I read somewhere that you can deploying units any where within 12" of the board, which means you can place units on top of transports or other vehicles is this true? Does that mean you can for example place a 5 man devastor or tactical squad on top of a rhino and move and shot with full ballistic skill of your heavy weapons as they didnt move?

Aussies......

Models in the Way
A model cannot move within 1" of an enemy model unless they are charging into close combat in the Assault phase, and can never move or pivot (see below) through another model (friend or foe) at any time. To move past, they must go around.

from the movement section in the rulebook.

being ontop of another model would be moving through it, but of course ending your move ontop of it during the move through part. Since they way you would get on top of a model would be by moving through it, this is not allowed.

so you may not end your move ontop of a rhino that is an unit in play.

But its on top not moving through it

place a model infront of another model, now try to move ontop of it.

before you got to the ontop part you were moving through the model.

as for deploying.

even if it were allowed, if you move the rhino the squad would not move with it.

if you moved the squad with it you would be doing the above, which is moving through it to get back onto the rhino.

Theres no permission to actually move two units at the same time.

Is this for real

So your saying if i deploy a unit on top of a rhino, that squad can't be charged, they would have to charge the rhino first?

im also interested in this question, as it impacts Mawloc defence tactics significantly....

ASSUMING that you could deploy a unit on top of a Rhino, you would have no ability to move either the Rhino or the unt on top, because either movement would require moving through another unit, which is forbidden. Moving the Rhino would not somehow move the unit on top of the Rhino as you have no option to move two units at one time.

Having said that, this seems ridiculous. If an opponent tried this, I would simply move to the next table and pick a new opponent.

blaktoof wrote:
place a model infront of another model, now try to move ontop of it.

before you got to the ontop part you were moving through the model.

How?

 Kriswall wrote:
ASSUMING that you could deploy a unit on top of a Rhino, you would have no ability to move either the Rhino or the unt on top, because either movement would require moving through another unit, which is forbidden.

There are no rules forbidding you from moving through other units... just other models.

The models moving over the rhino would not be moving through the rhino. They would be moving over it. There are no rules forbidding that.

There should be. In previous editions, other models were impassable terrain. In this edition, that designation doesn't exist.

This, however:

Moving the Rhino would not somehow move the unit on top of the Rhino as you have no option to move two units at one time.

...is correct.

You can not move two units at once.

Thinking open top?

Edit

Like Kabalite warriors in a Raider...

Insaniak wrote:

The models moving over the rhino would not be moving through the rhino. They would be moving over it. There are no rules forbidding that.

There should be. In previous editions, other models were impassable terrain. In this edition, that designation doesn't exist.

This, however:

]Moving the Rhino would not somehow move the unit on top of the Rhino as you have no option to move two units at one time.

...is correct.

You can not move two units at once.

I hear what you are saying, and cannot really argue against it with any rules as written.

This edition doesn't really have elevation however and I think stating over is different than through is implying there is elevation as the difference is not the direction or path but the height of the movement.

I guess there is general permission to move vertically, I think RAI it is meant for terrain however. Of course no actual RAW saying that lol.

regarding:

A model cannot move within 1" of an enemy model unless they are charging into close combat in the Assault phase, and can never move or pivot (see below) through another model (friend or foe) at any time. To move past, they must go around.

it does state that to move past a model, you have to go around it. if you place one model infront of a different model, and try to move over it, which could end your move ontop of it, that is technically not going around it. Then I guess there is the intent of going around or going ontop of.

but yeah this edition it doesn't state friendly models are impassable terrain.

regarding Mawlok defense, I dont think it would help as the blast marker has infinite range more or less, so it would hit models ontop of a rhino etc and the rhino. I guess the only benefit would be less spreading out so if it scatters its less likely to hit something.

 Vespid wrote:
So your saying if i deploy a unit on top of a rhino, that squad can't be charged, they would have to charge the rhino first?

You can't deploy units on top of each other. Units cannot occupy the same space, for the same reason you can't stack Devastators totem pole style.

Not gonna lie, this is an appealing concept on a number of levels.

