Just wondering what happens when a player puts one or more units in regular reserve (walk in from board edge), but on the turn they come in, the board edge is blocked off by enemy units? Are they destroyed or do they go into ongoing reserves?

BRB doesn't say, and FAQ does not clarify. (if they do, I can't find it.)

How did your enemy manage this? oO

I don't think that there's a specific rule, but in all other cases the other similiar cases (deepstrike, forced disembarging) the unit counts as destroyed.

It was in a game that I observed. It was Tau vs. Ravenwing. The DA player went first, Tau player deployed, but kept his 4 FW squads (one carrying his Ethereal) in reserve. DA player scouted 12, moved 12, opened fired and broke a lot of stuff, and on Turn 2, moved everyone 12 and perfectly lined them up against the Tau player's board edge, so when the Tau player's turn 2 came along and he rolled for reserves, they had nowhere to come in on, and we all looked through the BRB and the FAQ and it didn't say what happens in that situation...

I vote Tau units die as that's just simply good strategy by the DAs lol.

There is nothing in the rules to describe what to do. If the Tau units were not able to be legally placed they can't come on but what happens to the unit next is completely unclear.

HIWPI is that they remain in ongoing reserves until the game is over or the DA move one model enough to get the unit onto the board.

I find this rather funny. The flip of this happened years ago at a tournament where a White Scars player had all of his bikes in reserves coming in from his own board edge. The Tau player deployed his kroot along his opponents board edge and because they could not be deployed from reserves they died.

funny stuff to hear it happen the other way around.

 liturgies of blood wrote:
There is nothing in the rules to describe what to do. If the Tau units were not able to be legally placed they can't come on but what happens to the unit next is completely unclear.

HIWPI is that they remain in ongoing reserves until the game is over or the DA move one model enough to get the unit onto the board.

This as well... unless it happens to get FAQ'd. No rules state this, but saying they die just sounds a bit harsh for 1/2 an army.

Wow. This would be one of those extremely rare events that a game designer would have a hard time to predict. Eventually, the Ravenwing would be dislodged, as the Tau player had not been tabled, so there were still threats on the board.

I'm not sure how I'd play that, probably flip for it.

It's not hard to predict - it happened in 5th edition and they FAQed them all to be destroyed. To me, that's precedent enough to call them all dead.

I thought it was FAQ'ed that if a unit cannot make it completely onto the table the turn it arrives from reserve it's destroyed?

SoloFalcon1138 wrote:Wow. This would be one of those extremely rare events that a game designer would have a hard time to predict.

Not that hard a time, given that it's been an issue for at least 3 editions now...

LUTNIT wrote:I thought it was FAQ'ed that if a unit cannot make it completely onto the table the turn it arrives from reserve it's destroyed?

They FAQ'd it last edition. Like the issue with infiltrating ICs with units, for some inexplicable reason they decided not to address it this edition.

The precedent from last edition would suggest that they die.

(Although it's worth pointing out that the issue is only if a unit can't move onto the board at all. They did address what happens when a unit has insufficient movement to move all the way on in the core rules this time around, which means that in 6th edition Baneblades can legally move onto the table )

They actually get to move on as normal.

The rules state that "Each model's move is measured from the edge of the battlefield, as if they had been positioned just off the board in the previous turn and moved as normal." (124)

They are already within 1 inch of an enemy model on the edge, so they can move to get clear of them by moving past them unless there is not any space between the models bases for the arriving unit to move between.

Basically it is the same situation as a unit that assaulted a vehicle. The vehicle still can move away from the unit that is within one inch of the vehicle as models are only disallowed from moving closer than 1 inch of a model. If the model is already within an inch it is free to move in its movement phase.

 DeathReaper wrote:
They actually get to move on as normal.

The rules state that "Each model's move is measured from the edge of the battlefield, as if they had been positioned just off the board in the previous turn and moved as normal." (124)

They are already within 1 inch of an enemy model on the edge, so they can move to get clear of them by moving past them unless there is not any space between the models bases for the arriving unit to move between.

Basically it is the same situation as a unit that assaulted a vehicle. The vehicle still can move away from the unit that is within one inch of the vehicle as models are only disallowed from moving closer than 1 inch of a model. If the model is already within an inch it is free to move in its movement phase.

So if I leave 1" of space between my models and the board edge they'd be destroyed, but lining it perfectly allows them to intermingle with my unit and move on?

It seems that way due to the way vehicles can move if they are in base contact, shouldn't infantry models are able to move as well?

 DeathReaper wrote:
It seems that way due to the way vehicles can move if they are in base contact, shouldn't infantry models are able to move as well?

Do infantry models have permission?
I see where vehicles have it (the whole not being locked in combat thing... which has literally nothing to do with this situation).

Wouldn't this apply here?

"If for some reason a model's maximum move is insufficient to fit the entire model onto the board, or it becomes Immobilized itself whilst moving onto the board, place the model so that its rear end is touching the board edge - the model cannot move further during the Movement phase, nor may it shoot, Run or move Flat Out."

"If for some reason..." seems to apply to anything and every thing that could prevent a model from fully entering the board, including intervening enemy models.

And... if you can't place it because it literally can't fit?

No, that rule has 2 cases where it occurs and you quoted them both.

Yeah, it's not a matter of the model's movement being insufficient if there is just no available board edge for it to move through.

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
It seems that way due to the way vehicles can move if they are in base contact, shouldn't infantry models are able to move as well?

Do infantry models have permission?
I see where vehicles have it (the whole not being locked in combat thing... which has literally nothing to do with this situation).

I will draw a similar situation.

An infantry unit loses combat, is not swept and moves 2 inches in its fall back move. The enemy, is in a U shape around them and most of the falling back models could not make it to outside of 1 inch. These models regroup, can they move since they started within one inch of an enemy model?

 DeathReaper wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
It seems that way due to the way vehicles can move if they are in base contact, shouldn't infantry models are able to move as well?

Do infantry models have permission?
I see where vehicles have it (the whole not being locked in combat thing... which has literally nothing to do with this situation).

I will draw a similar situation.

An infantry unit loses combat, is not swept and moves 2 inches in its fall back move. The enemy, is in a U shape around them and most of the falling back models could not make it to outside of 1 inch. These models regroup, can they move since they started within one inch of an enemy model?

It's not a similar situation.
And I'd say no - by moving at all you're moving within 1" of an enemy model which is illegal.

"A model cannot move within 1" of an enemy model unless they are charging into close combat in the Assault phase. To move past, they must go around."(10)

This only restricts you if you are not already within 1 inch, hence the "To move past, they must go around." wording. If you start within 1 inch you are already within 1 inch and you move normally as you are only restricted from moving to within an inch of an enemy.

