I thought I would set up a poll for this since there has been a large debate on this topic within this thread.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/558882.page

So the question at hand is: Before rolling for scatter, can you place your first model for a deep strike in a area occupied by another unit. Remember, this is before rolling for scatter, so the question is not asking whether a mishap happens after scattering, but if the initial location is legal to begin with before rolling for scatter.

We have four options:

1) No to both Rules As Written and also to How You Would Play It

2) No to Rules as Written but yes to How You Would Play It

3) Yes to Rules as Written but No to How You Would Play It

4) Yes to both Rules as Written & How You Would Play It

Please vote away.

Yes, both to RAW & HIWPI is confirmed by the Mawloc being able to do so, so that is how I voted.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Yes, both to RAW & HIWPI is confirmed by the Mawloc being able to do so, so that is how I voted.

Even though that is a special rule which lets you do that?

 DarthOvious wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Yes, both to RAW & HIWPI is confirmed by the Mawloc being able to do so, so that is how I voted.

Even though that is a special rule which lets you do that?

Please read the current thread in which I responded and leave this thread for poll/posting why you voted like you did. Do not want this thread to be shut down because there is a thread discussing this very topic.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 DarthOvious wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Yes, both to RAW & HIWPI is confirmed by the Mawloc being able to do so, so that is how I voted.

Even though that is a special rule which lets you do that?

Please read the current thread in which I responded and leave this thread for poll/posting why you voted like you did. Do not want this thread to be shut down because there is a thread discussing this very topic.

Fair enough.

No for both as the table is defined as the playable area including terrain but no mention of models, bases or hulls. The many listings of models, bases and hulls have no mention of being apart of the table. And with the exception of one tyranid mcs specific rule that specifically makes allowance for it there is no allowance to either place your.lead deepstriking model on models, bases and hulls or hypothertically place said model under other models, bases and hulls by declaring a location.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Yes, both to RAW & HIWPI is confirmed by the Mawloc being able to do so, so that is how I voted.

Agree on the RAW for this reason, but its now HIWPI unless I'm playing the Mawloc. I just don't need the argument for a tactic that can end up costing me a unit.

 DJGietzen wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Yes, both to RAW & HIWPI is confirmed by the Mawloc being able to do so, so that is how I voted.

Agree on the RAW for this reason, but its now HIWPI unless I'm playing the Mawloc. I just don't need the argument for a tactic that can end up costing me a unit.

In this case HIWPI means they can DS there, not that you would DS a unit in that position. Sometimes there are reasons for risking it.

I voted yes to both, as the Tyranids FAQ states that the Mawloc may choose to place itself over enemy models, but doesn't have any special rules regarding placement when deep striking, so it must be something any deep striker is capable of doing (though I don't really see the point unless you really want to mishap for whatever reason).

Yes to both for the same reasons as stated by others

I voted yes. Both to RAW and not only HIWPI, but HIHPI (How I HAVE Played It).

You'll automatically mishap, but I have run into the very rare circumstance where I was willing to take the mishap for the 50% chance of just delaying a turn.

No to both. As we see from how it's actually played.

1) I'm going to put the drop pod over this unit.
2) I set it down on the table elsewhere so I can roll the dice.
3) Scatter.

As the rule is: place it on the table. you didn't place it for the 1, but did for 2. so you should scatter from where the drop pod is placed.

I don't believe the bug faq has to do with the general rule of deep striking, just his specific ability.

Yes to the RAW, as confirmed by the Mawloc FAQ and the TftD rules that ONLY trigger *after* you place the Mawloc model over an enemy unit, that when they state "anywhere" they really did mean "anywhere", barring the listed exceptions.

No for both.

The Mawloc wouldn't be able to do it by bare RAW (incidentally, the Tyranid FAQ was sweet vindication for the HIWPI crowd, since it blew away two silly RAW interpretations in the form of the Mawloc attack and Tyranid close combat weapons) without the special exemption in the FAQ.

The exemption is "special" because the FAQ query is asked specifically pertaining to the Mawloc, rather than to units in general.

I know that's disappointing and borderline unacceptable to the lawyering types, but it's like if someone wrote to GW and asked "Can I reroll any red die that lands within an inch of my Warlord" and the FAQ golems answered "Yes, you may".

It doesn't matter that a red die and a blue die are functionally identical; the question was only asked and answered about the red one.

Apart from the rules stating "anywhere", of course. As backed up by the Mawloc FAQ.

Altruizine wrote:
No for both.

The Mawloc wouldn't be able to do it by bare RAW (incidentally, the Tyranid FAQ was sweet vindication for the HIWPI crowd, since it blew away two silly RAW interpretations in the form of the Mawloc attack and Tyranid close combat weapons) without the special exemption in the FAQ.

The exemption is "special" because the FAQ query is asked specifically pertaining to the Mawloc, rather than to units in general.

I know that's disappointing and borderline unacceptable to the lawyering types, but it's like if someone wrote to GW and asked "Can I reroll any red die that lands within an inch of my Warlord" and the FAQ golems answered "Yes, you may".

It doesn't matter that a red die and a blue die are functionally identical; the question was only asked and answered about the red one.

Ok, for starters the Questions and Answers section does not create new rules or specific exceptions. It only explains what the current rules mean. The only current rules for determing where a deep striking mawloc can attempt to arrive are the generic deep striking rules. While the mawloc has its own special rules they don't become operative until AFTER the mowloc's player has selected where the unit will attempt to arrive.

Your example is poor. It lacks too much information to be a proper comparison. Do we know why you may reroll the die? Is it because it is red? Is it because it is a die? Is it because it landed withing an inch of a model? St it because it landed within an inch of your mode? Is it because that model was a warlord? It it because that model was your warlord? A 'rule' about any of these things could cause that answer. That answer does not cause a new rule.

 DeathReaper wrote:


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

It is just clarifying how the DS rules work.

This FAQ to me shows you can not place your model on another model, there would be no reason to have this FAQ otherwise.

You do not have permission to move terrain either and we know you can't deep strike in impassable terrain. By. Nos and DRs RAW, why not just smash them until you reach the table ? Wait I know, because it's not something that is RAW it is something they are using to try and support their claims.

The 1inch rule is a part of movement, DS counts as having moved.

The interesting part of the discussion is actually deciding if you can place your desired location on top of my models, gamesmanship says, why the heck not, better chance to Mishap. But that Mawloc FAQ stings of bad wording and gives it permission do so, which other models do not have.

My way has always been I wanna go here, and the rules seem to say place the model where you want it on the table. We know DS counts as having moved so you can't be within 1inch of enemy models.

So RAW I don't think you can, RAI I'd allow it with the greater chance of Mishaps. In the fury of a battle how could the models really know they were DS'in somewhere safe.

As I type this I picture me and NOS playing, I play nids, and have a solo Trygon prime, he places his desired DS location on top of my Trygon prime.
Me. "Nos, you know you have to be able to place the model on the table"
Nos. "Oh I know Dan". (nos pulls out hammer)

Once the Trygon is demolished and seeing as he's alone not within 1inch of another model I think NOS might place his model and roll for DS.

Stormbreed, you do understand that we are talking strict RAW here, not RAI or HIWPI?

WH 40K rules as they are written are non-functional at best, and total garbage at worst. You know it's poorly designed rules when players Have To make up house rules just for the game to work and be enjoyable.

Polecat wrote:
Stormbreed, you do understand that we are talking strict RAW here, not RAI or HIWPI?

WH 40K rules as they are written are non-funcional at best, and total garbage at worst. You know it's poorly designed rules when players Have To make up house rules just for the game to work and be enjoyable.

Read my post. RAW and RAI posted.

And if RAW someone is gonna smash my models, you better believe RAI is preferable.

Stormbreed wrote:


The interesting part of the discussion is actually deciding if you can place your desired location on top of me, gamesmanship says, why the heck not, better chance to Mishap. But that Mawloc FAQ stings of bad wording and gives it permission do so, which other models do not have.

On top of you is not considered by RAW as "table". Unless of course parts of you would be lying on the table, then yes, models can be deployed on top of you.

Or are you saying, that you can just place your hand or any other part of your body on the table, and say that you cant deep strike there, as it is not the table?

Polecat wrote:

Stormbreed wrote:


The interesting part of the discussion is actually deciding if you can place your desired location on top of me, gamesmanship says, why the heck not, better chance to Mishap. But that Mawloc FAQ stings of bad wording and gives it permission do so, which other models do not have.

On top of you is not considered by RAW as "table". Unless of course parts of you would be lying on the table, then yes, models can be deployed on top of you.

Or are you saying, that you can just place your hand or any other part of your body on the table, and say that you cant deep strike there, as it is not the table?

Hahahahaha. Fixed it for you. Obv on top of my models.

Stormbreed wrote:
This FAQ to me shows you can not place your model on another model, there would be no reason to have this FAQ otherwise.

You have that backwards. The FAQs are just clarifications of how the game is supposed to work.

... and we know you can't deep strike on top of battlements.

Er... yes you can...

Rulebook FAQ wrote:Q: Can a unit deploy onto battlements by Deep Strike? (p95)
A: A unit may attempt to Deep Strike onto battlements;
however, if after determining scatter, the entire unit cannot
deploy onto the battlements (for example if several models
would land on the battlements and others would have to
land on the ground next to the building, and thus out of
coherency) then the unit must roll on the Deep Strike
Mishap Table.

How do Spore Mines Work? The only reason I ask is because there is a FAQ for spore mines that states this.

Q: How far away must my opponent deploy from any Spore Mines from
clusters that have arrived by Deep Strike? (p48)
A: 1".

I don't know if this relevant or not since I don't know how Spore Mines work.

 insaniak wrote:

Stormbreed wrote:
This FAQ to me shows you can not place your model on another model, there would be no reason to have this FAQ otherwise.