Vehicles are already quite different from the more organic models in a lot of ways, and being able to clamber all over them when room is available makes a lot of sense.

However, just because it's not explicitly forbidden currently doesn't mean it's well supported.

You would really need rules to arbitrate oddities that crop up. Plus, like several people have said, we already have transport rules, and getting free transport by physically standing on it would break the game slightly. Covering what happens when the Rhino moves out from under you would be one of the situations that'd need rule coverage.

Still, I'm all for formalising it instead of outlawing it.

 jreilly89 wrote:
You can't deploy units on top of each other. Units cannot occupy the same space, for the same reason you can't stack Devastators totem pole style.

A unit on top of another unit is not occupying the same space as it.

Aaaaaaaaand this is why I don't play in gaming clubs anymore. Interpretation of rules that just seem wack-a-doodle.

Just seems silly. Like how about put the rhino on top of a landraider, then a dread on the rhino, then balance some devs on the dread. Makes sense.

 insaniak wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:
You can't deploy units on top of each other. Units cannot occupy the same space, for the same reason you can't stack Devastators totem pole style.

A unit on top of another unit is not occupying the same space as it.

They're occupying the same "game space". Models in buildings aren't in the same space because they're on different levels.

 jreilly89 wrote:
They're occupying the same "game space".

That's not actually a thing.

Models in buildings aren't in the same space because they're on different levels.

There are no 'levels' in the current rules.

Models on different floors aren't in the same space because they're not in the same space.

The game does not exist solely on the horizontal plane. If it did, there would be no reason for vehicles to have vertical fire arcs for their weapons.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Gorgrimm wrote:
Aaaaaaaaand this is why I don't play in gaming clubs anymore. Interpretation of rules that just seem wack-a-doodle.

Just seems silly. Like how about put the rhino on top of a landraider, then a dread on the rhino, then balance some devs on the dread. Makes sense.

I suspect that you would find that the vast majority of players are going to go with not putting models on top of each other regardless of what the rules appear to allow. It's fairly clearly an oversight in the current rules, that GW thought was covered by the rule forbidding you from moving through other models.

insaniak wrote:I suspect that you would find that the vast majority of players are going to go with not putting models on top of each other regardless of what the rules appear to allow. It's fairly clearly an oversight in the current rules, that GW thought was covered by the rule forbidding you from moving through other models.

Yes, it's just that it always seemed that there was at least one person out there always trying to do things that weren't necessarily not allowed, but seemed to defy common sense, and ruin the enjoyment of the game. i know that most people are just playing, but these things always pop up when the rules aren't crystal clear. I know that no one would be happy if I tried to set my lootas on top of my stompa claiming they were just hanging on and blasting. Eh, I don't know, anymore I am just a casual gamer looking to play a story, so we don't do a lot of rules fighting.

Honestly if someone tried to argue with me and put their dudes ontop of other models in the game and refused to not do it...id just pack up and leave..how incredibly stupid

Why? Its supported by the rules

If somehow you could put a unit on top of another unit, this would be a bad thing to do since you would immobilize both units.

However, jump units, jetpack units, and skimmers can get around the negative. Their movements allow them to untangle themselves from the immbolizing tarpit created by two units on top of each other.

 Vespid wrote:
Why? Its supported by the rules

No mention one way or the other does not equal support. And if all units can move over other units, what is the point of the 'Skyborne' rule saying that they "... can move over all other models freely..."?

True, though you gain the benfit of the squad on top not being able to be charged, so it evens out and cant really be considered broken.

To move past impassible terrain, moving over instead of through units

Also what about a heavy weapon squad behind the mutilaser of a chimera would it get cover?

 Vespid wrote:
Why? Its supported by the rules

As Ghaz said, it's not 'supported'... it's just not forbidden, and is only allowed on a technicality.

While some people might be happy to allow it as a narrative thing, most players are just going to see it as a loophole.

 insaniak wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:
You can't deploy units on top of each other. Units cannot occupy the same space, for the same reason you can't stack Devastators totem pole style.

A unit on top of another unit is not occupying the same space as it.