An infantry unit loses combat, is not swept and moves 2 inches in its fall back move. The enemy, is in a U shape around them and most of the falling back models could not make it to outside of 1 inch. These models regroup, can they move since they started within one inch of an enemy model?

This would not happen. Pg 30 BRB. "if any models would end their move less than 1" from one of these enemies, extend the fall back move until they are clear.

So there should be no instances where a model starts its movement turn within 1" of an enemy model that isn't a vehicle or they are locked in combat.

We have had this happen at our local club and decided that they went into ongoing reserve. Like they were waiting off the board edge for the enemy to gak position. This made the battle a bit more fun, with someone trying not to be tabled and open a gap in the enemy line at the same time.

 DeathReaper wrote:
"A model cannot move within 1" of an enemy model unless they are charging into close combat in the Assault phase. To move past, they must go around."(10)

This only restricts you if you are not already within 1 inch, hence the "To move past, they must go around." wording. If you start within 1 inch you are already within 1 inch and you move normally as you are only restricted from moving to within an inch of an enemy.

You seem to be missing the huge part about there being nowhere to move. Starting within an inch still doesn't give models a license to (a) move even closer to their enemies nor (b) move through them. You are making leaps and assumptions here at best.

DOOMONYOU wrote:

An infantry unit loses combat, is not swept and moves 2 inches in its fall back move. The enemy, is in a U shape around them and most of the falling back models could not make it to outside of 1 inch. These models regroup, can they move since they started within one inch of an enemy model?

This would not happen. Pg 30 BRB. "if any models would end their move less than 1" from one of these enemies, extend the fall back move until they are clear.

So there should be no instances where a model starts its movement turn within 1" of an enemy model that isn't a vehicle or they are locked in combat.

We have had this happen at our local club and decided that they went into ongoing reserve. Like they were waiting off the board edge for the enemy to gak position. This made the battle a bit more fun, with someone trying not to be tabled and open a gap in the enemy line at the same time.

There are instances where a model starts its movement turn within 1" of an enemy model that isn't a vehicle or they are locked in combat.

Can the unit in base contact with the vehicle in the subsequent movement phase move?

Here is a different situation where this can happen: one unit charges a single unit, but the enemy has two units intermingled as such:

The X is the Charging unit, the A us the enemy unit that is being charged, B is the enemy unit that is not being charged.

A...B...A...B...A...B...A...B...A...B...A...B...A...B...A...B...A...B...




X.....X.....X.....X.....X.....X.....X.....X.....X

Unit X charges Unit A, but does not assault unit B, so they move into base contact with only unit A and end up like this:

A...B...A...B...A...B...A...B...A...B...A...B...A...B...A...B...A...B...
X.........X........X.........X.........X.........X........X.........X.........X

Assume all X models are in unit coherency and not in base contact with unit B.

Unit X completely destroys Unit A and uses no models, but does not want to consolidate so they remain where they are.

In Unit B's movement phase they are allowed to move up to 6 inches so they move as normal as they are not moving within one inch of an enemy unit, they are already within 1 inch and can move away freely.

Vehicles do not have a specific allowance to move when in base contact with an enemy unit that assaulted it, but it does hint that movement is possible through the normal rules.

 Godless-Mimicry wrote:
You seem to be missing the huge part about there being nowhere to move. Starting within an inch still doesn't give models a license to (a) move even closer to their enemies nor (b) move through them. You are making leaps and assumptions here at best.

There is somewhere to move, between the models that are lining the board edge.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Godless-Mimicry wrote:
You seem to be missing the huge part about there being nowhere to move. Starting within an inch still doesn't give models a license to (a) move even closer to their enemies nor (b) move through them. You are making leaps and assumptions here at best.

There is somewhere to move, between the models that are lining the board edge.

Again you are overlooking the obvious flaw in your argument here. Between the models is not a place to move because it is illegal. As I said already, just because you are already within 1" of an enemy doesn't give you license to break further rules. You keep saying move between them over and over but have yet to back it up, so I ask, quote where in the rulebook it says if you are within 1" of an enemy you can move even further or into base contact in order to pass them by.

Can the unit in base contact with the vehicle in the subsequent movement phase move?

Vehicle (except walkers of course) are not locked in combat so the unit can move away

Here is a different situation where this can happen

Has that actually happened to you?

 DeathReaper wrote:


A...B...A...B...A...B...A...B...A...B...A...B...A...B...A...B...A...B...




X.....X.....X.....X.....X.....X.....X.....X.....X

Unit X charges Unit A, but does not assault unit B, so they move into base contact with only unit A and end up like this:

A...B...A...B...A...B...A...B...A...B...A...B...A...B...A...B...A...B...
X.........X........X.........X.........X.........X........X.........X.........X

You can't place models like this. The A B unit would intermingle which isn't allowed.

There is no rule forbidding units from intermingling.

 Godless-Mimicry wrote:
Again you are overlooking the obvious flaw in your argument here. Between the models is not a place to move because it is illegal. As I said already, just because you are already within 1" of an enemy doesn't give you license to break further rules. You keep saying move between them over and over but have yet to back it up, so I ask, quote where in the rulebook it says if you are within 1" of an enemy you can move even further or into base contact in order to pass them by.

The normal movement rules cover movement.

The rules forbid you from approaching within 1 inch of a enemy model, but if you are already there yuo are not restricted from moving to within an inch as you are already within an inch of the enemy models.

DOOMONYOU wrote:

Can the unit in base contact with the vehicle in the subsequent movement phase move?

Vehicle (except walkers of course) are not locked in combat so the unit can move away

How about the Infantry unit that assaulted the vehicle, can they move if the vehicle did not move, or was immobilized?

DOOMONYOU wrote:

Here is a different situation where this can happen

Has that actually happened to you?

A similar situation has.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Godless-Mimicry wrote:
Again you are overlooking the obvious flaw in your argument here. Between the models is not a place to move because it is illegal. As I said already, just because you are already within 1" of an enemy doesn't give you license to break further rules. You keep saying move between them over and over but have yet to back it up, so I ask, quote where in the rulebook it says if you are within 1" of an enemy you can move even further or into base contact in order to pass them by.

The normal movement rules cover movement.

The rules forbid you from approaching within 1 inch of a enemy model, but if you are already there yuo are not restricted from moving to within an inch as you are already within an inch of the enemy models.

DOOMONYOU wrote:

Can the unit in base contact with the vehicle in the subsequent movement phase move?

Vehicle (except walkers of course) are not locked in combat so the unit can move away

How about the Infantry unit that assaulted the vehicle, can they move if the vehicle did not move, or was immobilized?

DOOMONYOU wrote:

Here is a different situation where this can happen

Has that actually happened to you?

A similar situation has.

