ANYWHERE mean insaniak? That is specifically where the deepstrike rules say a model may be placed.

We both know what 'anywhere' means.

The problem is, as I pointed out before, that there are two conflicting rules... which forces you to obey them both.

Does it have to say "anywhere, including clear, difficult, dangerous, and impassable"?

No... but it does need to specifically mention impassable terrain in order to over-ride the pre-existing rule forbidding placement into it.


If you had an open table, with no scenery on it, you would just follow the Deep Strike rules by themselves. In other words, you would place your model anywhere on the table.

Because different terrain types have different rules, we are forced to modify the Deep Strike rule when those terrain types are brought into play.

So the Deep Strike rule says that the model can be placed anywhere. However, if you attempt to place the model into Impassable terrain, any rule regarding placing models in impassable terrain automatically kicks in... because the situation currently in progress specifically involves impassable terrain.

The rule applying to that specific piece of terrain takes precedence over a rule applying to the entire board. Because it is more specific, and because it doesn't specifically over-ride the terrain rule. The best it can do without specifically over-riding the other rule is exist in tandem with it... and that means you have to follow them both.

And when you have to follow two rules, with one that allows something and one that denies that same thing, the only way to break neither is to not do that particular thing. In this case, that means no Deep Striking into impassable terrain.


To be honest, I think I've explained this about as many different ways as I can, so I'm going to bow out at this point. You are, of course, still welcome to disagree, but I see no way of getting around the impassable terrain rule in this particular instance.

Actually, the Mawloc doesn't have to scatter at all if you sneak in a Lictor/Lictor Brood/Deathleaper with Pheromone Trail within 6" from your intended target

Lictors start in reserve but can be placed anywhere on the battlefield so long as they are 1" away from an enemy model. They cannot use the positioning within 6" in the turn they arrive, but every turn after that. So technically as long as the Lictor is alive, the Mawloc can use Burrow to repeat a targetted Terror From the Deep attack in two to four turns if the game or the Lictor last that long.

I know this doesn't address the issue being discussed directly, but it's a point to consider in the discussion IMHO.

Cheers!

insaniak wrote:

apwill4765 wrote:Please see my above argument. What does ANYWHERE mean insaniak? That is specifically where the deepstrike rules say a model may be placed.

We both know what 'anywhere' means.

The problem is, as I pointed out before, that there are two conflicting rules... which forces you to obey them both.

Does it have to say "anywhere, including clear, difficult, dangerous, and impassable"?

No... but it does need to specifically mention impassable terrain in order to over-ride the pre-existing rule forbidding placement into it.


If you had an open table, with no scenery on it, you would just follow the Deep Strike rules by themselves. In other words, you would place your model anywhere on the table.

Because different terrain types have different rules, we are forced to modify the Deep Strike rule when those terrain types are brought into play.

So the Deep Strike rule says that the model can be placed anywhere. However, if you attempt to place the model into Impassable terrain, any rule regarding placing models in impassable terrain automatically kicks in... because the situation currently in progress specifically involves impassable terrain.

The rule applying to that specific piece of terrain takes precedence over a rule applying to the entire board. Because it is more specific, and because it doesn't specifically over-ride the terrain rule. The best it can do without specifically over-riding the other rule is exist in tandem with it... and that means you have to follow them both.

And when you have to follow two rules, with one that allows something and one that denies that same thing, the only way to break neither is to not do that particular thing. In this case, that means no Deep Striking into impassable terrain.


To be honest, I think I've explained this about as many different ways as I can, so I'm going to bow out at this point. You are, of course, still welcome to disagree, but I see no way of getting around the impassable terrain rule in this particular instance.

Yea, I'm done arguing too. But the rule for placing in impassable terrain during DEEPSTRIKE specifically references DEEPSTRIKE rules, not the other way around. you essentially said specific overrides general, and then used a general rule to override a specific one. Anywhere is very clear.

You would be right if it said "place the unit on the table". Then it would have to follow placement rules for impassable terrain. But it SPECIFICALLY says that the unit may be placed "anywhere", which overrides the more general placement rules.

OK, now I'm done arguing lol.

Specific overrides general anywhere is a general term, not in impassible terrain is a specific term. You are looking at where you can place the model so the when of at all times compared to when DSing is irrelevant it is the words concerning where that matter.

This has been covered. By RaW you can place your model within 1" of the enemy (no rule forbidding) but not on top of them or in any impassible terrain. This is prohibited by the rule on pg 14 and not overriden by a more specific rule in this instance.

If I was asked what the actual rules are then it is obvious you can place the Mawloc where ever you want including on top of that unit of Terminators and that is certainly how I'd play it and I imagine will be the most common ruling in any Tournaments.