You have that backwards. The FAQs are just clarifications of how the game is supposed to work.

... and we know you can't deep strike on top of battlements.

Er... yes you can...

Rulebook FAQ wrote:Q: Can a unit deploy onto battlements by Deep Strike? (p95)
A: A unit may attempt to Deep Strike onto battlements;
however, if after determining scatter, the entire unit cannot
deploy onto the battlements (for example if several models
would land on the battlements and others would have to
land on the ground next to the building, and thus out of
coherency) then the unit must roll on the Deep Strike
Mishap Table.

Fixed the 2nd part for you, but the point was based on the idea of "Smashing" models

As for the first part, actually you have it wrong. The FAQ is for only the Mawloc and doesn't set any kind of rules for any other units in the game. The fact they FAQ the Mawloc to be able to do a DS in this manner shows you need permission on models do so.

FAQ's are not blanket rules.

FAQs are clarifications, they are not supposed to change rules, that's what amendments are for. Granted, GW have been known to change rules in FAQs, but I don't think we should just assume they're incompetent and have changed the rule for the Mawloc alone despite it being in an FAQ not an amendment, when a clarification that allows deep strikers to be placed over a unit is also a reasonable interpretation.

 PrinceRaven wrote:
FAQs are clarifications, they are not supposed to change rules, that's what amendments are for. Granted, GW have been known to change rules in FAQs, but I don't think we should just assume they're incompetent and have changed the rule for the Mawloc alone despite it being in an FAQ not an amendment, when a clarification that allows deep strikers to be placed over a unit is also a reasonable interpretation.

People didn't think based on the rules you could place the original location over the models you wanted to use Mawloc's special rules on, so they asked and GW made an allowance in his case for them to do so. That doesn't give a blanket allowance for all DS models to do so.

There are many cases where FAQ's go against each other proving these are not blanket rules.

Stormbreed wrote:

 PrinceRaven wrote:
FAQs are clarifications, they are not supposed to change rules, that's what amendments are for. Granted, GW have been known to change rules in FAQs, but I don't think we should just assume they're incompetent and have changed the rule for the Mawloc alone despite it being in an FAQ not an amendment, when a clarification that allows deep strikers to be placed over a unit is also a reasonable interpretation.

People didn't think based on the rules you could place the original location over the models you wanted to use Mawloc's special rules on, so they asked and GW clarified the rules. That allowed all DS models to do so.

Fixed this for you.

Stormbreed - there is no special allowance here, the FAQ is a confirmation only

-Shrike- wrote:

Stormbreed wrote:

 PrinceRaven wrote:
FAQs are clarifications, they are not supposed to change rules, that's what amendments are for. Granted, GW have been known to change rules in FAQs, but I don't think we should just assume they're incompetent and have changed the rule for the Mawloc alone despite it being in an FAQ not an amendment, when a clarification that allows deep strikers to be placed over a unit is also a reasonable interpretation.

People didn't think based on the rules you could place the original location over the models you wanted to use Mawloc's special rules on, so they asked and GW clarified the rules. That allowed all DS models to do so.

Fixed this for you.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Stormbreed - there is no special allowance here, the FAQ is a confirmation only

So they Clarified the rules for Mawloc's special rule. Not for DS. I'm fine with that, after all the FAQ is worded as a question in regards to the special rule.

Stormbreed wrote:

-Shrike- wrote:

Stormbreed wrote:

 PrinceRaven wrote:
FAQs are clarifications, they are not supposed to change rules, that's what amendments are for. Granted, GW have been known to change rules in FAQs, but I don't think we should just assume they're incompetent and have changed the rule for the Mawloc alone despite it being in an FAQ not an amendment, when a clarification that allows deep strikers to be placed over a unit is also a reasonable interpretation.

People didn't think based on the rules you could place the original location over the models you wanted to use Mawloc's special rules on, so they asked and GW clarified the rules. That allowed all DS models to do so.

Fixed this for you.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Stormbreed - there is no special allowance here, the FAQ is a confirmation only

So they Clarified the rules for Mawloc's special rule. Not for DS. I'm fine with that, after all the FAQ is worded as a question in regards to the special rule.

"Can a Mawloc choose to Deep Strike onto a point occupied by an
enemy model on purpose in order to use X?"

Note that they didn't clarify the rule X. They clarified Deep Strike, bearing in mind rule X. The fact that all other units mishap when Deep Striking in the same way is irrelevant.

I find it Humorous that the Canadians are arguing that you cant in fact deep strike on enemy models.

I voted for no because it says you must place the model before rolling for scatter you cant place a model on top of a model sooo yea.

Also if someone where to do this i would let them because they ll mishap most likely.

I agree with storm breed 100%.

also to the person who said this is bout strict RAW not HIWPI, the poll clearly shows options for HIWPI....

Storm - reread the question, and note that NOWHERE in tftd does it state you can place a model over another model. All it clarifies is the initial placement - of the model, folllowing the actual DS rules - CAN be over another model. This then (assuming a hit, low enough scatter, etc) would trigger the condition for TftD to take over, instead of a mishap.

Again: tftd triggers *after* you have already placed the model. You then replace the model with a blast marker. This follows actual rules, not RAITTAW (rules as I think they are written)

 DarthOvious wrote:
How do Spore Mines Work? The only reason I ask is because there is a FAQ for spore mines that states this.

Q: How far away must my opponent deploy from any Spore Mines from
clusters that have arrived by Deep Strike? (p48)
A: 1".

I don't know if this relevant or not since I don't know how Spore Mines work.

It's not relevant. It's talking about deploying *after* arriving from Deep Strike, and therefore after you've already scattered. Essentially, it's just confirming the existing deployment rules.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Storm - reread the question, and note that NOWHERE in tftd does it state you can place a model over another model. All it clarifies is the initial placement - of the model, folllowing the actual DS rules - CAN be over another model. This then (assuming a hit, low enough scatter, etc) would trigger the condition for TftD to take over, instead of a mishap.

Again: tftd triggers *after* you have already placed the model. You then replace the model with a blast marker. This follows actual rules, not RAITTAW (rules as I think they are written)

However the FAQ makes your point mean nothing. As it now specifically tells us we can place the model for he purpose of the special rule.

You are reading the rule stating we have allowance, we never did based on 6th rules, so they had to FAQ it, which they did. Again and this is important, although we treat something "like something else" in terms of how the game is played it doesn't always work out that way. The Mawloc is actually coming up from under the ground, not being placed on the model, I understand that is fluff, however it is also true which is what the TWtD has special rules attached to it and the other models with DS do not.

Again the FAQ doesn't blanket 6th edition DS rules.

Bottom line, you RAW must place the model on the table, you can not move my model for the purpose of DS, nor can you be within 1" on my models as DS counts as having Moved, when we move we can't be within 1".

HOWEVER, HIYPI, by all means go ahead and do it, make the mishap more likely and my charge that much easier

I voted yes and yes,

The table is the table, and that's all it's ever going to mean. IF I can squeeze a model inside of your squad whether it's within 1'' or not it's a legal starting point. Note that there is no way I could ever move an opponents OR friendly model to make room for my DS's base.

It of course will mishap if a direct hit but a scatter is of course possible.

I also feel that it plays "clean" and makes sense from a real war perspective. Which really is what matters, fun games.

There is precedence set /w mawloc and spore mine FAQ's.

Anyone arguing otherwise is arguing AGAINST FAQ's and logic and not arguing WITH either of those.

Stormbreed - the special rule that kicks in after you find out your mishap you mean? Whcih is after you have placed the model?

Teh FAQ is confirmation, nothing more. RAW place "anywhere on the table", given how GW talks about the table, means just that.

"Bottom line, you RAW must place the model on the table, you can not move my model for the purpose of DS, nor can you be within 1" on my models as DS counts as having Moved, when we move we can't be within 1".

HOWEVER, HIYPI, by all means go ahead and do it, make the mishap more likely and my charge that much easier "




Wrong, placing the initial DS model is not counted as having moved as it's not actually on the table yet. It's just a marker.

a squad who has done a successful DS counts as moved, not during or before.

I have never used this technique but I can imagine it being used, especially /w elder jetbikes desperately trying to stay in reserve in order to claim an objective and would otherwise get blown off the table. Would be important for said Eldar player to have gone 2nd : )

Aijec wrote:I voted yes and yes,

The table is the table, and that's all it's ever going to mean. IF I can squeeze a model inside of your squad whether it's within 1'' or not it's a legal starting point. Note that there is no way I could ever move an opponents OR friendly model to make room for my DS's base.


There is precedence set /w mawloc and spore mine FAQ's.

Anyone arguing otherwise is arguing AGAINST FAQ's and logic and not arguing WITH either of those.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Stormbreed - the special rule that kicks in after you find out your mishap you mean? Whcih is after you have placed the model?

Teh FAQ is confirmation, nothing more. RAW place "anywhere on the table", given how GW talks about the table, means just that.

Nos,

You keep saying this, but I see no reason why. You are saying you believe the rules allow you to DS ON TOP on my models, I'm saying you RAW do not have permission to do so, as you have to place the model on the table.

The FAQ was an "Asked Question" because people knew you can't DS on top of another model, which for Mawloc's special rule isn't fun! Luckily GW made a special allowance for this. (However I understand we interpret this FAQ differently) I see it as an Asked Question about a Special Rule, you see it as about DS.

Aijec, I was more referring to placing your models on top of mine, within 1inch is debatable as DS in counted as Movement, and in the movement phase you can not be within 1 inch. Also FAQ's do not set a precedence, there are multiple FAQ's which actually rule one way or the other depending on the nature of the question. FAQ's are not blanket rules for the BRB, Errata or amendments are, but not FAQ's from codex's.

Then answer this: at what point does TftD, the special rule, occur?