Using that logic though you could always move "through" friendly models by claiming you are just going over the top of it. Heck, you could go over enemy units by claiming your guys are high jump masters so they never got within 1". The rules never say you can't do it after all!

I'm not buying it. At some point you need to use common sense.

the_hanged_man wrote:

Using that logic though you could always move "through" friendly models by claiming you are just going over the top of it.

Yup. This is why the old rule classing other models as impassable terrain was so important.

At some point you need to use common sense.

Hence my pointing out that most players aren't going to allow it.

The problem with making 'common sense' rulings though is that the line between 'the rules allow it' and 'common sense says the rules shouldn't allow it' is going to be drawn in a different place for everybody.

So it's all well and good to say 'common sense says it should work like this'... but only if you can accept that someone else's common sense is telling them that it's perfectly acceptable for it to work some other way.

 Vespid wrote:
True, though you gain the benfit of the squad on top not being able to be charged, so it evens out and cant really be considered broken.

To move past impassible terrain, through units or technically over

I don't see anything to prevent them from being charged as a charging unit doesn't need to say away from enemy models during the charge as long as they change the vehicle as well. In fact, since the vehicle can't move anymore, you have to kill the charging unit otherwise they can keep punching the tank until it is dead during your turn.

If someone is adamant about this I'll would just large blast both the unit and the vehicle killing both (why take a rhino and not use it to protect your squishy marines?).

Regardless, this seems like trying to twist the rules as I don't see any rules for moving on top of models except for Citadel scenery models. If you can find permission to move on top of another non-scenery model, you would be golden.

 Nilok wrote:
If you can find permission to move on top of another model, you should be golden.

Can you find permission for moving over a spot on the board that is, say, 12" in from the left and 24" in from your edge?

How about permission for moving across the centre line of the table?



The problem is that the rules give models permission to move freely around the board, and then restrict that movement in certain, specific situations. So there are specific rules that apply to models trying to move through difficult terrain, or impassable terrain, or whatever.

There are no rules that tell us not to treat intervening models as anything other than open table. We can't move through them (because that's forbidden, and even if it wasn't is physically impossible anyway) but there is nothing that would contradict the general movement rule that would allow us to just go over the top of them.


There should be, but isn't. There used to be, but GW took it out, because clear rules are for crybabies. Or something.

We are told Models cannot voluntarily move off the board.

We are also told all terrain "should" be Citadel scenery in the Battlefield Terrain section.

Can we find if the "board" is defined anywhere in the book anymore?

I don't think it ever was.

Mind = Blown.

It's understandable a squad cannot MOVE on top of a Rhino. But DEPLOYING on top of it is completely different in terms.

And as to the Rhino moving and them not moving with it... What, is this MINECRAFT? Learn some basic physics principles. We're not trying to figure out how plasma guns work (or don't, for me usually). If you're standing on something, and it goes "Vroom", you're gonna go with it unless you tumble off. Maybe not a problem if it goes a slow 6" movement.

 Pyeatt wrote:
And as to the Rhino moving and them not moving with it... What, is this MINECRAFT? Learn some basic physics principles. We're not trying to figure out how plasma guns work (or don't, for me usually). If you're standing on something, and it goes "Vroom", you're gonna go with it unless you tumble off. Maybe not a problem if it goes a slow 6" movement.

We're not talking about physics. We're talking about game rules that don't allow you to move two units at the same time.

 insaniak wrote:

We're not talking about physics. We're talking about game rules that don't allow you to move two units at the same time.

moving two units at the same time? Like moving a rhino with a squad inside?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I should mention I hate plasma. Thanks much.

The squad inside the rhino isn't on the table.

 Pyeatt wrote:
moving two units at the same time? Like moving a rhino with a squad inside?

No, like moving two units that are just near each other on the table.

 insaniak wrote:
I don't think it ever was.

If the board was never defined in the book, then the original definition would be the long, thin, flat piece of wood or other hard material you are playing on. Thus the RAW would be that models can never move voluntarily off the surface you are playing on or the Citadel scenery models which have implicitly implied permission to have models move on and across them.

I don't think there is any implicate permission to move them on top of another Citadel non-scenery model.