Honest clarification:?
If all of unit B was not within 1" of unit X, I'm assuming that those models would have to move around so they are not moving within 1" of the enemy? Thus drastically reducing the unit as a wholes movement range...

For those that enjoy obfuscation and semantics, the exact wording, "A model cannot move within I " of an enemy model unless they are charging into close combat in the Assault phase," (pg 10 BRB) can also literally mean that if my model falls within a one inch radius of an enemy model, it can not move unless to assault.

How about that...??? Reminds me of the old magic card, "Player loses next turn."

Purple Saturday wrote:
For those that enjoy obfuscation and semantics, the exact wording, "A model cannot move within I " of an enemy model unless they are charging into close combat in the Assault phase," (pg 10 BRB) can also literally mean that if my model falls within a one inch radius of an enemy model, it can not move unless to assault.

How about that...??? Reminds me of the old magic card, "Player loses next turn."

You might want to quote the whole thing.

"A model cannot move within 1" of an enemy model unless they are charging into close combat in the Assault phase. To move past, they must go around." (10)

This says nothing about models that start their movement phase within one inch of an enemy model.

If anyone can answer these two questions and give me page numbers, I would appreciate it.

1) what rule tells us that a vehicle that has been charged can move as normal?

2) What happens when a unit charges a vehicle and they Immobilize the vehicle, can they ever move away from that vehicle or do they still have to remain in base contact until the vehicle is destroyed?

 DeathReaper wrote:

Purple Saturday wrote:
For those that enjoy obfuscation and semantics, the exact wording, "A model cannot move within I " of an enemy model unless they are charging into close combat in the Assault phase," (pg 10 BRB) can also literally mean that if my model falls within a one inch radius of an enemy model, it can not move unless to assault.

How about that...??? Reminds me of the old magic card, "Player loses next turn."

You might want to quote the whole thing.

"A model cannot move within 1" of an enemy model unless they are charging into close combat in the Assault phase. To move past, they must go around." (10)

This says nothing about models that start their movement phase within one inch of an enemy model.

If anyone can answer these two questions and give me page numbers, I would appreciate it.

1) what rule tells us that a vehicle that has been charged can move as normal?

2) What happens when a unit charges a vehicle and they Immobilize the vehicle, can they ever move away from that vehicle or do they still have to remain in base contact until the vehicle is destroyed?

Well, I was just being silly, but depending on how you read that sentence my point was that that rule ONLY tells you what to do if a model starts within one inch of an enemy unit, and that is that it cannot move. The only thing it can do is assault. It does not even have to assault the closest unit. That second sentence does not change this.

If anyone can answer these two questions and give me page numbers, I would appreciate it.

1) what rule tells us that a vehicle that has been charged can move as normal?

2) What happens when a unit charges a vehicle and they Immobilize the vehicle, can they ever move away from that vehicle or do they still have to remain in base contact until the vehicle is destroyed?

Page 76, BRB. Top right of the page "The vehicle and the enemy remain where they are and are free to simply move away in future turns"

DOOMONYOU wrote:

If anyone can answer these two questions and give me page numbers, I would appreciate it.

1) what rule tells us that a vehicle that has been charged can move as normal?

2) What happens when a unit charges a vehicle and they Immobilize the vehicle, can they ever move away from that vehicle or do they still have to remain in base contact until the vehicle is destroyed?

Page 76, BRB. Top right of the page "The vehicle and the enemy remain where they are and are free to simply move away in future turns"

That does not give you the permission you think it gives. That gives general permission to move despite being in base contact (normally you cannot move at all). You still need specific permission to override the within 1" restriction.

Literally, it gives you permission to move while closer than 1".

No, that quote says you can not move to get within 1 inch of a model. It says nothing about starting there.

The second sentence gives us the context of the first. "to move past they must go around" tells us that they were further than 1 inch when they started moving

You're not reading it the right way. Within one inch, you cannot move. That can mean two things. I grant you the distinction is slight, but it is there. English is wonderfully elastic.

Here is an example of my (admittedly dubious, but nevertheless grammatically correct) interpretation:

Illic Nightspear can be deployed anywhere on the battlefield regardless of proximity to an enemy model. I deploy him 1/2 inch away from an enemy model. Now, he cannot move, because he is within 1 inch of an enemy model. He can still assault any viable target, which according to the exact wording of that rule could be any viable assault target. "A model cannot move within 1"..." can literally mean that if I am within a 1" radius of your model I cannot move.

"If a vehicle that has been assaulted (and survived) does not move in its successive Movement phase" (P. 76)

If you can not move if you are within 1 inch of an enemy model then why does this line even exist?

Purple Saturday wrote:
Within one inch, you cannot move.

This is not what that line says, It says you may not move within an inch. that means you can not approach closer than an inch.

Approach is different than within I thought you might point that out, so I re-quoted the rule. You don't have to rearrange the sentence to read it that way, because ENGLISH! I just did that for clarity to make my point clearer.

Purple Saturday wrote:
Approach is different than within I thought you might point that out, so I re-quoted the rule. You don't have to rearrange the sentence to read it that way, because ENGLISH! I just did that for clarity to make my point clearer.

Not really.

Move means: to change position

Within means: In or into the inner part

in the context of a sentence it means you can not approach closer than 1 inch.

Like I said way back, I'm only arguing semantics here for fun, but "approach" is a 100% different word than "within." Sardonic is 100% different than sarcastic even though they are 100% interchangeable... Because it's a different word.

If I start exchanging similar words willy-nilly all over the rule-set, I could probably build a game that would be unrecognizable.

And like I said, I don't think I'm interpreting this sentence as intended, but technically, it is a correct reading.

Yes the word Approach and the word Within are two different words, that have really similar meanings.

But lets forget approach for now.

"You can not move within 1 inch of an enemy model" means something different than 'You can not move if you are within one inch of an enemy model.'

I agree that's the way you'd usually write that But, you don't have to include "if you are" for the sentence to carry that meaning.

Actually you do, as "You can not move within 1 inch of an enemy model" means you can not move so that your base is within one inch of an enemy model. The sentence assumes you are starting further that 1 inch as noted by the second sentence that says "to move past they must go around"

 DeathReaper wrote:
Yes the word Approach and the word Within are two different words, that have really similar meanings.

But lets forget approach for now.

"You can not move within 1 inch of an enemy model" means something different than 'You can not move if you are within one inch of an enemy model.'

If you start .5" away from an enemy model and move (anywhere) did you move within 1" of an enemy model?
If you answer "No." I'd love an explanation as to how that's possible.

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Yes the word Approach and the word Within are two different words, that have really similar meanings.

But lets forget approach for now.

"You can not move within 1 inch of an enemy model" means something different than 'You can not move if you are within one inch of an enemy model.'