FlingitNow wrote:Specific overrides general anywhere is a general term, not in impassible terrain is a specific term. You are looking at where you can place the model so the when of at all times compared to when DSing is irrelevant it is the words concerning where that matter.

This has been covered. By RaW you can place your model within 1" of the enemy (no rule forbidding) but not on top of them or in any impassible terrain. This is prohibited by the rule on pg 14 and not overriden by a more specific rule in this instance.

If I was asked what the actual rules are then it is obvious you can place the Mawloc where ever you want including on top of that unit of Terminators and that is certainly how I'd play it and I imagine will be the most common ruling in any Tournaments.

You are wrong. By R.A.W. the model can be placed anywhere. Your argument is fine, but it isn't R.A.W. Stop dragging me back in and wait for the FAQ.

apwill4765 wrote:Stop dragging me back in and wait for the FAQ.

Gwar! wrote:

apwill4765 wrote:Stop dragging me back in and wait for the FAQ.

Ooop, sorry, I mean, wait for GW to confirm GWAR!'s FAQ

"model can be placed anywhere" - general rule stating anywhere is OK

"model may not be placed in impassable terrain" - specific rule stating you may not do something.

"Anywhere" cannot override the specific prohibition, unless it mentions it. You CANNOT, RAW, place on top of another model during DS.

If you want to know what specific means, look at the Stubborn USR, or at the debates on WBB vs SA - WBB is not more specific than SA, even though WBB is specific to one race and SA applies to all races.

nosferatu1001 wrote:"model can be placed anywhere" - general rule stating anywhere is OK

"model may not be placed in impassable terrain" - specific rule stating you may not do something.

"Anywhere" cannot override the specific prohibition, unless it mentions it. You CANNOT, RAW, place on top of another model during DS.

If you want to know what specific means, look at the Stubborn USR, or at the debates on WBB vs SA - WBB is not more specific than SA, even though WBB is specific to one race and SA applies to all races.

. . .No.

General: Models may be placed on the table.

Specific: Models may not be placed in impassable terrain unless otherwise specified.

even MORE specific!!!!!!: Deepstriking units may be placed ANYWHERE on the table.




Is anywhere really that tough a concept, or are you guys just reallllly against losing models? Guys, it's the Mawloc's special rule, the only thing that sets it apart from the Trygon in a good way. It is cheesy and silly to try to take it away by purposefully misinterpreting the BRB.

I believe this thread can be locked now, as it has come down to "anywhere means anywhere!" and "anywhere means anywhere but impassable terrain!"

Apwil - no, it is not more specific. Insaniak has explained this to you to no avail, and I have even given you references as to what GW MEAN by the term "specific" just to give you an idea.

ANYWHERE still does not override "NOT" as it does not override the specific prohibition.

AS I explained, just because a rule applies to everyone (SA) does not make it a less epcific rule than one that applies to just a single race (WBB) - your argument *entirely* rests on pretending that, just because a rule appears only in DS, that it must somehow be more specific than any other rule outside of this section. Unfortunately that is not correct.

Is anywhere really that tough a concept, or are you guys just reallllly against losing models? Guys, it's the Mawloc's special rule, the only thing that sets it apart from the Trygon in a good way. It is cheesy and silly to try to take it away by purposefully misinterpreting the BRB.

I believe this thread can be locked now, as it has come down to "anywhere means anywhere!" and "anywhere means anywhere but impassable terrain!"

Is specific really that tough a concept? This has been explained to you, so you are either just ignoring peoples posts, arguing for the sake of it or to stupid to understand plain English.

No it has come down to "anywhere" is a specific term because I said so versus "anywhere" is a very general term if fact I'd find it difficult to find a more general term.

Also the rubbish about us being so worried about losing models when most of us have said how you play it is that you can place the model anywhere but the RaW is not on top of other models. That is a definite as has been illustrated on this thread.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Apwil - no, it is not more specific. Insaniak has explained this to you to no avail, and I have even given you references as to what GW MEAN by the term "specific" just to give you an idea.

ANYWHERE still does not override "NOT" as it does not override the specific prohibition.

AS I explained, just because a rule applies to everyone (SA) does not make it a less epcific rule than one that applies to just a single race (WBB) - your argument *entirely* rests on pretending that, just because a rule appears only in DS, that it must somehow be more specific than any other rule outside of this section. Unfortunately that is not correct.

K, I have broken this down several times into the simplest possible terms, and still you don't get it I guess. I can't make any simpler sadly, so I'll restate one more time and then I am out.

saying a model may be placed anywhere on the table is a very specific thing. The beginning of the book states that a model may not move into impassable terrain. This is a movement phase restriction.