That would stop you from moving across any non-difficult or -impassable terrain piece as well.

If you put a aegis defence line on top of a rhino would the rhino be able to move? Would a marine be able to fire the quadgun if its right next to the firepoint

 insaniak wrote:
That would stop you from moving across any non-difficult or -impassable terrain piece as well.

Incorrect.

Under Terrain Types it says "All of the Citadel scenery models have a terrain type. The rules for each terrain type are described below"
This tells us that every legal terrain has a terrain type, anything other is a house rule.

Under Terrain Types is Open Ground.

OPEN GROUND wrote:Open ground covers everything from dusty plains to rolling hills. Models in open ground are often said to be 'out in the open'. No additional rules are needed for open ground and, unless otherwise specified, special rules and abilities that affect terrain do not affect open ground. The surface of the Realm of the Battle Gameboard is considered open ground.

This tells us that even hills are considered to have a terrain type and that type is open ground.

Buildings, Ruins, Battlefield Debris, Difficult Terrain, Dangerous Terrain, Impassable Terrain, and Battlements are also covered here. If they are not covered here and do not fit into the groups provided, or do not have their own self contained rules, then they are a house ruled terrain.

 Vespid wrote:
If you put a aegis defence line on top of a rhino would the rhino be able to move? Would a marine be able to fire the quadgun if its right next to the firepoint

This reminds me of video games where glitches can arise which can then become exploits.

Luckily we are playing a human game where glitches can simply be disregarded.

If you deploy on top of models...

I deploy on my side for da cover, I mean, I don't believe the BRB tells me the models have to be placed base down during deployment. Only that the models are placed in the deployment area.

Rules don't say a awful lot of things. Doesn't make it a good idea.

Nothing states that models can only be removed by being destroyed. remove your army, oh look I win.

As Nem said, deploying a vehicle on its side?

What about deploying a bastion upside down so no enemy can reach the access point?

Pretty sure that every sensible person will agree that deploying on top of a vehicle is not permitted. just accept that your army is of trained space marines, they're going to ride in the rhinos, not on top of them.

 some bloke wrote:
Nothing states that models can only be removed by being destroyed.

That's not how it works. You would need something which says that they can be removed.

 some bloke wrote:
Nothing states that models can only be removed by being destroyed. remove your army, oh look I win.

As Nem said, deploying a vehicle on its side?

What about deploying a bastion upside down so no enemy can reach the access point?

Pretty sure that every sensible person will agree that deploying on top of a vehicle is not permitted. just accept that your army is of trained space marines, they're going to ride in the rhinos, not on top of them.

this post just blew my mind. Upside down Bastions for the win!!!!

 some bloke wrote:
Nothing states that models can only be removed by being destroyed. remove your army, oh look I win.

As Nem said, deploying a vehicle on its side?

What about deploying a bastion upside down so no enemy can reach the access point?

Pretty sure that every sensible person will agree that deploying on top of a vehicle is not permitted. just accept that your army is of trained space marines, they're going to ride in the rhinos, not on top of them.

40k 101. Permissive rule set. Unless you can find a rule saying you can just remove your opponent's army... you can't.

Deploying models on their sides and bastions upside down is clear modelling for advantage. Good luck getting that past an opponent.

And sensibility has no place on YMDC! (Mostly joking. We debate RaW, not common sense.)

 Kriswall wrote:
Deploying models on their sides and bastions upside down is clear modelling for advantage. Good luck getting that past an opponent.

And sensibility has no place on YMDC! (Mostly joking. We debate RaW, not common sense.)

You said it yourself: Pure RaW.

Inverted Bastions are not MFA, as both sides could not use them (or deploy inside, then agreed).

The issue is, 7th Edition seems to have removed a lot of very nice easy rules, and left players to use common sense.

We all agree that models must be placed "the Right Way up". But where it the RaW for that?