If you start .5" away from an enemy model and move (anywhere) did you move within 1" of an enemy model?
If you answer "No." I'd love an explanation as to how that's possible.

No, because the sentence is clearly talking about starting further that one inch and you are not allowed to move to within one inch of an enemy as noted by the second sentence.

The second sentence gives us the context of the first. "to move past they must go around" tells us that they were further than 1 inch when they started moving.

The rules are silent about starting closer than 1 inch, you are given allowance to move up to 6 inches with the restriction that you can not move to get within 1 inch of an enemy model, and nothing about strating there, so you can move away as normal as there is no further restriction.

I disagree with your interpretation, even including the second sentence. It doesn't say what you think it says.

It carries multiple meanings because English is a horribly convoluted language and GW didn't clarify properly.

So the real rules question, is why the Tau player started with 500pts of models on foot in reserve, and why he couldn't kill anything of the enemy army with shooting. Even with the fast movement of the bikers its pretty difficult to string 15-20 bikes across the board with any sort of terrain in the way, let alone without the remaining Tau models shooting.

If the Tau player had a devilfish, he could move over the bikes or tank shock through the bikes to get onto the board.

rigeld2 wrote:
I disagree with your interpretation, even including the second sentence. It doesn't say what you think it says.

If you are within one inch you can not move within one inch, you are already there. No need to go around because you are already within one inch.

However in this instance the rules are not very well written. The sentence really could mean both readings as it is just not clear, so there really is no point debating this much further.

An FaQ is our best hope, but that will likely never come.

As for HIWPI: I would let my opponent move freely when he is within one inch of an enemy model. Units that assault, but do not destroy vehicles can, so there is no reason other units can not.

 DeathReaper wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
I disagree with your interpretation, even including the second sentence. It doesn't say what you think it says.

If you are within one inch you can not move within one inch, you are already there. No need to go around because you are already within one inch.

However in this instance the rules are not very well written. The sentence really could mean both readings as it is just not clear, so there really is no point debating this much further.

An FaQ is our best hope, but that will likely never come.

As for HIWPI: I would let my opponent move freely when he is within one inch of an enemy model. Units that assault, but do not destroy vehicles can, so there is no reason other units can not.

Your use of "within" doesn't hold up to me. It needs the word "to" (I.e."cannot move to within 1" of an enemy model").
Let's replace "1" of an enemy model" with "the house". If I say "you cannot move within the house", and you are already in the house, can you move? No. If I said "you cannot move to within the house", and you are already in the house, then you could move. Without the "to", you cannot.

Pretty sure they die. Saw it at a tourney one time....

Tactical_Genius wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
I disagree with your interpretation, even including the second sentence. It doesn't say what you think it says.

If you are within one inch you can not move within one inch, you are already there. No need to go around because you are already within one inch.

However in this instance the rules are not very well written. The sentence really could mean both readings as it is just not clear, so there really is no point debating this much further.

An FaQ is our best hope, but that will likely never come.

As for HIWPI: I would let my opponent move freely when he is within one inch of an enemy model. Units that assault, but do not destroy vehicles can, so there is no reason other units can not.

Your use of "within" doesn't hold up to me. It needs the word "to" (I.e."cannot move to within 1" of an enemy model").
Let's replace "1" of an enemy model" with "the house". If I say "you cannot move within the house", and you are already in the house, can you move? No. If I said "you cannot move to within the house", and you are already in the house, then you could move. Without the "to", you cannot.

You can not substitute a measure of distance with a location.

That is like making the Kessel run in under 12 parsec's...

 DeathReaper wrote:
That is like making the Kessel run in under 12 parsec's...

Seeing as how part of the Kessel Run is near a cluster of black holes, it is possible that by utilising warp speed (and going way too close to the black holes) he shortened the distance to less than 12 parsecs.

But I digress, we are getting off topic.

miss-post, sorry.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Purple Saturday wrote:
For those that enjoy obfuscation and semantics, the exact wording, "A model cannot move within I " of an enemy model unless they are charging into close combat in the Assault phase," (pg 10 BRB) can also literally mean that if my model falls within a one inch radius of an enemy model, it can not move unless to assault.

How about that...??? Reminds me of the old magic card, "Player loses next turn."

While the sentence per general use of English could be translated that way, that would break several other aspects of the game. Better to use a interpretation that does not break the game which would be that you 'cannot move to within on inch'... which is a playable way of looking at it.

Please explain - what breaks?

rigeld2 wrote:
Please explain - what breaks?

perhaps broken was the wrong word....

Any time you find a model within on inch of an enemy unit it would be unable to move other than to charge per that interpretation. IE some or all of a tank shocked units models would be unable to move on their turn due to being within 1" of the enemy model. For that mater a vehicle while not locked in combat would be unable to move from base contact with the enemy unless its tank shocking and not all vehicles can do that and none of them can charge except walkers. How is a transport supposed to get out of base contact with an enemy unit if it's not able to move while it is within 1" of an enemy model?

Since vehicles have a specific allowance to move while surrounded...

rigeld2 wrote:
Since vehicles have a specific allowance to move while surrounded...

Are you referring to the rules regarding pivoting? That is not movement as is stated in that section.

Pivoting alone isn't movement... (ie pivoting can be movement, just not if that's all you do).

That said you're right - a transport wouldn't be able to run away from something that has assaulted it.
It can pivot to bring guns to bear though.

 Col. Dracus wrote:
I find this rather funny. The flip of this happened years ago at a tournament where a White Scars player had all of his bikes in reserves coming in from his own board edge. The Tau player deployed his kroot along his opponents board edge and because they could not be deployed from reserves they died.

funny stuff to hear it happen the other way around.

I remember that picture of the white scars players face, it was priceless!!! Does anyone have that photo so it can be posted?

 Abandon wrote:
miss-post, sorry.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Purple Saturday wrote:
For those that enjoy obfuscation and semantics, the exact wording, "A model cannot move within I " of an enemy model unless they are charging into close combat in the Assault phase," (pg 10 BRB) can also literally mean that if my model falls within a one inch radius of an enemy model, it can not move unless to assault.

How about that...??? Reminds me of the old magic card, "Player loses next turn."

While the sentence per general use of English could be translated that way, that would break several other aspects of the game. Better to use a interpretation that does not break the game which would be that you 'cannot move to within on inch'... which is a playable way of looking at it.

I agree with you completely I was just having a bit of fun. It is a good moment to reflect on how ridiculous some RAW interpretations and arguments can get though. And GW's poor writing, generally.

That said you're right - a transport wouldn't be able to run away from something that has assaulted it.