Is it after you place the model, or before?

Given you are convinced this is a special allowance for the urle, perhaps proving it would be worthwhile.

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

Nos, the question was asked very specifically, if the Mawloc can DS onto an occupied point........

There is absolutely no reason for them to post this FAQ if you you are correct.

Regardless of when the special rule occurs, the FAQ is specifically allowance to go onto an occupied point, on top of that it is only if you want to use the special ability. They added that in so we don't think Trygons can do the same.

No, it is asking can this model DS, whcih then lets it use its rule. It does not alter TftD at all.

Regardless, "anywhere on the table", with the listed exceptions, INCLUDES models. So I will continue to play by the rules, and use this FAQ for what it is - a confirmation that yes, you can do this. Bear in mind prior to this model no normal GW model really absolutely wanted to DS on top of another model.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Regardless, "anywhere on the table", with the listed exceptions, INCLUDES models..

Where in the brb does it say this ?

So your standpoint remains that you can DS on top of my unit to start, even though DS counts as having moved?

You are also still clearly wrong on the FAQ as your argument continues to change as to what the FAQ is in regards to.

"No, it is asking can this model DS"

This is untrue as the Mawloc has the DS rule in its profile.

I'll repost this again, and see if it makes a difference to Stormbreed's argument.

-Shrike- wrote:

"Can a Mawloc choose to Deep Strike onto a point occupied by an
enemy model on purpose in order to use X?"

Note that they didn't clarify the rule X. They clarified Deep Strike, bearing in mind rule X. The fact that all other units mishap when Deep Striking in the same way is irrelevant.

-Shrike- wrote:
I'll repost this again, and see if it makes a difference to Stormbreed's argument.

-Shrike- wrote:

"Can a Mawloc choose to Deep Strike onto a point occupied by an
enemy model on purpose in order to use X?"

Note that they didn't clarify the rule X. They clarified Deep Strike, bearing in mind rule X. The fact that all other units mishap when Deep Striking in the same way is irrelevant.

I wish I could answer this, but I have no idea what you mean?

"Hey look, it's got rule X which would be even better if I could just put it on a unit when I Deep Strike."
"Can you do that?"
"I don't know, nobody would have wanted to do that until now. Let's look at the rules."
"Well there's nothing against it in the rulebook. Let's ask GW to be sure."

GW then releases an FAQ, saying that yes, it can DS on top of another model. They merely clarified Deep Strike, bearing in mind that rule X gives you a reason to DS this way, because nobody had ever looked at the rules like that before.

They released a FAQ about a specific rule, not a blanket Errata or Amendment, I don't see how this is hard to understand.

You 100% must in this instance look at the bigger picture, read the tyranid codex and understand that the special rule actually represents the model emerging from under the ground. As much as you might hate to bring fluff into RAW, in some cases it is necessary, the Mawloc itself isn't placed when it comes up, a large blast marker is instead. Why do they place the marker and not the model? Well because we don't place models on top of each other, amongst other reasons.

Stormbreed wrote:

Aijec wrote:I voted yes and yes,

The table is the table, and that's all it's ever going to mean. IF I can squeeze a model inside of your squad whether it's within 1'' or not it's a legal starting point. Note that there is no way I could ever move an opponents OR friendly model to make room for my DS's base.


There is precedence set /w mawloc and spore mine FAQ's.

Anyone arguing otherwise is arguing AGAINST FAQ's and logic and not arguing WITH either of those.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Stormbreed - the special rule that kicks in after you find out your mishap you mean? Whcih is after you have placed the model?

Teh FAQ is confirmation, nothing more. RAW place "anywhere on the table", given how GW talks about the table, means just that.

Nos,

You keep saying this, but I see no reason why. You are saying you believe the rules allow you to DS ON TOP on my models, I'm saying you RAW do not have permission to do so, as you have to place the model on the table.

The FAQ was an "Asked Question" because people knew you can't DS on top of another model, which for Mawloc's special rule isn't fun! Luckily GW made a special allowance for this. (However I understand we interpret this FAQ differently) I see it as an Asked Question about a Special Rule, you see it as about DS.

Aijec, I was more referring to placing your models on top of mine, within 1inch is debatable as DS in counted as Movement, and in the movement phase you can not be within 1 inch. Also FAQ's do not set a precedence, there are multiple FAQ's which actually rule one way or the other depending on the nature of the question. FAQ's are not blanket rules for the BRB, Errata or amendments are, but not FAQ's from codex's.

Precedent isn't concrete and I didn't intend to present it that way, just small pillars supporting my beliefs.

I clarify I stand beside what I've originally posted but of course can't imagine a player placing a model ontop of another model, idc if it's witin 1'' as I originally stated but it's not on the table if its ontop of a base or literally the model.

I believe we're on the same page.

It's a yes to both from me.
If my opponent wants to take the gamble and deliberately mishap, I won't argue.

I chose no to both.

Because I'm not convinced by the arguments that "Table" means table AND/OR models on the table. It seems obvious to me that Table means... the playing surface including scenery. So that's HIWPI.

I'm also not convinced by the argument that since TFTD doesn't allow DSing onto units and they clarified it in the FAQ part, not in the Errata part, therefore it gives us some insight into how the DS *should* work... yeah I don't buy it.

I understand the argument, but I believe the people making it are putting way too much faith in GW to make such a nuanced distinction. It's like that old saying - the rules designers aren't hiding little Easter eggs in the rules for you to find.

They designed a monster that says; "hey - here is a unique monster that comes up from the ground and eats people - if you deep strike him onto the enemy he doesn't get hurt - he hurts them instead!" But the rule is ambiguous - so someone asked GW ... "Well you say "if I deep strike onto someone..." when I'm using the Mawlock am I allowed to purposefully DS onto people?"
... and the answer is Yes. There's no hidden Easter Egg here about the "true" meaning of deep strikes in general. What is more likely - that they decided to given a hidden eater egg about all 40k deep striking in a 1 word answer in the Tyranid FAQ? Or that the GW designers originally thought the Mawlock wording was clear enough and that it allready allowed you to DS onto enemies and they just assumed everyone would do that - and when people starting asking they just added it to the FAQ, that yes, in fact the Mawlock CAN choose to DS onto enemy models in order to use it use it's special powers?

Seems obvious to me and that's HIWPI. But it's such a corner case that if it ever happened and my opponent REALLY wanted to - meh. I wouldn't care personally.

-Shrike- wrote:
"Hey look, it's got rule X which would be even better if I could just put it on a unit when I Deep Strike."
"Can you do that?"
"I don't know, nobody would have wanted to do that until now. Let's look at the rules."
"Well there's nothing against it in the rulebook. Let's ask GW to be sure."

GW then releases an FAQ, saying that yes, it can DS on top of another model. They merely clarified Deep Strike, bearing in mind that rule X gives you a reason to DS this way, because nobody had ever looked at the rules like that before.

Q: Is a vehicle hit by a Vengeful Tornado re sult literally hit on its
side armour, and therefore doe s it get the Obscured cover save if
Njal cannot see one of its side s? (p53)
A: No – Vengeful Tornado is not a shooting attack and
therefore allows no cover save. Essentially the tornado strikes
from directly above; the side armour is used to represent this.

So if we play your way we can easily say, well Doom's ability is a special ability as well correct?
No need to look anything else up as we have a FAQ that says a non shooting attack doesn't allow cover saves !

But wait!

Q: Can cover saves be taken against wounds inflicted by the Doom of
Malan’tai’s Spirit Leech ability? (p58)
A: Yes.


Again FAQ's regarding SPECIFIC special rules are not blanket rules statements, I can see how we can look to them to set a viewpoint, but nothing more then that.

Oh look, another of these debates. Dear god they just need to FAQ this crap, two editions now almost.

Oh and a tornado strikes from above, a special ability like Spirit Leech is not described to be coming from above, it is coming from DoM itself. So yeah, those special abilities are not similar.

 deadrifler wrote:
Oh look, another of these debates. Dear god they just need to FAQ this crap, two editions now almost.

Oh and a tornado strikes from above, a special ability like Spirit Leech is not described to be coming from above, it is coming from DoM itself. So yeah, those special abilities are not similar.

Mawloc explodes from under them and I did bold the part about them saying as it is not a shooting attack no cover saves can be taken, which was the point. They've also ruled cover saves CAN be taken against the TFtD attack even though its coming from under them fluff wise just like the tornado is coming from above.

Basically sometimes the fluff of a tornado actually coming from above does matter.

No need for an FAQ. This is really simple stuff and why the debate is raging so hard is incredible to me.

No and No.

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

Unless a model has a rule to do otherwise, shouldn't this first and most basic concept of deep striking be followed?

 augustus5 wrote:
No need for an FAQ. This is really simple stuff and why the debate is raging so hard is incredible to me.

No and No.

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

Unless a model has a rule to do otherwise, shouldn't this first and most basic concept of deep striking be followed?

Which you still need to do, even with the Mawloc.

That being said, since when I do use a Mawloc I attempt to DS on enemy models, so I skip this step, and instead use the lbm.

Thought the point of this thread was NOT to debate the rules. That's what the other (now closed) thread was for.
There's nothing new being added here.

 Happyjew wrote:

 augustus5 wrote:
No need for an FAQ. This is really simple stuff and why the debate is raging so hard is incredible to me.

No and No.

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

Unless a model has a rule to do otherwise, shouldn't this first and most basic concept of deep striking be followed?

Which you still need to do, even with the Mawloc.

That being said, since when I do use a Mawloc I attempt to DS on enemy models, so I skip this step, and instead use the lbm.

in the position where you would like it to arrive

When a Mawloc arrives we have specific rules stating you don't use a Mawloc you use a Large Blast Marker and move the models out of the way. Since we are placing it where we want it to arrive I think we can agree that placing the Large Blast Marker works.