As a side note:
a 6th Ed FAQ that was just perfect:
"BRB FAQ Q: Can models move through other friendly models? (p10) A: No. Models that are an exception to this rule, such as Jump Infantry or Jetbikes, will state this clearly in their rules. "

 BlackTalos wrote:
As a side note:
a 6th Ed FAQ that was just perfect:
"BRB FAQ Q: Can models move through other friendly models? (p10) A: No. Models that are an exception to this rule, such as Jump Infantry or Jetbikes, will state this clearly in their rules. "

What was even more perfect was the rule in the editions before that, that explained that other models were treated like impassable terrain. Thus not requiring it to be spelt out in an FAQ...

 Vespid wrote:
I read somewhere that you can deploying units any where within 12" of the board, which means you can place units on top of transports or other vehicles is this true? Does that mean you can for example place a 5 man devastor or tactical squad on top of a rhino and move and shot with full ballistic skill of your heavy weapons as they didnt move?

tecnically your no longer on the board and or edge.

I actually have an older force, including a old, custom made land raider spartan. This is the older, custom made (with plans from an old WD) spartan, not a newer FW one. If you look at my sig you can see my ancient army from a few years back. Anyway, it looks more or less like this:

Observant people will notice that there are two terminators sitting on top of the spartan, manning the heavy bolters. While I grant you this model is somewhat obsolete, the recess to place models there is one of the deliberate, built into the plans design features. Would these models be considered 'on top' of the land raider or simply inside it? Is it now open topped?

 Kojiro wrote:
I actually have an older force, including a old, custom made land raider spartan. This is the older, custom made (with plans from an old WD) spartan, not a newer FW one. If you look at my sig you can see my ancient army from a few years back. Anyway, it looks more or less like this:

Observant people will notice that there are two terminators sitting on top of the spartan, manning the heavy bolters. While I grant you this model is somewhat obsolete, the recess to place models there is one of the deliberate, built into the plans design features. Would these models be considered 'on top' of the land raider or simply inside it? Is it now open topped?

Is it me, or are the aussie's trolling everyone? Everything about this thread is just silly. If someone did this to me, I would just laugh and shoot that unit to hell as it probably wont be able to recieve a cover save from my insane amount of hate lances.

 Kojiro wrote:
I actually have an older force, including a old, custom made land raider spartan. This is the older, custom made (with plans from an old WD) spartan, not a newer FW one. If you look at my sig you can see my ancient army from a few years back. Anyway, it looks more or less like this:

Observant people will notice that there are two terminators sitting on top of the spartan, manning the heavy bolters. While I grant you this model is somewhat obsolete, the recess to place models there is one of the deliberate, built into the plans design features. Would these models be considered 'on top' of the land raider or simply inside it? Is it now open topped?

They're vehicle crew, and there are no rules for vehicle crew like you would find on Dark Eldar Raiders, etc.

Saw this previously in another thread. I'm going with no.

But deploy second and if your opponent does it, just make a totem poll with the long range dudes at the top ignoring LOS.

Wonder how blasts would work? Different levels after all

no different levels, everything gets hit i think. str10ap1 large blast, take the rhino and the troops on top of it

Yup, they're all on the same level. If my opponent tried to stack models like that, I'd just pull out my Plasma Cannons and laugh a deep, hearty laugh as a hit tags every single model in his column.

Would the Marines give the Rhino a cover save

This wouldn't prevent the models from being assaulted, either. When charging you're allowed to come within 1" of enemy models. You might have to do a disordered charge so that you can get both units, but it might be worth it.

I'm still going with no, though.

Plus, if you can deploy a model on top of a rhino, then neither unit could move...

 DeathReaper wrote:
Plus, if you can deploy a model on top of a rhino, then neither unit could move...

I disagree. Where is that rule?
I have "cannot move through". Unless one of the Rhino's chimneys goes through the base of a model on top, he can move.
"move through" =/= "move under".

As for the models on top: moving over the Rhino never constitutes moving through it?

those arguing that "Move over" and "Move under" isn't "move through", remember there are no levels any more, moving is just moving, over and under doesn't exist!

also want to clarify my pervious posts concerning upside down bastions were intended as sarcasm to draw out the clear ludicrosity of these deployment ideas.

On the note of the no up and no down (and I am in no way in favor of deploying on top of tanks, mind you), does that mean if I occupy the upper floor of a ruin that models can't walk underneath me?

levels do still exist though don't they?

they're listed in unit coherency (must stay within 6" vertically of a model on another level and also in assault phase?