It can move away:

Page 76, BRB. Top right of the page "The vehicle and the enemy remain where they are and are free to simply move away in future turns"

As this have had to be a Devilfish (no other transport for Tau), it can go over any unit.
You can count the unit as standing on the edge of the table, CAN count from the edge, don't need to, but can. This means you can be way outside the 1" radius of an enemy when counting your way in, and see to it that you are stopping 1" away, at the least.
Doing this with non-skimmers means that you will have to find a way around, or tank-shock as told on pg 85 of BRB.

Being less than 1" of an enemy model is intent to assault and can thus only move in the assault phase.
How you somehow start less than 1" from an enemy model is a bigger question to me, as you can not be less than 1" from your enemy.
As said, 1" within the enemy radius is intent to assault, so you can't end up there is any way if you aren't going to assault the model.

Kaizoe wrote:
How you somehow start less than 1" from an enemy model is a bigger question to me, as you can not be less than 1" from your enemy.

Easy, look at the assault scenario I posted in this thread.

The unit charged the enemy unit and there was another enemy unit that was within 1 inch of the charging unit, but not in base contact, so not in assault with the charging unit.

Plus this shows a precedent that you can move when you are closer than 1 inch from an enemy model:
Page 76, BRB. Top right of the page "The vehicle and the enemy remain where they are and are free to simply move away in future turns"

That is if the vehicle lost the assault, and the vehicle can't charge, so assault is broken up, but if it was an infantry model, there would be a pile in move.
So for vehicles you are free to move IF the vehicle looses the assault phase, otherwise it continues, and against other models there is a pile in move.

So, to reiterate what I said beforehand: you tank shock if you are locked from entering your board as normal, or skimmer over if you are entering with skimmers.
Tank shock puts you in assault, and you get out of it if your vehicle lost the assault (made no wound, I am guessing? I don't know all the rules by heart, yet...).

You can't charge in from reserve, and as it's the movement phase, you can't assault, right? Because it would be an illegal move to start your model within the 1" radius of an enemy model if you can't start with the intent to assault.
Intent to assault would be ending up, not starting, 1" from an enemy model.
Without ending an assault phase last turn, you can't be within 1" of an enemy model, it is not allowed to get a model to start his first turn there.

The house reference made earlier is perfectly valid. 'Within 1" of an enemy model' is both a measure as well as a location it would have to be in order for it to mean anything. If all you had was a measurement you end up with the ability to move your models into the air and over enemy models as movement is only defined as a distance measurement. Do we really want to head in that direction? In the end their intent was most likely that no model should end up within 1" of a model unless charging it or a model near it. You can implement a house rule that says no model is allowed to be positioned within 1" of an enemy model unless it is charging, which then covers all of the ways to start within 1" except the charging a close unit one. For that you use a rule similar to the tank shock rule and say the model must move the shortest distance away from enemy models unless......etc etc. Since GW gives way too much credit to people and their logic skills but set this game up as a frame work which you build a entertaining game around, they most likely assumed we would be civil and come up with a work around much like defining terrain. Since we are playing a competitive game it's hard to not want to make every advantage yours. In short there is no answer in the book for being blocked off the board nor a model starting within 1" of an enemy model, work it out before hand/during the game or roll off and keep truckin.

Kaizoe wrote:
So for vehicles you are free to move IF the vehicle looses the assault phase, otherwise it continues.

This is not true at all.

Tank shock puts you in assault, and you get out of it if your vehicle lost the assault (made no wound, I am guessing? I don't know all the rules by heart, yet...).

This is not true either.

A vehicle (Not including walkers) can not be locked in combat so they are never stuck.

Tank shocking does not put the vehicle into CC either.

You can't charge in from reserve, and as it's the movement phase, you can't assault, right?

Correct

Because it would be an illegal move to start your model within the 1" radius of an enemy model if you can't start with the intent to assault.
Intent to assault would be ending up, not starting, 1" from an enemy model.

It would not be an illegal move, see my example above about a unit charging Unit A, and Unit B ends up within 1 inch of the charging unit. Unit B is not locked in combat and they can move and shoot and assault as normal.

Without ending an assault phase last turn, you can't be within 1" of an enemy model, it is not allowed to get a model to start his first turn there.

This, again is not true. You can end within 1 inch of models in certain situations.

Gravmyr wrote:
The house reference made earlier is perfectly valid. 'Within 1" of an enemy model' is both a measure as well as a location it would have to be in order for it to mean anything. If all you had was a measurement you end up with the ability to move your models into the air and over enemy models as movement is only defined as a distance measurement. Do we really want to head in that direction?

Considering the rules are written on the basis that models move through terrain, and above the table is not terrain.....

In the end their intent was most likely that no model should end up within 1" of a model unless charging it or a model near it. You can implement a house rule that says no model is allowed to be positioned within 1" of an enemy model unless it is charging, which then covers all of the ways to start within 1" except the charging a close unit one. For that you use a rule similar to the tank shock rule and say the model must move the shortest distance away from enemy models unless......etc etc. Since GW gives way too much credit to people and their logic skills but set this game up as a frame work which you build a entertaining game around, they most likely assumed we would be civil and come up with a work around much like defining terrain. Since we are playing a competitive game it's hard to not want to make every advantage yours. In short there is no answer in the book for being blocked off the board nor a model starting within 1" of an enemy model, work it out before hand/during the game or roll off and keep truckin.

A good work around would be to make the models that are within 1 inch of the enemy move so that they are no closer than 1 inch from an enemy model.

Personally I have no problem with enemies being within 1" without charging. There's relatively few ways to get there considering you cannot 'move' there during movement. I don't see what the problem is for everyone.

 Abandon wrote:
Personally I have no problem with enemies being within 1" without charging. There's relatively few ways to get there considering you cannot 'move' there during movement. I don't see what the problem is for everyone.

The problem is the problem posed by the OP: board edge blocked.
What do we do in that situation?

I'm patiently waiting for someone to post that pic of the white scars player.....

 sub-zero wrote:
I'm patiently waiting for someone to post that pic of the white scars player.....

That is really not needed

That situation was a few editions ago, and the TO arbitrarily awarded a win as the rules at the time did not really cover that situation.

 DeathReaper wrote:

Purple Saturday wrote:
For those that enjoy obfuscation and semantics, the exact wording, "A model cannot move within I " of an enemy model unless they are charging into close combat in the Assault phase," (pg 10 BRB) can also literally mean that if my model falls within a one inch radius of an enemy model, it can not move unless to assault.

How about that...??? Reminds me of the old magic card, "Player loses next turn."

You might want to quote the whole thing.

"A model cannot move within 1" of an enemy model unless they are charging into close combat in the Assault phase. To move past, they must go around." (10)

This says nothing about models that start their movement phase within one inch of an enemy model.

If anyone can answer these two questions and give me page numbers, I would appreciate it.