Stormbreed wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

 augustus5 wrote:
No need for an FAQ. This is really simple stuff and why the debate is raging so hard is incredible to me.

No and No.

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

Unless a model has a rule to do otherwise, shouldn't this first and most basic concept of deep striking be followed?

Which you still need to do, even with the Mawloc.

That being said, since when I do use a Mawloc I attempt to DS on enemy models, so I skip this step, and instead use the lbm.

in the position where you would like it to arrive

When a Mawloc arrives we have specific rules stating you don't use a Mawloc you use a Large Blast Marker and move the models out of the way. Since we are placing it where we want it to arrive I think we can agree that placing the Large Blast Marker works.

WRONG

REREAD the rule

NOTE the "IF" Clause

You ONLY place the LBM *if* you would mishap. Prior to this point you use the mawloc model - same as any other single model unit

Oh, and no, DS *placement* is not movement. If it were, then I presume you trigger dangerous terrain checkss when scattering - afterall, youre claiming it is movement? Oh, and you can never scatter into Impassable Terrain - meaning you cannot mishap from it. Oh, and you cannot scatter off the table, as units cannot move of f the table, normally

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Stormbreed wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

 augustus5 wrote:
No need for an FAQ. This is really simple stuff and why the debate is raging so hard is incredible to me.

No and No.

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

Unless a model has a rule to do otherwise, shouldn't this first and most basic concept of deep striking be followed?

Which you still need to do, even with the Mawloc.

That being said, since when I do use a Mawloc I attempt to DS on enemy models, so I skip this step, and instead use the lbm.

in the position where you would like it to arrive

When a Mawloc arrives we have specific rules stating you don't use a Mawloc you use a Large Blast Marker and move the models out of the way. Since we are placing it where we want it to arrive I think we can agree that placing the Large Blast Marker works.

WRONG

REREAD the rule

NOTE the "IF" Clause

You ONLY place the LBM *if* you would mishap. Prior to this point you use the mawloc model - same as any other single model unit

Oh, and no, DS *placement* is not movement. If it were, then I presume you trigger dangerous terrain checkss when scattering - afterall, youre claiming it is movement? Oh, and you can never scatter into Impassable Terrain - meaning you cannot mishap from it. Oh, and you cannot scatter off the table, as units cannot move of f the table, normally

Sorry you didn't read the post I quoted, I can understand.

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

You have to place that one model..... the moment you do as you're are DS it is a Mishap, so we can use the LBM, I also noted in my post that was HIWPI, no need for caps, lets keep it civil

I'm gonna delete this, and just say, you don't have permission to place your model on top of mine and if you try and argue that you can smash it into pieces you're admitting you're wrong. If you try and argue my model is "A PART OF THE TABLE" you're also admitting you're wrong.

I read it. The first part was a false statement - we do not have specific rules stating we dont use a mawloc; once we determine if it mishaps is the point at which we replace the model.

Sorry you didnt understand what you wrote, I can understand.

Incorrect. The model has not arrived. There is no movement until after the unit has actually managed to arrive, which is afer you determine mishap or no mishap.

Again, your interpretation breaks DS. Your claim, unsupported as it is, is that the initial placement - which isnt movement - is somehow movement. Whcih it isnt.

Again, answer - do you claim that the scatter is also movement? So it triggers difficult, dangerous, cannot move off the table, cannot move into impassable terrain, etc? THAT is your claim, so either you retract your claim - I recommend this - or you agree that you play DS differently to the entire gaming community I have ever met, coincidentally making Drop Pods immune to non-hit Mishaps.

So, "youre wrong" is the extent of your argument?

Thanks for conceding.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
I read it. The first part was a false statement - we do not have specific rules stating we dont use a mawloc; once we determine if it mishaps is the point at which we replace the model.

Sorry you didnt understand what you wrote, I can understand.

Incorrect. The model has not arrived. There is no movement until after the unit has actually managed to arrive, which is afer you determine mishap or no mishap.

Again, your interpretation breaks DS. Your claim, unsupported as it is, is that the initial placement - which isnt movement - is somehow movement. Whcih it isnt.

Again, answer - do you claim that the scatter is also movement? So it triggers difficult, dangerous, cannot move off the table, cannot move into impassable terrain, etc? THAT is your claim, so either you retract your claim - I recommend this - or you agree that you play DS differently to the entire gaming community I have ever met, coincidentally making Drop Pods immune to non-hit Mishaps.

So, "youre wrong" is the extent of your argument?

Thanks for conceding.

NOS this is your classic retort, which sadly pushes people away from these forums. Remember we're trying to figure out RAW (Yes) but as it relates to the game.
Keep it civil!
Would you like me to point to where you said you will smash models to place your DS? How crazy would it be if you actually smashed someones models........
Keep it civil!

You don't have permission to place your model on mine, can you find a permission ? Can you find a permission to move my model (or smash it) so you can reach the board? Can you find something saying my models are the board?

I can find a rule that says you must be outside of 1" of my models during movement. DS is counted as movement.

The FaQ clarifies that we have permission in the "Anywhere on the table" clause in the DS rules.

"I can find a rule that says you must be outside of 1" of my models during movement. DS is counted as movement. "

Prove it. Answer the questions - simple yes or no

Do you play that DS scatter triggers Dangerous Terrain?

Do you allow scatter into impassable terrain?

Can Drop Pods scatter off the table?

After all - you are claiming ALL of it is movement. It isnt, but that is YOUR *unsupported* claim, so please - own that claim.

Refusal to answer - for a third time - is acceptance that you do not believe your own statement.

Deep striking units counting as having moved.


Thats it.....

Just like..... not to point you to another thread, but, witch fire spells count as having fired an assault weapon.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DeathReaper wrote:
The FaQ clarifies that we have permission in the "Anywhere on the table" clause in the DS rules.

At no point does it say on top of my models.

I can't believe this has gone to 3 pages. It clearly says the first model has to be put on the table- not on top of the table or another model. Surely thats the end of the story? Even if you wanna argue it its quite obvious thats not the way its supposed to be played.

Stormbreed wrote:
Deep striking units counting as having moved.


Thats it.....

Just like..... not to point you to another thread, but, witch fire spells count as having fired an assault weapon.

Thank you for failing to answer yes or no. Concession accepted.

For reference: after you arrive you cannot move any furhter, but the initial placement CANNOT be movement, as models are not actually there yet - they are only where you WANT the unit to arrive; there isnt currently a unit.

Stormbreed refuses to accept these rules, and instead claims the initial scatter is movement - making drop pods unable to scatter off the ttable, or any unit to scatter into impassable terrain. These are not, of course, the real rules.

Psy-Titan wrote:
I can't believe this has gone to 3 pages. It clearly says the first model has to be put on the table- not on top of the table or another model. Surely thats the end of the story? Even if you wanna argue it its quite obvious thats not the way its supposed to be played.

You have to 100% understand that NOS and DR are here to argue RAW, as much as possible.... It doesn't make them wrong to be TFG, it just makes RAW easier to understand.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Stormbreed wrote:
Deep striking units counting as having moved.


Thats it.....

Just like..... not to point you to another thread, but, witch fire spells count as having fired an assault weapon.

Thank you for failing to answer yes or no. Concession accepted.

Thanks for answering if you can SMASH my models so you can touch the table, yes or no, I understand you avoid it because you know you are wrong. EDIT HERE ----> I don't claim any of those things I simply tell you the rules, Deep Strike counts as having moved..... If you want to argue that means at the end of the Deep Strike,that is a different YMTC thread, and you are welcome to post it.

Stormbreed - you lost the argument, accept it gracefully.

You made a classic, overreaching claim to try to prove your point, and now refuse to back it up.

You could redeem yourself by simply answering ONE question. how about it?

Do you play that drop pods can scatter off the board? Yes or no. EASY.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Stormbreed - you lost the argument, accept it gracefully.

You made a classic, overreaching claim to try to prove your point, and now refuse to back it up.

You could redeem yourself by simply answering ONE question. how about it?

Do you play that drop pods can scatter off the board? Yes or no. EASY.

Can you smash my models? As per RAW? Yes or No?

We can both be wrong if you like, but I didn't enter this debate until I saw you and DR purpose that RAW it is 100% okay for you to smash my models to touch the ground.

If you can provide a rule that allows for you to smash my models I will happily give in, also, you still are very wrong about the Mawloc faq

My short answer would be at least yes to hiwpi, and probably raw. I don't see any tactical genius behind the move, but I'd be completely fine if an opponent wanted to do so.

Storm - I give up, frankly. You cannot answer a simple question, and are simply making up rules - breaking the tenets of this forum.

Bye

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Storm - I give up, frankly. You cannot answer a simple question, and are simply making up rules - breaking the tenets of this forum.

Bye

Neither you or me perhaps ?

I agree RAW you are right about some things, but I still don't see permission for you to SMASH my models......

NOS, please know that I really do agree with you 97% of the time, sometimes you throw people off in the forums tho, yes we have to argue strict RAW, however it doesn't matter if noone will play with you

For people arguing that "on the table" actually means physically place the model on the table, can I place the model on a hill? On a forest? On ruins? On battlements? If the entire table is covered by either terrain or models, can I deep strike anywhere?

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Refusal to answer - for a third time - is acceptance that you do not believe your own statement.

You've consistently ignore others direct questions (such as where you get permission to place a deepstriking model on top of another) and yet you make grandiose statements like this as if you are some master of the forums that's above his own rules. Take a deep breath and realize you're just as guilty of the criticisms you level towards others. You may not intend it that way, but you are coming off as a biased, holier-than-thou hypocrite at this point.