The deepstrike rules say that the model may be placed anywhere. It does not say anywhere (including). Because it doesn't need to. Because anywhere means anywhere (including outside your deployment zone, in the enemy's deployment zone, in difficult terrain, in impassable terrain, etc etc).

By your logic, since deepstriking is a deployment, and the book specifically restricts to the deployment zone as per a specific mission, then you can't deepstrike out of that zone, because the deepstrike doesn't specifically override the deployment zones, only the rule for placing the model.

It's a silly, incorrect argument, and I'm tired of being trolled.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

FlingitNow wrote:

Is anywhere really that tough a concept, or are you guys just reallllly against losing models? Guys, it's the Mawloc's special rule, the only thing that sets it apart from the Trygon in a good way. It is cheesy and silly to try to take it away by purposefully misinterpreting the BRB.

I believe this thread can be locked now, as it has come down to "anywhere means anywhere!" and "anywhere means anywhere but impassable terrain!"

Is specific really that tough a concept? This has been explained to you, so you are either just ignoring peoples posts, arguing for the sake of it or to stupid to understand plain English.

No it has come down to "anywhere" is a specific term because I said so versus "anywhere" is a very general term if fact I'd find it difficult to find a more general term.

Also the rubbish about us being so worried about losing models when most of us have said how you play it is that you can place the model anywhere but the RaW is not on top of other models. That is a definite as has been illustrated on this thread.

k bud, now that you have resorted to personal attacks, it is probably time to wait for the FAQ to tell you you're wrong. Anywhere is a general term. Very good. One word in the sentence. The rule DESCRIBED BY THE WHOLE SENTENCE specifically overrides the normal movement rules. bye.

saying a model may be placed anywhere on the table is a very specific thing.

No it is not it is a general thing.

The beginning of the book states that a model may not move into impassable terrain. This is a movement phase restriction.

It also specifically states they can not be placed in impassible terrain either.

The deepstrike rules say that the model may be placed anywhere. It does not say anywhere (including). Because it doesn't need to.

Which is more specific the entire battle field or impassible terrain? It does need to say including impassible to terrain if it is to override this specific rule.

By your logic, since deepstriking is a deployment, and the book specifically restricts to the deployment zone as per a specific mission

Just plain wrong DS is movement not deployment. No where in the rules is DS ever refered to as deployment it is however refered to as movement.

then you can't deepstrike out of that zone, because the deepstrike doesn't specifically override the deployment zones, only the rule for placing the model.

If DSing was deployment this would be correct fortunatley it is not.

It's a silly, incorrect argument

Yes it is so why persist with it?

it is probably time to wait for the FAQ to tell you you're wrong.

It can't possibly tell me I'm wrong wihtout telling you that you are wrong. The FAQ deals with RaI not RaW, I've admitted serveral times that RaI is that it can be placed anywhere even in the post you are quoting. What is your problem? The FAQ doesn't change what RaW was before the FAQ was released. RaW is very clear on this you can not place models in impassible terrain.

Sigh, personal attacks not good apwil.

No, anywhere is not a specific term, it is a general term, IN RELATION TO the specific prohibition of not placing the model in impassable terrain.

You should perhaps explain WBB vs SA, no doubt your version has WBB working against it?

FlingitNow wrote:

saying a model may be placed anywhere on the table is a very specific thing.

No it is not it is a general thing.

The beginning of the book states that a model may not move into impassable terrain. This is a movement phase restriction.

It also specifically states they can not be placed in impassible terrain either.

The deepstrike rules say that the model may be placed anywhere. It does not say anywhere (including). Because it doesn't need to.

Which is more specific the entire battle field or impassible terrain? It does need to say including impassible to terrain if it is to override this specific rule.

By your logic, since deepstriking is a deployment, and the book specifically restricts to the deployment zone as per a specific mission

Just plain wrong DS is movement not deployment. No where in the rules is DS ever refered to as deployment it is however refered to as movement.

then you can't deepstrike out of that zone, because the deepstrike doesn't specifically override the deployment zones, only the rule for placing the model.

If DSing was deployment this would be correct fortunatley it is not.

It's a silly, incorrect argument

Yes it is so why persist with it?

it is probably time to wait for the FAQ to tell you you're wrong.

It can't possibly tell me I'm wrong wihtout telling you that you are wrong. The FAQ deals with RaI not RaW, I've admitted serveral times that RaI is that it can be placed anywhere even in the post you are quoting. What is your problem? The FAQ doesn't change what RaW was before the FAQ was released. RaW is very clear on this you can not place models in impassible terrain.

Damn my argumentative nature. OK, one more time:

brb, pg 95, DEEPSTRIKING:

"roll for the arrival of these units as specified in the rules for reserves and then DEPLOY them as follows".