 BlackTalos wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Plus, if you can deploy a model on top of a rhino, then neither unit could move...

I disagree. Where is that rule?
I have "cannot move through". Unless one of the Rhino's chimneys goes through the base of a model on top, he can move.
"move through" =/= "move under".

As for the models on top: moving over the Rhino never constitutes moving through it?

Because models only have an allowance to move through terrain.

The top of a rhino is not terrain so the model on top can not move.

Also you can only move one unit at a time, so moving the rhino would be breaking this rule as you would be moving two units at once, which is illegal.

 some bloke wrote:
those arguing that "Move over" and "Move under" isn't "move through", remember there are no levels any more, moving is just moving, over and under doesn't exist!

The previous rules for levels in ruins are completely irrelevant to whether or not a unit on top of another unit is occupying the same space.

Even when those rules did exist, they would have made no difference to the outcome of this discussion... because this discussion doesn't involve ruins.

IIRC there were previous editions where it stated you were not allowed to move onto vehicles, unless the vehicle was wrecked/destroyed.

This wording, or anything similar, I can no longer find in the current edition.

Its worth noting there is nothing stopping you from disembarking onto the top of a vehicle in the rules, and the diagram under disembarking actually includes the vehicle in the area you are allowed to place disembarked models. [would never play that way but its there..]

Vehicles are not terrain (nor are transports, or buildings that can be occupied), they are therefore not an eligible location whereon to place another model.

Vehicles that are wrecked (not exploded, as exploded vehicles are removed from the table) are treated as terrain; they used to be Dangerous Terrain, now they are merely Difficult Terrain.

Wow...

DCannon4Life wrote:
Vehicles are not terrain (nor are transports, or buildings that can be occupied), they are therefore not an eligible location whereon to place another model.

Vehicles that are wrecked (not exploded, as exploded vehicles are removed from the table) are treated as terrain; they used to be Dangerous Terrain, now they are merely Difficult Terrain.

unfortunately that is not the case.

Models have rules for moving through terrain,but models are not restricted to only moving through terrain.

In your turn, you can move any of your units – all of them if you wish – up to their maximum movement distance. Once a unit has completed all of its movement, you can select another unit and move that one, and so on, until you have moved all of the units you wish to move. Once you have started moving a unit, you must finish its move before you start to move another unit. Note that you don’t have to move all (or any) of your units – indeed, there are several tactical advantages to remaining stationary, as we’ll explain later in the rules. Once you’ve completed a unit’s move, you cannot go back and change it, so think carefully before giving the order to advance.

Models move up to 6" in the Movement phase. This represents most creatures moving at a reasonable pace but stopping several times to scan the surrounding landscape for enemies, communicate with their commanders, identify the best lines of advance and so on.

there's no rule that states models can only move through terrain, if that were the case models could not move on any part of the table that was not terrain, which obviously is not true.

blaktoof wrote:

Its worth noting there is nothing stopping you from disembarking onto the top of a vehicle in the rules, and the diagram under disembarking actually includes the vehicle in the area you are allowed to place disembarked models. [would never play that way but its there..]

It's also important to keep in mind the basic approach to what can and cannot be done in 40K: 40K is a permissive rule set, it gives permission (usually EXPRESS permission) to do certain things with the models/table/terrain. If the rules do not give you permission to do something, that is generally equivalent to forbidding it. So, there is something stopping you from disembarking onto the top of a vehicle--you don't have permission to. In fact, the description of how to disembark from a wrecked vehicle helps clarify: The embarked unit must FIRST complete disembarking and THEN the model becomes a wreck.

"...a Wrecked model is left in place, and is treated as a Citadel scenery model with the difficult terrain type" (BRB 76).
"The passengers must immediately disembark [from the Wrecked vehicle].... After this, the vehicle becomes a wreck" (BRB 82).

I agree this is a silly argument, but regarding permission:

Models generally have permission to deploy within 6" of a vehicle when disembarking, the vehicle itself is within 6" and there is no restriction to being placed onto the vehicle. Previous editions had such restrictions to prevent that, because there was general permission then just as now- but the restriction is no longer there.