Stormbreed wrote:
You have to place that one model..... the moment you do as you're are DS it is a Mishap, so we can use the LBM, I also noted in my post that was HIWPI, no need for caps, lets keep it civil

No, you don't mishap until after you scatter. Therefore you don't use the LBM until after you scatter, but you place the Mawloc on top of your opponents models. Permission given in the rules.

rigeld2 wrote:

Stormbreed wrote:
You have to place that one model..... the moment you do as you're are DS it is a Mishap, so we can use the LBM, I also noted in my post that was HIWPI, no need for caps, lets keep it civil

No, you don't mishap until after you scatter. Therefore you don't use the LBM until after you scatter, but you place the Mawloc on top of your opponents models. Permission given in the rules.

In the FAQ

 DeathReaper wrote:
The FaQ clarifies that we have the Mawloc has permission

Fixed that for ya

Stormbreed wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Stormbreed wrote:
You have to place that one model..... the moment you do as you're are DS it is a Mishap, so we can use the LBM, I also noted in my post that was HIWPI, no need for caps, lets keep it civil

No, you don't mishap until after you scatter. Therefore you don't use the LBM until after you scatter, but you place the Mawloc on top of your opponents models. Permission given in the rules.

In the FAQ

... Which is rules.

 Elric Greywolf wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
The FaQ clarifies that we have the Mawloc has permission

Fixed that for ya

+1

 Elric Greywolf wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
The FaQ clarifies that we have the Mawloc has permission

Fixed that for ya

No you did not fix it as it was fine as it was. (Or maybe it should have read: The FaQ clarifies that all models have permission).

The Mawloc has permission, but so does everyone else, as there is not any explicit permission for the Mawloc specifically. It is a general rule of DS to place the model anywhere on the table, and the Mawloc FaQ clarifies that space can be occupied by an enemy model, as there is no specific language about an allowance to place the Mawloc where other models are, it must be a function of the DS rules themselves.

There are several alerts about this thread.

Please note that when you click the yellow button you need to make a specific complaint for moderators to consider, otherwise we can only guess what you are concerned about.

I voted for option four, RAW and HYWPI is "anywhere on the table". I take that to mean 'anywhere', rather than 'anywhere except for some places where you can't'.

 PrinceRaven wrote:
For people arguing that "on the table" actually means physically place the model on the table, can I place the model on a hill? On a forest? On ruins? On battlements? If the entire table is covered by either terrain or models, can I deep strike anywhere?

I can't recall the page number Reaper quoted but it defined the table clearly as the playable surface including terrain and we have a faq for battlements.. However in neither of these locations are models, models bases or hulls defined as part of the table. just as in the multitude of locations where models, model bases and hulls are defined you will not find that they include being part of the table in their description.

hope that answers your question raven.

It defines it the table as including terrain? Ok, fair enough, point withdrawn.

I voted yes and yes, since i could not find anything in BRB that would prevent me from placing models on top of other models when deep striking. All it says is Anywhere on the table. And yes, this suggests that I can crush models when deep striking, however if I were to play a game, I would try to agree a house rule with my opponent that we dont crush models in that game, and instead point out where the models is placed if it deep strikes on top of other models.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Elric Greywolf wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
The FaQ clarifies that we have the Mawloc has permission

Fixed that for ya

No you did not fix it as it was fine as it was. (Or maybe it should have read: The FaQ clarifies that all models have permission).

The Mawloc has permission, but so does everyone else, as there is not any explicit permission for the Mawloc specifically. It is a general rule of DS to place the model anywhere on the table, and the Mawloc FaQ clarifies that space can be occupied by an enemy model, as there is no specific language about an allowance to place the Mawloc where other models are, it must be a function of the DS rules themselves.

This. There was no special allowance in the Mawlocs DS (as you use the LBM AFTER you mishap, not before) to DS onto a model; therefore the FAQ provides confirmation of this ability in general.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Elric Greywolf wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
The FaQ clarifies that we have the Mawloc has permission

Fixed that for ya

No you did not fix it as it was fine as it was. (Or maybe it should have read: The FaQ clarifies that all models have permission).

The Mawloc has permission, but so does everyone else, as there is not any explicit permission for the Mawloc specifically. It is a general rule of DS to place the model anywhere on the table, and the Mawloc FaQ clarifies that space can be occupied by an enemy model, as there is no specific language about an allowance to place the Mawloc where other models are, it must be a function of the DS rules themselves.

This. There was no special allowance in the Mawlocs DS (as you use the LBM AFTER you mishap, not before) to DS onto a model; therefore the FAQ provides confirmation of this ability in general.

One way to look at.

Other way, we are not allowed to place our models on top of other peoples models. We are not allowed to move other peoples models. So they gave Mawloc special permission to DS in a unique way as to use his ability.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Elric Greywolf wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
The FaQ clarifies that we have the Mawloc has permission

Fixed that for ya

No you did not fix it as it was fine as it was. (Or maybe it should have read: The FaQ clarifies that all models have permission).

The Mawloc has permission, but so does everyone else, as there is not any explicit permission for the Mawloc specifically. It is a general rule of DS to place the model anywhere on the table, and the Mawloc FaQ clarifies that space can be occupied by an enemy model, as there is no specific language about an allowance to place the Mawloc where other models are, it must be a function of the DS rules themselves.

This. There was no special allowance in the Mawlocs DS (as you use the LBM AFTER you mishap, not before) to DS onto a model; therefore the FAQ provides confirmation of this ability in general.

If what Nos and DR are saying is true, then explain this case:
Vindicare has Deadshot, which allows the Vindi's controlling player to allocate wounds. LOS! lets the target re-allocate wounds. No problems so far. However, the GK FAQ "clarifies" that Deadshot supersedes any form of re-allocation, which is NOT what the Deadshot Rules actually says.
Why, then, does this FAQ not apply to all Precision Shots?

 Elric Greywolf wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Elric Greywolf wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
The FaQ clarifies that we have the Mawloc has permission

Fixed that for ya

No you did not fix it as it was fine as it was. (Or maybe it should have read: The FaQ clarifies that all models have permission).

The Mawloc has permission, but so does everyone else, as there is not any explicit permission for the Mawloc specifically. It is a general rule of DS to place the model anywhere on the table, and the Mawloc FaQ clarifies that space can be occupied by an enemy model, as there is no specific language about an allowance to place the Mawloc where other models are, it must be a function of the DS rules themselves.

This. There was no special allowance in the Mawlocs DS (as you use the LBM AFTER you mishap, not before) to DS onto a model; therefore the FAQ provides confirmation of this ability in general.

If what Nos and DR are saying is true, then explain this case:
Vindicare has Deadshot, which allows the Vindi's controlling player to allocate wounds. LOS! lets the target re-allocate wounds. No problems so far. However, the GK FAQ "clarifies" that Deadshot supersedes any form of re-allocation, which is NOT what the Deadshot Rules actually says.
Why, then, does this FAQ not apply to all Precision Shots?

Because the Vindicare has the Deadshot rule, and not "Precision Shots" rule.

They are literally two different rules, unlike the situation at hand where the Mawloc uses the Deep Strike rules for initial placement just like every other model/unit that uses the Deep Strike rules. The Mawloc has a rule that kicks in after scatter/mishap has occurred...

Elric - as above. When other models have "Deadshot", they would get that rule. Until then....

Bad example is bad.

Storm - allowance to move other models is explicitly a part of the TftD rules. Now, have you worked out at which point DS is a move yet?

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Elric - as above. When other models have "Deadshot", they would get that rule. Until then....

Bad example is bad.

Storm - allowance to move other models is explicitly a part of the TftD rules. Now, have you worked out at which point DS is a move yet?

Nos were talking about DS. Have you worked out how you have permission to move my models? I've always said DS counts as having moved, based on your account you disagree I understand and see your point, but Mawlocs rules don't blanket moving my models. I see permission for one special rule to move models out of the way, I see no permission for other DS models.

Based on the poll you're losing this debate.

You do not have permission to place your model on top of mine. You do not have permission to move my models.

And again FAQs are not blanket rules and often go against one another, we even have a FAQ that takes fluff into account, should we change the forum rules to include fluff...?

Well the DS rules say to place the model anywhere on the table without any other restrictions.

Therefore either we smash models, or compromise and point to a location where the model is centered.

DS counts as having moved but only after the DS takes place.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Elric Greywolf wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
The FaQ clarifies that we have the Mawloc has permission

Fixed that for ya

No you did not fix it as it was fine as it was. (Or maybe it should have read: The FaQ clarifies that all models have permission).

The Mawloc has permission, but so does everyone else, as there is not any explicit permission for the Mawloc specifically. It is a general rule of DS to place the model anywhere on the table, and the Mawloc FaQ clarifies that space can be occupied by an enemy model, as there is no specific language about an allowance to place the Mawloc where other models are, it must be a function of the DS rules themselves.

Where in the FAQ is permission given to all models? Can you set your model down on top of other models? The first step of the deep strike rules state that the model(or one model in a unit) must be placed on the table. The Mawloc gets around this because instead of placing it on the table, you use the large blast marker before determining scatter.

 augustus5 wrote:

Where in the FAQ is permission given to all models? Can you set your model down on top of other models? The first step of the deep strike rules state that the model(or one model in a unit) must be placed on the table. The Mawloc gets around this because instead of placing it on the table, you use the large blast marker before determining scatter.

Absolutely false. You do not place the marker until after you scatter. Re-read the rules please.

More specifically the mawlocs rules by pass the standard placement by replacing the mawloc with a blast marker if it is to be placed on enemy models in either case of scatter or by choice as clarified by the faq. As only the mawloc and its rules are specifically or generally mentioned we cannot assume that the faq applys to all deepstriking units. normally they would state as such if it did.