1) what rule tells us that a vehicle that has been charged can move as normal?

2) What happens when a unit charges a vehicle and they Immobilize the vehicle, can they ever move away from that vehicle or do they still have to remain in base contact until the vehicle is destroyed?

Ok, so I make my wall of dark angels 1.5" off your table edge. If you move onto the table, you're moving within 1", but you start 1.5" away.
I've circumvented the starting within the 1" range, and still leave you no room to deploy.

HawaiiMatt wrote:
Ok, so I make my wall of dark angels 1.5" off your table edge. If you move onto the table, you're moving within 1", but you start 1.5" away.
I've circumvented the starting within the 1" range, and still leave you no room to deploy.

That is correct.

Though, in the interest of fair play, I think the situation needs to be addressed in an errata so that people can, you know, actually play a game of 40k and not just deploy, call good game, shake hands and start over. Because that is an incredible waste of time.

Is no one else thinking blocking the reserves from entering the game incredibly cheep? If I was resolving rule disputes in a game where that happened I'd say the reserves deploy the closest game edge that is not blocked. I view this practice as glitching only not in a video game way. You can call me wrong all ya want but you know this practice is bad rep for the game.

 chapgrimaldus wrote:
Is no one else thinking blocking the reserves from entering the game incredibly cheep? If I was resolving rule disputes in a game where that happened I'd say the reserves deploy the closest game edge that is not blocked. I view this practice as glitching only not in a video game way. You can call me wrong all ya want but you know this practice is bad rep for the game.

How is it bad rep?
You'd really give the opponent a free outflank on potentially most of their army because they made a poor tactical decision?

rigeld2 wrote:

 chapgrimaldus wrote:
Is no one else thinking blocking the reserves from entering the game incredibly cheep? If I was resolving rule disputes in a game where that happened I'd say the reserves deploy the closest game edge that is not blocked. I view this practice as glitching only not in a video game way. You can call me wrong all ya want but you know this practice is bad rep for the game.

How is it bad rep?
You'd really give the opponent a free outflank on potentially most of their army because they made a poor tactical decision?

It is just incredibly poor game design that allows a "Game" to not be played in the first place.

Putting full squads of infantry in reserves without a way to deliver them is a poor tactical decision.

RAW it appears the enemy units cannot come onto the battlefield and would eventually count as destroyed for purposes of game resolution. Regardless of DR's inability to see the duality in the English language, this appears to be covered in the BRB well.

 DeathReaper wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 chapgrimaldus wrote:
Is no one else thinking blocking the reserves from entering the game incredibly cheep? If I was resolving rule disputes in a game where that happened I'd say the reserves deploy the closest game edge that is not blocked. I view this practice as glitching only not in a video game way. You can call me wrong all ya want but you know this practice is bad rep for the game.

How is it bad rep?
You'd really give the opponent a free outflank on potentially most of their army because they made a poor tactical decision?

It is just incredibly poor game design that allows a "Game" to not be played in the first place.

How is that different from setting up across from a gun line and losing every model on turn one?

The game was played, you made a poor tactical decision and lost because of it. Suck it up buttercup and don't make dumb decisions.

rigeld2 wrote:

 chapgrimaldus wrote:
Is no one else thinking blocking the reserves from entering the game incredibly cheep? If I was resolving rule disputes in a game where that happened I'd say the reserves deploy the closest game edge that is not blocked. I view this practice as glitching only not in a video game way. You can call me wrong all ya want but you know this practice is bad rep for the game.

How is it bad rep?
You'd really give the opponent a free outflank on potentially most of their army because they made a poor tactical decision?

Ill break it down for you. Using this hole in the rules to gain an unfair advantage is the same thing as using the game mechanics in a video game to get an unfair advantage. Whether in a video game or in a table top, pen and paper, ect ect is called Glitching. What happens to the video game players who use glitches? They are punished. So the punishment in this case is yes his/her enemy getting a free outflank or they can feel free to forfeit. It would deter from further unsportsmen like conduct in the future.

As far as the bad rep for the game and hobby. If you are a new player to a game and you see tones of veteran players using this hole in the rules to smash inexperienced players 10 to 1 you wouldn't want to play. I have seen many new players scared off like this and guess what? They tell their friends stopping a whole group of potential new bloods. No new players = eventually the game dying. Think about it on a bigger scale because if there is 1 glitcher there are many many more.

The difference is the situation you propose, you had a chance to play the game, but rolled fantastically horribly and all of your models were removed. You had a chance to actually play the game.

In the case of not even getting to come on from the board edge you did not even have a chance to play, and that is just bad game design/ a Design Flaw with the game itself.

 chapgrimaldus wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 chapgrimaldus wrote:
Is no one else thinking blocking the reserves from entering the game incredibly cheep? If I was resolving rule disputes in a game where that happened I'd say the reserves deploy the closest game edge that is not blocked. I view this practice as glitching only not in a video game way. You can call me wrong all ya want but you know this practice is bad rep for the game.

How is it bad rep?
You'd really give the opponent a free outflank on potentially most of their army because they made a poor tactical decision?

Ill break it down for you. Using this hole in the rules to gain an unfair advantage is the same thing as using the game mechanics in a video game to get an unfair advantage. Whether in a video game or in a table top, pen and paper, ect ect is called Glitching. What happens to the video game players who use glitches? They are punished. So the punishment in this case is yes his/her enemy getting a free outflank or they can feel free to forfeit. It would deter from further unsportsmen like conduct in the future.

How is it a hole in the game? You (as the reserving player) made a bad decision. That bad decision cost you the game. That sucks.
It's not a hole in the game. It's definitely not the right thing to give the person making a bad decision a tactical advantage because they made a bad decision.

As far as the bad rep for the game and hobby. If you are a new player to a game and you see tones of veteran players using this hole in the rules to smash inexperienced players 10 to 1 you wouldn't want to play. I have seen many new players scared off like this and guess what? They tell their friends stopping a whole group of potential new bloods. No new players = eventually the game dying. Think about it on a bigger scale because if there is 1 glitcher there are many many more.

Seriously - think about this scenario. Understand what it actually requires.
There will not be "tons of veteran players" doing this to anyone.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DeathReaper wrote:
The difference is the situation you propose, you had a chance to play the game, but rolled fantastically horribly and all of your models were removed. You had a chance to actually play the game.

And so did you - you just chose to to something dumb. At least you had a choice.

In the case of not even getting to come on from the board edge you did not even have a chance to play, and that is just bad game design/ a Design Flaw with the game itself.

That's a lie - you had a chance to play. You opted not to take it.

It is not a lie, you did not have a chance to play as you did not participate in any of the three main aspects of playing the game, those being movement, shooting, or assault...