The same is true for moving and models used to be counted as impassable terrain, now they are not. However models have general permission to move, and there is no actual rule restricting them from moving onto friendly models. They are obviously restricted to not moving onto enemy models as they cannot be within a certain distance, and we cannot make them float 1" above models in the air. Although we are not told we are not allowed to hold models in the air, technically you could move a model 1" above an enemy model and hold it perfectly still and be 1" away from the model. That's pretty silly. Most likely this counts as moving off the board and is not allowed.

blaktoof wrote:
I agree this is a silly argument, but regarding permission:

Models generally have permission to deploy within 6" of a vehicle when disembarking, the vehicle itself is within 6" and there is no restriction to being placed onto the vehicle. Previous editions had such restrictions to prevent that, because there was general permission then just as now- but the restriction is no longer there.

The same is true for moving and models used to be counted as impassable terrain, now they are not. However models have general permission to move, and there is no actual rule restricting them from moving onto friendly models. They are obviously restricted to not moving onto enemy models as they cannot be within a certain distance, and we cannot make them float 1" above models in the air. Although we are not told we are not allowed to hold models in the air, technically you could move a model 1" above an enemy model and hold it perfectly still and be 1" away from the model. That's pretty silly. Most likely this counts as moving off the board and is not allowed.

 Nilok wrote:
We are told Models cannot voluntarily move off the board.

We are also told all terrain "should" be Citadel scenery in the Battlefield Terrain section.

Can we find if the "board" is defined anywhere in the book anymore?

 Nilok wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
I don't think it ever was.

If the board was never defined in the book, then the original definition would be the long, thin, flat piece of wood or other hard material you are playing on. Thus the RAW would be that models can never move voluntarily off the surface you are playing on or the Citadel scenery models which have implicitly implied permission to have models move on and across them.

I don't think there is any implicate permission to move them on top of another Citadel non-scenery model.

 Nilok wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
That would stop you from moving across any non-difficult or -impassable terrain piece as well.

Incorrect.

Under Terrain Types it says "All of the Citadel scenery models have a terrain type. The rules for each terrain type are described below"
This tells us that every legal terrain has a terrain type, anything other is a house rule.

Under Terrain Types is Open Ground.

OPEN GROUND wrote:Open ground covers everything from dusty plains to rolling hills. Models in open ground are often said to be 'out in the open'. No additional rules are needed for open ground and, unless otherwise specified, special rules and abilities that affect terrain do not affect open ground. The surface of the Realm of the Battle Gameboard is considered open ground.

This tells us that even hills are considered to have a terrain type and that type is open ground.

Buildings, Ruins, Battlefield Debris, Difficult Terrain, Dangerous Terrain, Impassable Terrain, and Battlements are also covered here. If they are not covered here and do not fit into the groups provided, or do not have their own self contained rules, then they are a house ruled terrain.

We are told Models can never voluntarily leave the board, the board is the play surface, only Citadel scenery models have Terrain Types that grant permission to have models on them other than the board and are the exception.

For Disembarking we are told that we need to first place the model in base contact with an Access Point, then they make a normal move within 6" of the Access Point it disembarked from. By placing a model on top of the vechile that is not wrecked and counted as a Citadel scenery model, you are violating the restriction that models cannot voluntarily move off the board.

so does this mean if a FLGS is using non citadel scenery your not allowed to move into it by the RAW?

blaktoof wrote:
so does this mean if a FLGS is using non citadel scenery your not allowed to move into it by the RAW?

 Nilok wrote:

Under Terrain Types it says "All of the Citadel scenery models have a terrain type. The rules for each terrain type are described below"
This tells us that every legal terrain has a terrain type, anything other is a house rule.

...

Buildings, Ruins, Battlefield Debris, Difficult Terrain, Dangerous Terrain, Impassable Terrain, and Battlements are also covered here. If they are not covered here and do not fit into the groups provided, or do not have their own self contained rules, then they are a house ruled terrain.