 Bausk wrote:
More specifically the mawlocs rules by pass the standard placement by replacing the mawloc with a blast marker if it is to be placed on enemy models in either case of scatter or by choice as clarified by the faq. As only the mawloc and its rules are specifically or generally mentioned we cannot assume that the faq applys to all deepstriking units. normally they would state as such if it did.

Absolutely false. You do not place the marker until after you scatter. Re-read the rules please.

The base rule is "If the mawloc deepstrikes" and initial placement is apart of deepstrike, yes? The faq asks if the mawloc chooses to deepstrike onto a enemy model/unit and the answer was yes the mawloc can. Ofcourse I'm paraphrasing though.

 Bausk wrote:
The base rule is "If the mawloc deepstrikes" and initial placement is apart of deepstrike, yes? The faq asks if the mawloc chooses to deepstrike onto a enemy model/unit and the answer was yes the mawloc can. Ofcourse I'm paraphrasing though.

"If a Mawloc Deep Strikes onto a point occupied by another model, do not roll on the Deep Strike Mishap table but instead do the following." (51 Tyrnaid Codex). and then it goes on to describe what happens to the unit that the Mawloc Deep Struck onto.

Where in there does it tell you that the initial placement can be on top of another model. (Hint: They do not say that in the quote) Therefore it must be a function of the Deep Strike Rules.

The DS initial placement rules must still be followed as the quote tells us what happens if the Mawloc would mishap from being at a point occupied by another model after the DS scatter dice are rolled, which is well after Initial model placement.

Sure it does; " If the mawloc deep strikes onto a point occupied by another model". Deep strike is initial placement to actual deployment/mishap.

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

The question specifically asks about the mawloc, its special rule and references the page number. At no point in the question or answer is the general rules for deep strike mentioned or referenced.

You and others are making an ill assumption based on "anywhere on the table" while ignoring that the table is defined and cited, by yourself no less, as the playable area including terrain. This has been shown repeatedly not to include models, modles bases of hulls.

Also it has been shown repeatedly that yes you have permission to place on the table under the models, bases and hulls you do have to physically place the model on the table and not the models, bases or hulls. Which you do not have permission to do.

and also demontrated repeatedly you do not have permission to hypothetically place the model through or under the models, bases amd hulls.

Further more dispite repeated requests for a citation for permission to smash models so you can place your model on the table we are yet to see one...largely because we all know no such permission exists.

In the face of all the evidence to the contrary you and others persist in maintaining the blatantly incorrect assumption that you are right because the deep strike rule states "anywhere on the table".

So you roll on the Mishap table before rolling scatter?

Damn you Happy, why you gotta come in here and ruin my argument with one question? LoL

Storm - because your claim is the 1" rule applies, yet it absolutely does not, because initial DS placement is - placement.

I'll just place anywhere on the table, barring the specific exceptions listed, without making more rules up.

 Bausk wrote:
Damn you Happy, why you gotta come in here and ruin my argument with one question? LoL

Because that exact things has been pointed out many times already? :-)

This is the actual simplified process of deep striking models:

- place one model from the unit anywhere on the table, in the position where you would like it to arrive.

- roll for scatter to determine the model's final position.

- the unit's remaining models are arranged around the first one

- If any of the models in a deep striking unit cannot be deployed, because at least one model would land partially or fully off the table, in impassable terrain, on top of a friendly model or on top of or within 1" of an enemy model, roll on the Deep strike Mishap table.

THIS IS WHERE the Mawloc's special rule kicks in.

Instead of rolling on Mishap table, replace the model with a large blast marker.


So you place the Mawloc model on top of enemys models, and after that you replace it with a large blast marker.

No. You place it, determine scatter, THEN replace with a marker. Replacing it with a marker prior to scattering is breaking rules.

rigeld2 wrote:
No. You place it, determine scatter, THEN replace with a marker. Replacing it with a marker prior to scattering is breaking rules.

Correct, and that's what I said, wasn't it?


My last sentence was referring to the funny fact, that you infact place models on top of each other according to rules, even though not many play it that way.

Yep, and apparenlty you get told youre TFG for pointing out that this is, in fact, how the DS rules work.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Yep, and apparenlty you get told youre TFG for pointing out that this is, in fact, how the DS rules work.

Don't you know, only TFG insists on playing by the rules of the game, to prove you aren't TFG you have to make houserules that benefit your army more than your opponents.[/sarcasm]

Polecat wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
No. You place it, determine scatter, THEN replace with a marker. Replacing it with a marker prior to scattering is breaking rules.

Correct, and that's what I said, wasn't it?

My last sentence was referring to the funny fact, that you infact place models on top of each other according to rules, even though not many play it that way.

Sorry, I read your last sentence to say you put the model there and then immediately put the marker there (ignoring scatter).

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Storm - because your claim is the 1" rule applies, yet it absolutely does not, because initial DS placement is - placement.

I'll just place anywhere on the table, barring the specific exceptions listed, without making more rules up.

Nos. Forget the 1inch claim. Let's say that even tho DS counts as having moved, and while placing the model where you want to, wait for it, DS, you don't think it counts as ,DS, so you're making up a whole new time in the game called, I have no clue .......... Let's move onto the poll question which you continue to ignore.

RAW. Permission to smash my models. I've been waiting since page 1. The poll overwhelmingly agrees you're wrong, but please list the rule that says you have permission to smash my models. If you can't and you want to make your argument RAI, please take 10 seconds and think it through so I do not have to post how bad that game would work out for you.

"Anywhere on the table" is the permission to, wait for it, place the model anywhere on the table...

There is no restrictions on anywhere, and if the model wants to be where your model is then we have permission to place it in that spot, models being in the way does not matter, so we forcibly place it "Anywhere on the table"

PrinceRaven wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Yep, and apparenlty you get told youre TFG for pointing out that this is, in fact, how the DS rules work.

Don't you know, only TFG insists on playing by the rules of the game, to prove you aren't TFG you have to make houserules that benefit your army more than your opponents.[/sarcasm]

I. Don't. Deepstrike. Models. That. Can. Scatter. So, again, how does this benefit my army? The only army I play with DS is mordrak, and you can bet I am not going to intentionally mishap him

Your attempt to colour others arguments by stating bias is appalling.

Stormbreed wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Storm - because your claim is the 1" rule applies, yet it absolutely does not, because initial DS placement is - placement.

I'll just place anywhere on the table, barring the specific exceptions listed, without making more rules up.

Nos. Forget the 1inch claim. Let's say that even tho DS counts as having moved, and while placing the model where you want to, wait for it, DS, you don't think it counts as ,DS, so you're making up a whole new time in the game called, I have no clue

So, again, you are claiming that you cannot mishap by scattering into impassable terrain? GIven you are claiming it is movement, and all. You havent answered that easy question - do so, or accept that it isnt movement (btw - we've proven it isnt movement, i just want you to back up your assertions, or see the consequence of them, so you can see how inane an assertion it is)

Stormbreed wrote: .......... Let's move onto the poll question which you continue to ignore.

Not ignored. Given you an answer a few times. Now, you dont LIKE the answer, but that isnt my issue.

Stormbreed wrote:RAW. Permission to smash my models.

I have placed my models according to the rulebooks use of "table". You are wanting to use the dictionary definition of table. In a game where you are playing rules-shenanigans, and want to use something not supported by 40k, then I will do exactly that, and place them on the table. If your models are in the way - too bad. Youre the one who altered the rules first.

Stormbreed wrote: I've been waiting since page 1. The poll overwhelmingly agrees you're wrong,

The plural of anecdote is evidence?

Stormbreed wrote:but please list the rule that says you have permission to smash my models. If you can't and you want to make your argument RAI, please take 10 seconds and think it through so I do not have to post how bad that game would work out for you.

Already, repeatedly, given.

I'm just going to play by the rules and place my models ANYWHERE on the table - using how 40k defines the table, which is fairly inclusive you would find if you took "10 seconds" to think it through, rather than repeatedly erring as you are doing now - barring the restrictions, and if I wish to do so over other models, then as a suitable compromise to placing my models on yours, I will point to the position. If you are unhappy - because you are labouring under a false belief as to what "table" means within the 40k ruleset, and absolutely insist my model makes contact with the table, then I will accede to your wishes as best I can.

Now, any chance you could find it in you to answer the query on how a model can move when it hasnt even arrived yet? Page and paragrapgh would be great right now, forum tenets and all.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

PrinceRaven wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Yep, and apparenlty you get told youre TFG for pointing out that this is, in fact, how the DS rules work.

Don't you know, only TFG insists on playing by the rules of the game, to prove you aren't TFG you have to make houserules that benefit your army more than your opponents.[/sarcasm]

I. Don't. Deepstrike. Models. That. Can. Scatter. So, again, how does this benefit my army? The only army I play with DS is mordrak, and you can bet I am not going to intentionally mishap him

Your attempt to colour others arguments by stating bias is appalling.

What makes you so certain that statement was directed at you? It was more of a statement on what I've seen multiple times on YMDC.

Read but didn't contribute to other thread. voted - Yes to both, based on how we (meta) currently play it.

But RaW I am less sure of. Seems like one of those things where the writers didn't get their point accross well.

'Anywhere' should mean anywhere. But 'on' should also mean on. Then again its pretty easy to pop a 'Anywhere avaliable' in should they have so wished.

WMS should only be applicable if other Movement rules are for the placement before scatter (and IMO they are not).

But if anyone actually tried to rest their drop pods on my models I would Hulk out.

 PrinceRaven wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

PrinceRaven wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Yep, and apparenlty you get told youre TFG for pointing out that this is, in fact, how the DS rules work.

Don't you know, only TFG insists on playing by the rules of the game, to prove you aren't TFG you have to make houserules that benefit your army more than your opponents.[/sarcasm]

I. Don't. Deepstrike. Models. That. Can. Scatter. So, again, how does this benefit my army? The only army I play with DS is mordrak, and you can bet I am not going to intentionally mishap him

Your attempt to colour others arguments by stating bias is appalling.