Not rolling any dice to see if your units live or die does not = playing the game.

Playing the game requires both sides participating in the main aspects of the game, which involve rolling the dice to determine if your units live or die, and an option that denies one side that opportunity is bad game design.

As DeathReaper said, it is a design flaw in the game. No rules for this edition cover it, therefore it's a huge gaping hole in the rules. As far as "a chance to play but opted not to take it." You do realize reserves cannot come into play until a certain turn and players like you (kinda obvious you love this tactic) can block the reserves before the turn they can come into play. There is a reason 40k uses points, its to make a balanced and fair game, you take that away using this tactic.

 DeathReaper wrote:
It is not a lie, you did not have a chance to play as you did not participate in any of the three main aspects of playing the game, those being movement, shooting, or assault...

Not rolling any dice to see if your units live or die does not = playing the game.

Playing the game requires both sides participating in the main aspects of the game, which involve rolling the dice to determine if your units live or die, and an option that denies one side that opportunity is bad game design.

So you made no decisions as to the outcome of the game?
The game is not all about dice.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 chapgrimaldus wrote:
As DeathReaper said, it is a design flaw in the game. No rules for this edition cover it, therefore it's a huge gaping hole in the rules. As far as "a chance to play but opted not to take it." You do realize reserves cannot come into play until a certain turn and players like you (kinda obvious you love this tactic) can block the reserves before the turn they can come into play. There is a reason 40k uses points, its to make a balanced and fair game, you take that away using this tactic.

No, you *opted* to put those troops in Reserve. There isn't a unit in the game that is required to start in Reserve that can't fly over anything you try and block with.

Since you made the poor decision to start in Reserves against an army that can easily block off the table edge, you deserve to be punished - not rewarded.


Also, please don't assume bias where there is none. It's rude at least, and incorrect in this case.

Apologies if I came off as rude but 9 times out of 10 someone fiercely defending exploiting holes in games usually does so himself/herself so it was natural to assume such.

In some cases I remember certain troops are held in reserve because of scenario rules or rules of the units themselves. So in most cases not many choose to hold things in reserve. In fact most scenarios I have read you need to hold some in reserve. These are my views, I can argue them all day but I do not choose to. In this case since there are no rules to explain who is right or wrong, so I will agree to disagree and not perform these tactics nor will I play with those who use this tactic on the principle of fair play.

 chapgrimaldus wrote:
Apologies if I came off as rude but 9 times out of 10 someone fiercely defending exploiting holes in games usually does so himself/herself so it was natural to assume such.

Not in YMDC it shouldn't be.

In some cases I remember certain troops are held in reserve because of scenario rules or rules of the units themselves. So in most cases not many choose to hold things in reserve. In fact most scenarios I have read you need to hold some in reserve. These are my views, I can argue them all day but I do not choose to. In this case since there are no rules to explain who is right or wrong, so I will agree to disagree and not perform these tactics nor will I play with those who use this tactic on the principle of fair play.

Do you also make sure and keep your Avatar of Khaine away from Melta and Flamers?
Do you not cast Iron Arm on Hive Tyrants or Demons?

It's a tactical decision. For scenario games, do whatever because scenario games are "special". Normal pickup games, however, there's nothing wrong with this. At all.

The original post sounds almost like he got wiped off the board in a single turn. If the shooting had been a little more effective then he would never have gotten anything on the board due to a very poor deployment. If he could have shot ANY unit to make a gap in the line I think a TO would have ruled that the units go back into reserves.

If you make a stupid tacticle decision like leaving one weak unit on the board and loading everything else into reserves. You need to learn tactics. I'm with Rigeld on this. You had a chance of having a long game but your tactics ruined your chances. Just like anybody who bunches their models up while facing a template or large blast heavy army, you need to think out your games.

Seems like you guys are looking for this pic:



Lucarikx

 DeathReaper wrote:
It is not a lie, you did not have a chance to play as you did not participate in any of the three main aspects of playing the game, those being movement, shooting, or assault...

Not rolling any dice to see if your units live or die does not = playing the game.

Playing the game requires both sides participating in the main aspects of the game, which involve rolling the dice to determine if your units live or die, and an option that denies one side that opportunity is bad game design.

But you are rolling dice. On a 3+, the unit tries to enter from reserve and fails. On a 1 or 2, it stays safe in reserve awaiting it's friends on the table to create an opening. If you don't have friends on the table and you're rolling for reserves, you've already lost the game.

It doesn't need a rules fix and much as it needs rules awareness.
After the Kroot Stomping the White Scars, I'm going to be that White Scars never put themselves in a position for that to happen to them again.

-Matt

You can't stop the unit from arriving from reserves.

pg 124:

we start with when arriving from reserves "it must move fully onto the table."

then we get if for some reason you can't fit the model onto the board, place it against the edge.

and we finish with if a unit has a special rule forcing it to move, or that could stop it from moving, the rule is ignored.

so the arriving unit can and would ignore the can't move withing 1" of a enemy the turn it arrives in that case. So if there is room for the model to fit through, it can move through the unit to the other side of the unit if it has the movement to make it there.

Nothing in the reserve rules leads to the old way of doing it and destroying the unit.

As far as I know, if they're off the table edge, destroyed

 Lucarikx wrote:
Seems like you guys are looking for this pic:


Lucarikx

Actually not at all, that picture is and was not really not needed.

That situation was a few editions ago, and the TO arbitrarily awarded a win as the rules at the time did not really cover that situation.

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
It is not a lie, you did not have a chance to play as you did not participate in any of the three main aspects of playing the game, those being movement, shooting, or assault...

Not rolling any dice to see if your units live or die does not = playing the game.

Playing the game requires both sides participating in the main aspects of the game, which involve rolling the dice to determine if your units live or die, and an option that denies one side that opportunity is bad game design.

So you made no decisions as to the outcome of the game?
The game is not all about dice.

Every game has dice involved, Every single one...

The game heavily involves dice.

But that is not the point, the point is that Playing the game requires both sides participating in the main aspects of the game there are arguably three main phases of the game, these are the; Movement, Shooting, and assault phases.

Not able to utilize all of these phases is bad game design. Some armies of course are mode to not participate in one of these phases, but it uses the other two. Such as an assault army will not really shoot anything, but they will move and assault, a Gunline will not really assault anything but they will move and assault.

Not being able to enter the board is not playing a game.

HawaiiMatt wrote:
But you are rolling dice. On a 3+, the unit tries to enter from reserve and fails. On a 1 or 2, it stays safe in reserve awaiting it's friends on the table to create an opening. If you don't have friends on the table and you're rolling for reserves, you've already lost the game.

It doesn't need a rules fix and much as it needs rules awareness.
After the Kroot Stomping the White Scars, I'm going to be that White Scars never put themselves in a position for that to happen to them again.