Of course, anywhere doesn't mean anywhere, so maybe deploy doesn't mean deploy.

Enlighten me.

R.A.W. you are wrong, period. Impassable terrain is a more specific location, but you are dense if you can't tell the difference between a location and a rule. Anywhere is a specific override to the movement rules, it happens to specifically override impassable terrain and on top of other models. Durp.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Sigh, personal attacks not good apwil.

No, anywhere is not a specific term, it is a general term, IN RELATION TO the specific prohibition of not placing the model in impassable terrain.

You should perhaps explain WBB vs SA, no doubt your version has WBB working against it?

No! the prohibition to impassable terrain is GENERAL, in fact, it specifically says there may be exceptions that allow placement into impassable terrain!

I called your argument silly an incorrect, I didn't attack you. Actually, flingitnow attacked me, so.. .. yea. I'm done.

FlingitNow wrote:Just plain wrong DS is movement not deployment. No where in the rules is DS ever refered to as deployment it is however refered to as movement.

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

Deep Strike is deployment.

FlingitNow wrote:If DSing was deployment this would be correct fortunatley it is not.

Since Deep Strike is deployment and doesn't carry explicit permission to deploy outside a deployment zone, I guess it's kind of useless?

Deploy /= DeployMENT. Two different terms.

Again, Apwil explain how your version doesnt make WBB work against SA? After all your overly simplistic argument means that WBB is more specific than SA.

APwil - please llook at what GW mean by "specific" - JI and impassable terrain, for example. In order to override the prohibition against being placed in impassable terrain JI are *specifically* allowed to land in impassable terrain.

Hint: anywhere is a general term relative to the specific term "may not place in impassable terrain unless otherwise specified" - anywhere is not a specific term. it really, really isn't.

So my question is if enemy models count as impassible terrain, and even if the Mawloc scattered into a sqaud of troops and did his special rule. He still couldnt be placed on the table since its impassible terrain. So does this mean the Mawloc dies? or does it stop short of the squad? Or does the squad move? What rules would support this?

broxus wrote:So my question is if enemy models count as impassible terrain, and even if the Mawloc scattered into a sqaud of troops and did his special rule.

The Mawlocs rule text will move them out of the way.

broxus wrote:So my question is if enemy models count as impassible terrain, and even if the Mawloc scattered into a sqaud of troops and did his special rule. He still couldnt be placed on the table since its impassible terrain. So does this mean the Mawloc dies? or does it stop short of the squad? Or does the squad move? What rules would support this?

The specific rules for the mawloc which tell you what to do in the event you scatter nito models.

what do the rules state exactly for it?

Damn my argumentative nature. OK, one more time:

brb, pg 95, DEEPSTRIKING:

"roll for the arrival of these units as specified in the rules for reserves and then DEPLOY them as follows".

Of course, anywhere doesn't mean anywhere, so maybe deploy doesn't mean deploy.

Deploy doesn't necessarily mean this is deployment. Deployment happens precisely once in a game and that is before the game starts in the deployment pahse.

DSing is movement as it is refered to as such and happens in the movement phase.

In fact I can't be bother Nosferatu is right on the RaW as he basically always is. What is specific and what isn't has been covered not only by us but by a Mod. Repeating that anywhere is a specific term ad nauseum won't make it so, it is a general term. The specific term is not impassible terrain.

How you can beleive anywhere on the battlefield is more specific than only impassible terrain is beyond me. I really don't see how you can keep saying this.

Claiming DS is more specific than at all times is an irrelevance since we are talking about where not when. DS is more specific on when impassible terrain is more specific about where. If this was an argument about when you could place the models you'd be of course right, since we are talking about where that is not relevant. Please stick to points that are relevant.

FlingitNow wrote:How you can beleive anywhere on the battlefield is more specific than only impassible terrain is beyond me. I really don't see how you can keep saying this.

Claiming DS is more specific than at all times is an irrelevance since we are talking about where not when. DS is more specific on when impassible terrain is more specific about where. If this was an argument about when you could place the models you'd be of course right, since we are talking about where that is not relevant. Please stick to points that are relevant.

Impassable terrain and moving in and through it is a general rule.

Deep Strike is a special rule, and as such more specific than the general rule. It therefore overrules that general rule.

Deep Strike specifies that you 'deploy them as follows' and 'place a model from the unit anywhere on the table'. It makes no mention of terrain restrictions when it instructs you on how to deploy a deep striking unit, only that if they deploy into impassable terrain they will suffer a mishap. Note that the Misplaced result on the Deep Strike Mishap Table does contain a restriction on aiming into impassable terrain, while the regular Deep Strike rules do not.