What makes you so certain that statement was directed at you? It was more of a statement on what I've seen multiple times on YMDC.

Ah, so when directly quoting someone you ARENT directing your response at them?

Odd, as thats what quoting usually means. Maybe be more explicit next time in your sarcastic responses to threads.

Looking back through the thread, aren't you the one arguing for using the rules as they're written rather than injecting houserules where placing models while deep striking counts as movement? Wouldn't I then be agreeing with you?

I think both sides need to understand that placing a deep striking model is not movement, but scattering is.
Haven't voted, what's the point?

 fuusa wrote:
I think both sides need to understand that placing a deep striking model is not movement, but scattering is.
Haven't voted, what's the point?

So you can never Mishap from impassable terrain? (picking the degenerate single model unit case)

Scattering is not movement; the unit hasnt even arrived, yet you are claiming it is moving?

nosferatu1001 wrote:


Scattering is not movement; the unit hasnt even arrived, yet you are claiming it is moving?

Ok then, I'll use your debate strategy and ask you to prove that (scattering is not moving), page and para.

1) It isnt a "debate strategy" of mine, its called debate and in the forum tenets. Perhaps you should give them a read?
2) You are making the claim it IS movement, so perhaps you can prove it? (proving a negative is not strictly possible)

My claim that it isnt movement is simple - it never states the scatter is movement, and the unit hasnt even arrived when you roll scatter.

I notice you ducked the question I asked, which handily proves you wrong - can you mishap from scattering into impassable terrain? A simple Yes or No from you is all I am asking. Stormbreed was unable to answer, maybe you can?

nosferatu1001 wrote:
I notice you ducked the question I asked, which handily proves you wrong - can you mishap from scattering into impassable terrain? A simple Yes or No from you is all I am asking. Stormbreed was unable to answer, maybe you can?

Right, so we play by nos rules again, I need to explain, you don't, ok ...

Why would you not mishap from scattering into impassable terrain (assuming no special rules).

As far as scattering is movement is concerned, the rule book describes this explicitly, so maybe you should just read it and concede and not be forced to prove what you say is right, when its clearly wrong.

You think scattering is not movement, is it so difficult to say why?

You are stating that DS scattering is movement - page and para. given you have stated the rulebook describes this "explicitly", it shouldnt be hard to state exactly where, and what is explicitly stated?

It isnt my rules; I am stating something isnt movement. You are asking me to prove a negative - the absence of something. By definition I cannot do so. As you aremaking the positive assertion - that it IS 40k-movement - you are required to prove it. Again, not my rules, its called "actual logic"

So, less of the ad hominems please.

A consequence of it being movement, as in 40k movement, is that you would be barred from moving into impassable terrain. A single model unit could not, therefore, mishap from impassable terrain. Similarly it would be barred from moving off the board, and thus a drop pod could not "fall off" the board and mishap. If it were movement it would trigger dangerous terrain tests, as well as difficult terrain tests, as it moves. You would not be able to move "through" another unit when scattering, meaning you could place your DS unit in the middle of your own friendly models and it could not mishap.

SO many ways that show your assertion to be incorrect. So, now could you state where it is EXPLICITLY 40k-movement? Not physical move and place, but movement following the movement rules of 40k.

-Shrike- wrote:
"Hey look, it's got rule X which would be even better if I could just put it on a unit when I Deep Strike."
"Can you do that?"
"I don't know, nobody would have wanted to do that until now. Let's look at the rules."
"Well there's nothing against it in the rulebook. Let's ask GW to be sure."

GW then releases an FAQ, saying that yes, it can DS on top of another model. They merely clarified Deep Strike, bearing in mind that rule X gives you a reason to DS this way, because nobody had ever looked at the rules like that before.

There is one problem with your argument.

Having permission to use Y in order to use X does not mean you have permission to use Y in order to use Z. Your argument is a non-sequitur.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
You are asking me to prove a negative - the absence of something. By definition I cannot do so. As you aremaking the positive assertion - that it IS 40k-movement - you are required to prove it.

Same old, same old. Yawn.

So, what you are saying, is that you cannot prove that scattering is not movement?
Why, can't you find anything that supports your view?
Why do you think its not movement, there must be something actually there to make you think that, actually in the rules, that is?

I'm not asking you to prove a negative, just defend what you claim to be RAW.
Where is it?

 fuusa wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
You are asking me to prove a negative - the absence of something. By definition I cannot do so. As you aremaking the positive assertion - that it IS 40k-movement - you are required to prove it.

Same old, same old. Yawn.

So, what you are saying, is that you cannot prove that scattering is not movement?
Why, can't you find anything that supports your view?
Why do you think its not movement, there must be something actually there to make you think that, actually in the rules, that is?

I'm not asking you to prove a negative, just defend what you claim to be RAW.
Where is it?

Nothing in the book states it is movement. Now its your turn to prove that it is movement. Would be appreciated if you quoted the rule that says its movement while your at it .

And nos is correct. If scattering is movement you cant mishap from impassable terrain or from scattering off of the table. How exactly could this be the correct interpretation?

 fuusa wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
You are asking me to prove a negative - the absence of something. By definition I cannot do so. As you aremaking the positive assertion - that it IS 40k-movement - you are required to prove it.

Same old, same old. Yawn.

Sigh.

Your selective quoting, and ducking of questions, is amazing. Truly amazing.

fuusa wrote:So, what you are saying, is that you cannot prove that scattering is not movement?

My assertio0n is that is isnt X. Your assertion is that it is X. My assertion is proven as long as you cannot prove it IS X

fuusa wrote:Why, can't you find anything that supports your view?

Again, your selective quoiting - misleadingly selective, as if you had deliberately tried to fool people into thinking I hadnt supported my view - misses out where I did find what supports my view. That if scattering WERE movement, the consequence would be you could not mishap from impassable terrain.

fuusa wrote:Why do you think its not movement, there must be something actually there to make you think that, actually in the rules, that is?

Already done. Over to you. You made the assertion that the rules EXPLICITLY state it is movement. PROVE IT.

fuusa wrote:I'm not asking you to prove a negative, just defend what you claim to be RAW.
Where is it?

No, you ARE requiring me to prove a negative, as my claim is that it is NOT movement. Have you spotted the negative there?

Youre back to trolling me, again, and I'm a fool for falling for it, again.

I intend to, but did ask for him to defend his pov, which he has not.

 fuusa wrote:
I intend to, but did ask for him to defend his pov, which he has not.

Okay not citing the explicit rule you were mentioning can be seen as a concession here. So actually by not quoting or answering the request its obvious that you cant prove your assertion. Additionally nos has defended his POV. You are ignoring the points he is making.

 fuusa wrote:
I intend to, but did ask for him to defend his pov, which he has not.

THat is a falsehood, and you know it. I defended it more than once, and you selectively quoted-out the parts where I did defend my position to make it appear that I didnt.

You made an explicit claim that the rulebook explicitly defines DS scatter as movement. Prove it, or concede.

 fuusa wrote:
I intend to, but did ask for him to defend his pov, which he has not.

He has actually, so unless you have a counter claim and citation to support your statement that scatter is movement then accept that you were wrong.

 fuusa wrote:
Same old, same old. Yawn.

Comments like this have no place in a rules debate. Ever.

So, what you are saying, is that you cannot prove that scattering is not movement?

This is quite easy to prove.
First: the Deep Strike rule (p36) refers to the scatter roll as "determining the model's final position", not movement.
Second: If there was some dangerous terrain between the initial point and the final point, would the unit take a dangerous terrain test? By your definition they are moving, so are bound by all the rules for movement (p10) as there are no exceptions listed. Would this movement through terrain reduce their movement? If so by how much, and what rule are you using?

Answers to the above without the usual sarcasm/insults please, just the rules.

Ricter wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Refusal to answer - for a third time - is acceptance that you do not believe your own statement.

You've consistently ignore others direct questions (such as where you get permission to place a deepstriking model on top of another) and yet you make grandiose statements like this as if you are some master of the forums that's above his own rules. Take a deep breath and realize you're just as guilty of the criticisms you level towards others. You may not intend it that way, but you are coming off as a biased, holier-than-thou hypocrite at this point.

I find what you say to be quite funny. I was accused of this attitude in the very thread for the way I talked to NOS. However the truth is I give as much as I take.

Grendel - I already gave those examples, and more - impassable terrain, moving off the board, etc - yet were accused of "not defending my position"

Now technically we cannot prove it isnt movement - as proving a negative is impossible. We can show ther is a lack of language asserting it is movement - which has been done - and we can show the consequences of it being movement are absurd, which we have also done, but we cannot prove it, formally.

However the contra is that fuusa HAS to prove it is movement, otherwise it isnt. However fuusa cannot do that, so I imagine we will get more evasion on this topic. Stormbreed also was unable to prove their assertion (the exact same one, essentially - just claiming it is movement earlier than fuusa, which would stil have the same results) and repeatedly ignored requests to do so, hoping they could handwave it away.

So it's movement, despite not being told it's movement, and following none of the rules for movement...
...makes perfect sense...

 grendel083 wrote:
So it's movement, despite not being told it's movement, and following none of the rules for movement...
...makes perfect sense...

Definitely - just be careful, you'll get a "yawn" or accused of not defending your position.

Given fuusa stated the BRB "explicitly" states it is movement, I am surprised to not see a quote for that. Shocked I am.

 DeathReaper wrote:
"If a Mawloc Deep Strikes onto a point occupied by another model, do not roll on the Deep Strike Mishap table but instead do the following." (51 Tyrnaid Codex). and then it goes on to describe what happens to the unit that the Mawloc Deep Struck onto.