-Matt

It does need a rules fix, this trick should not even be possible.

What's the difference between this and him nuking the one unit on the table? Game loss in both situations.

Dice were rolled, you made tactical decisions, the game was played.

rigeld2 wrote:
What's the difference between this and him nuking the one unit on the table? Game loss in both situations.

Dice were rolled, you made tactical decisions, the game was played.

The game was not played.

Nuking a player off the table in the first turn does not happen in an even pointed game.

for the game to be played both people would need to have at least one full player turn.

Getting back on topic:

Page 76, Reserves

Paragraph 11

Each model's move is measured from the board edge of the battlefield., as if they had been positioned just off the battlefield in the previous turn and moved as normal. This means it is incorrect to place a model on the board touching the edge then move it

formatted exactly from the rule book.

Paragraph 12

If a unit has a special rule forcing it to move in a specific direction or that could stop it from moving, the rule is ignored in the phase when it arrives from reserve.

So if by some miracle the RW player covered the entire board edge of the the Tau's side, AND have every inch of it covered within half an inch, then models cannot enter. Paragraph 11 establishes that the models start just off hence they can only come on 6". And the RW players bike control a total of what about 2 and 1/2 inches with their 1" control zone(plus the models width). AND using Deathreaper's (I believe it was) counter argument THEY do NOT begin within an inch of them.

Now the precedence is then provided by fall back moves, where models that end thier move off the board (with the exception of fliers (only ones i am aware of) and deep strike mishaps) are counted as destroyed, whether they ran away got killed by units lying in wait etc etc etc etc etc.

Therefor just like the white scars man, all FW and the ethereal are dead.

So the game doesn't start until P1 Movement?

And nuking off the table absolutely can happen in even pointed games. You should understand how it happens since we're discussing Reserves...

The point is that list building and deployment are tactical decisions that have an effect on the game. It is possible to build lists that automatically lose as well as deploy so that you'll automatically lose. The fact that there's no rules to prevent this isn't a bad thing.

 DeathReaper wrote:

The game was not played.

Nuking a player off the table in the first turn does not happen in an even pointed game.

providing another counter ofc is DW Assault being used on T2, and they have say 2 whirlwinds on the board, Whirlwinds dead auto win to me. This has actually happened on my first 6th ed tournament, and won me the game 20-0


Automatically Appended Next Post:
T1 victory job done


Automatically Appended Next Post:
15 mins to set up 5 mins to destroy

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

sirlynchmob wrote:
You can't stop the unit from arriving from reserves.

pg 124:

we start with when arriving from reserves "it must move fully onto the table."

then we get if for some reason you can't fit the model onto the board, place it against the edge.

and we finish with if a unit has a special rule forcing it to move, or that could stop it from moving, the rule is ignored.

so the arriving unit can and would ignore the can't move withing 1" of a enemy the turn it arrives in that case. So if there is room for the model to fit through, it can move through the unit to the other side of the unit if it has the movement to make it there.

Nothing in the reserve rules leads to the old way of doing it and destroying the unit.

Are they allowed to move within 1" of an enemy model?
No.

Guess that's not right than

As that rule is being ignored, we need not consider it at all, so yes they are allowed to move within 1" of an enemy model.

sirlynchmob wrote:
then we get if for some reason you can't fit the model onto the board, place it against the edge.

That's not what it says. Nor would it make any sense for the rules to tell you to put the model somewhere that you have just established there is no room for it to go...


What the section you were looking at actually allows is for you to place the model against the edge of the board if it has insufficient movement to move fully onto the table. This covers units like the Baneblade which physically can not move far enough to get fully onto the board. It's not a blanket abilty to ignore enemy models that are in the way.

and we finish with if a unit has a special rule forcing it to move, or that could stop it from moving, the rule is ignored.

Neither of which apply here. There is no rule stopping the unit from moving. Just a rule stopping the unit from moving through enemy models.

sirlynchmob wrote:

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

sirlynchmob wrote:
You can't stop the unit from arriving from reserves.

pg 124:

we start with when arriving from reserves "it must move fully onto the table."

then we get if for some reason you can't fit the model onto the board, place it against the edge.

and we finish with if a unit has a special rule forcing it to move, or that could stop it from moving, the rule is ignored.

so the arriving unit can and would ignore the can't move withing 1" of a enemy the turn it arrives in that case. So if there is room for the model to fit through, it can move through the unit to the other side of the unit if it has the movement to make it there.


Nothing in the reserve rules leads to the old way of doing it and destroying the unit.

Are they allowed to move within 1" of an enemy model?
No.

Guess that's not right than

As that rule is being ignored, we need not consider it at all, so yes they are allowed to move within 1" of an enemy model.

The rules clearly state you can not move with in an inch of an enemy model the entire board edge your trying to come on from is clgged up by control zones you cannot come on from there, you have to move on the board or count through other precedences as removed from play.

rigeld2 wrote:
So the game doesn't start until P1 Movement?

I never said that and when the game starts has no bearing.

One person deploying and claiming victory is not playing a game of 40K

And nuking off the table absolutely can happen in even pointed games. You should understand how it happens since we're discussing Reserves...

The point is that list building and deployment are tactical decisions that have an effect on the game. It is possible to build lists that automatically lose as well as deploy so that you'll automatically lose. The fact that there's no rules to prevent this isn't a bad thing.

Sure it is 'possible to build lists that automatically lose' an unfortunate design flaw in the game.

Except the OP isn't a case of one person deploying and claiming victory - they actually do play at least part of turn 1.

rigeld2 wrote:
Except the OP isn't a case of one person deploying and claiming victory - they actually do play at least part of The starting Player's turn 1.

FTFY

a unit cannot infiltrate within 6" of your opponent's board edge

The guy who mentioned this simple fix when I was complaining shall remain anonymous because I'm not sure he wants to be involved in this shoot out but it's a wise suggestion, if both players agree. As far as the whole 1 side deploys one claims victory isn't possible because 6th doesnt allow you to hold your whole army in reserve. There we are problem solved for those who wished it and for those that don't care carry on

Uh, 6th Ed does allow you to hold your entire army in reserve, in certain situations, because units that must start in reserve, and units in transports that must start in reserve, don't count towards the total number of units in reserve.


Although, to be fair, an all drop pod marine army is not going to care about the army of kroot camped on their board edge...

 insaniak wrote:
Uh, 6th Ed does allow you to hold your entire army in reserve, in certain situations, because units that must start in reserve, and units in transports that must start in reserve, don't count towards the total number of units in reserve.


Although, to be fair, an all drop pod marine army is not going to care about the army of kroot camped on their board edge...

Same for any flyer transports.