Where in there does it tell you that the initial placement can be on top of another model. (Hint: They do not say that in the quote) Therefore it must be a function of the Deep Strike Rules.

The DS initial placement rules must still be followed as the quote tells us what happens if the Mawloc would mishap from being at a point occupied by another model after the DS scatter dice are rolled, which is well after Initial model placement.

In that case where does it tell you in the FAQ?

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

If you don't consider intial placement to be a deep strike, then the FAQ doesn't apply to the intial placement either. Both rules here use the term Deep Strike, now either those include the intial palcement rules or not. You cannot argue one in one case and then argue another in the other case. The rules of logic work that way.

i.e.

X= Deep Stike, Y= Inital placement

1) X contains Y
2) X does not contain Y

Both those statements are mutually exlucsive and so therefore cannot co-exist.

The question is "can you DS ... on purpose"

The answer is yes.

It has nothing to do with the TftD special rule, thus is confirmation that you CAN do it, in general.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
[Oh, and no, DS *placement* is not movement.

Agreed.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
[ If it were, then I presume you trigger dangerous terrain checkss when scattering - afterall, youre claiming it is movement?

P6. Scatter.
Place the object (model) onto the battlefield ...
Roll scatter.
Hit! = object (model) does not move.
If an arrow is rolled, move the object 2d6 (a random move).

Now at this point, you may argue that this isn't "40k movement" and yet it is, it must be, as we are told this movement (sic) "ignoring intervening terrain, units, etc, unless the rule states otherwise."

If we were not told what to ignore, the scattering object (model in this case) would be dragged along the table, potentially causing all sorts of problems. It doesn't.

Scatter is explicitly described as a move.

Remember this???

nosferatu1001 wrote:
[ If it were, then I presume you trigger dangerous terrain checkss when scattering - afterall, youre claiming it is movement?

So, part of the argument you used before to attempt to "prove" scattering was not movement (which you now say can't be done), is demonstrably false, according to p6.
Why did you think it could be argued then and yet not just earlier???

nosferatu1001 wrote:
[Oh, and you can never scatter into Impassable Terrain - meaning you cannot mishap from it. Oh, and you cannot scatter off the table, as units cannot move of f the table, normally

Scatter is a random movement that (here) demands moving onto impassable terrain, followed by a mishap as the model may not be deployed there.

Stormbreed wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Storm - because your claim is the 1" rule applies, yet it absolutely does not, because initial DS placement is - placement.

I'll just place anywhere on the table, barring the specific exceptions listed, without making more rules up.

Nos. Forget the 1inch claim. Let's say that even tho DS counts as having moved, and while placing the model where you want to, wait for it, DS, you don't think it counts as ,DS, so you're making up a whole new time in the game called, I have no clue .......... Let's move onto the poll question which you continue to ignore.

RAW. Permission to smash my models. I've been waiting since page 1. The poll overwhelmingly agrees you're wrong, but please list the rule that says you have permission to smash my models. If you can't and you want to make your argument RAI, please take 10 seconds and think it through so I do not have to post how bad that game would work out for you.

Don't forget that deep strike counts as a deployment as well. Rulebook says:

Roll for the arrival of all deep striking units as specified in the rules for reserves and then deploy them as follows:

First, place one model from the unit.......................

fuusa - so you are stating you cannot scatter off the table?

Oh, and you seem unaware of the difference between proof of a negative, which formally cannot be done, and building up examples where the positive leads to an absurd situation.

You also still havent apologised for your selective quoting out of context, care to do so?

Darth - I love how you chop that quote off, every time

The next words are "where you would LIKE the unit to arrive"

Its like those words have meaning.

 fuusa wrote:

Scatter is a random movement that (here) demands moving onto impassable terrain, followed by a mishap as the model may not be deployed there.

If its movement you cant move into impassable terrain and you cant move off of the table. For the bolded a citation is required.

 grendel083 wrote:
[

So, what you are saying, is that you cannot prove that scattering is not movement?

This is quite easy to prove.
First: the Deep Strike rule (p36) refers to the scatter roll as "determining the model's final position", not movement.
Second: If there was some dangerous terrain between the initial point and the final point, would the unit take a dangerous terrain test? By your definition they are moving, so are bound by all the rules for movement (p10) as there are no exceptions listed. Would this movement through terrain reduce their movement? If so by how much, and what rule are you using?

Answers to the above without the usual sarcasm/insults please, just the rules.

Done.

Not done, find how your "movement" scatter allows you to move off the board, which we know can be done.

 Mywik wrote:

 fuusa wrote:

Scatter is a random movement that (here) demands moving onto impassable terrain, followed by a mishap as the model may not be deployed there.

If its movement you cant move into impassable terrain and you cant move off of the table.

Compulsory movement (like scatter and fallback).

 fuusa wrote:

 Mywik wrote:

 fuusa wrote:

Scatter is a random movement that (here) demands moving onto impassable terrain, followed by a mishap as the model may not be deployed there.

If its movement you cant move into impassable terrain and you cant move off of the table.

Compulsory movement (like scatter and fallback).

Citation required that scatter is compulsory movement.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Already, repeatedly, given.

I'm just going to play by the rules and place my models ANYWHERE on the table - using how 40k defines the table, which is fairly inclusive you would find if you took "10 seconds" to think it through, rather than repeatedly erring as you are doing now - barring the restrictions, and if I wish to do so over other models, then as a suitable compromise to placing my models on yours, I will point to the position. If you are unhappy - because you are labouring under a false belief as to what "table" means within the 40k ruleset, and absolutely insist my model makes contact with the table, then I will accede to your wishes as best I can.

Now, any chance you could find it in you to answer the query on how a model can move when it hasnt even arrived yet? Page and paragrapgh would be great right now, forum tenets and all.

Even if you wanted to class models as part of the table then they would count as impassable terrain. Although 6th edition doesn't state specifically that they are impassable terrain, the impassable terrain rules make it clear. They state that impassable terrain counts as somewhere where you cannot physically place the model because there is a solid piece of terrain in the road.

You have already admitted that you cannot place the deep striking model down on the table because there are other models in the road. Instead you stated you would just smash them in order to force it on the table but then I guess you could do that with any piece of terrain also.

 fuusa wrote:

 Mywik wrote:

 fuusa wrote:

Scatter is a random movement that (here) demands moving onto impassable terrain, followed by a mishap as the model may not be deployed there.

If its movement you cant move into impassable terrain and you cant move off of the table.

Compulsory movement (like scatter and fallback).

Wrong, fallback explicitly tells you what happens when you reach the edge of the table. Prove it for scatter

Also stating "move" does not make it a 40k-move; you handwaved that in. Being told you "ignore..." does not mean that the displacement of the object is movement according to 40k rules.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DarthOvious wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Already, repeatedly, given.

I'm just going to play by the rules and place my models ANYWHERE on the table - using how 40k defines the table, which is fairly inclusive you would find if you took "10 seconds" to think it through, rather than repeatedly erring as you are doing now - barring the restrictions, and if I wish to do so over other models, then as a suitable compromise to placing my models on yours, I will point to the position. If you are unhappy - because you are labouring under a false belief as to what "table" means within the 40k ruleset, and absolutely insist my model makes contact with the table, then I will accede to your wishes as best I can.

Now, any chance you could find it in you to answer the query on how a model can move when it hasnt even arrived yet? Page and paragrapgh would be great right now, forum tenets and all.

Even if you wanted to class models as part of the table then they would count as impassable terrain. Although 6th edition doesn't state specifically that they are impassable terrain, the impassable terrain rules make it clear. They state that impassable terrain counts as somewhere where you cannot physically place the model because there is a solid piece of terrain in the road.

Wrong, this was explicit in 5th and 4th, but not 6th edition. Models are not terrain, they are models. Stop making up rules.

DarthOvious wrote:You have already admitted that you cannot place the deep striking model down on the table because there are other models in the road.

No, I have not "admitted" that. Do not lie.

I have said I cannot place the model on your dictionary-defined-table, as that would be the surface UNDER the gaming mat, and would not include any of the models, terrain, etc that are actually part of the 40k-defined-table.

DarthOvious wrote: Instead you stated you would just smash them in order to force it on the table but then I guess you could do that with any piece of terrain also.

No, I did not state that. Do not lie.

I said IF *you*decided to play the game according to your non-40k-table definition, and you insisted that my model was placed on the table as YOU define it, and did not agree to the used-by-99.9%-of-the-estimated-at-1000-players-i-have-ever-met (allowing 1 person variance, although I'm sure the ridicule they got for trying it would have made it obvious) compromise of noting the position so as to not manage models, then I would do my best to comply with YOUR alteration to the rules.

Stop making up what others have said, it isnt appreciate.d

 Mywik wrote:

 fuusa wrote:
I intend to, but did ask for him to defend his pov, which he has not.

Okay not citing the explicit rule you were mentioning can be seen as a concession here. So actually by not quoting or answering the request its obvious that you cant prove your assertion. Additionally nos has defended his POV. You are ignoring the points he is making.

Now you know how we feel when you asked your side to quote a rule in the rule book thats says that models were part of the table. We are still waiting for this BRB quotation.

OPen up your rulebook to the first few pages, note when they talk about the "table" or "battlefield" they have pretty pictures of a battlefield complete with models, terrain, hell even dice....

nosferatu1001 wrote:
The question is "can you DS ... on purpose"

The answer is yes.

It has nothing to do with the TftD special rule, thus is confirmation that you CAN do it, in general.

The question I am asking is if the intial placement is part of the deep strike. SO I am asking for confirmation on whether you think it is or isn't.

I'm afraid this thread has generated far too many alerts for it to be allowed to continue.

I understand how frustrating it can be to debate, especially when one knows that you are correct and the other guy ( or gal) is 100% wrong, but the digs and jabs do no one any credit at all.