If your going to argue with a FLGS or TO about their rules, your probably not going to be playing there.
It's like arguing with a DM/GM about rules they set, "Rocks Fall, You Die".
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RocksFallEveryoneDies

 Nilok wrote:
If your going to argue with a FLGS or TO about their rules, your probably not going to be playing there.
It's like arguing with a DM/GM about rules they set, "Rocks Fall, You Die".
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RocksFallEveryoneDies

But...I have Improved Evasion, a high Reflex and rolled nat 20...I call shenanigans.

"Rocks fall, the planet EXPLODES!"

 Nilok wrote:
"Rok fall, planet EXPLODES!"

Fixed that for you. Though you'll also have some very unhappy Orks.

 Nilok wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
so does this mean if a FLGS is using non citadel scenery your not allowed to move into it by the RAW?

 Nilok wrote:

Under Terrain Types it says "All of the Citadel scenery models have a terrain type. The rules for each terrain type are described below"
This tells us that every legal terrain has a terrain type, anything other is a house rule.

...

Buildings, Ruins, Battlefield Debris, Difficult Terrain, Dangerous Terrain, Impassable Terrain, and Battlements are also covered here. If they are not covered here and do not fit into the groups provided, or do not have their own self contained rules, then they are a house ruled terrain.

If your going to argue with a FLGS or TO about their rules, your probably not going to be playing there.
It's like arguing with a DM/GM about rules they set, "Rocks Fall, You Die".
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RocksFallEveryoneDies

LOL

would never even bring it up, just find it funny how they injected "citadel" in front of a lot of things in the rulebook.

I think Chapter House Studios scarred them a bit.

I don't know if this is mentioned, but this is great for nids. Just pile up the gaunts high enough so you can't get LoS towards the big stuff behind it and march it up.

blaktoof wrote:
Models have rules for moving through terrain,but models are not restricted to only moving through terrain

That is not how a permissive ruleset works.

You need an allowance to do anything in the game.

You have allowances for models to move through terrain.

Cite the allowance for a model that is on top of a rhino, to move, or one that is not on top to move onto said vehicle.

 Gorgrimm wrote:
Aaaaaaaaand this is why I don't play in gaming clubs anymore. Interpretation of rules that just seem wack-a-doodle.

Just seems silly. Like how about put the rhino on top of a landraider, then a dread on the rhino, then balance some devs on the dread. Makes sense.

This is my winning strategy in Battleship.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Also you can only move one unit at a time, so moving the rhino would be breaking this rule as you would be moving two units at once, which is illegal.

Have you read the WMS rule? If you move the Rhino, what happens to the model on top?

"If you delicately balance it in place, (On the Rhino) (...)."
Move Rhino: Captain model "is very likely to fall"....
"In cases like this, we find it is perfectly acceptable to leave the model in a safer position, as long as both players have agreed and know its ‘actual’ location." (On the Rhino, although the Rhino isn't there anymore...)

For moving the Rhino itself:

 insaniak wrote:

 some bloke wrote:
those arguing that "Move over" and "Move under" isn't "move through", remember there are no levels any more, moving is just moving, over and under doesn't exist!

The previous rules for levels in ruins are completely irrelevant to whether or not a unit on top of another unit is occupying the same space.

Even when those rules did exist, they would have made no difference to the outcome of this discussion... because this discussion doesn't involve ruins.

 DeathReaper wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
Models have rules for moving through terrain,but models are not restricted to only moving through terrain

That is not how a permissive ruleset works.

You need an allowance to do anything in the game.

You have allowances for models to move through terrain.

Cite the allowance for a model that is on top of a rhino, to move, or one that is not on top to move onto said vehicle.

The rule we have is this:
"A model (...) can never move or pivot (see below) through another model (friend or foe) at any time. To move past, they must go around."
This means that a model NOT on top of a Rhino is not allowed to move on top of it.
However if the model is already on top and begins its move, where is the restriction that it cannot move 6" Forward (hopping down the Rhino)?

I mean if you want the specific permission:
"Models move up to 6" in the Movement phase"

So your saying you can't find any explicit or implicit permission to be on top of a Rhino, vehicle, or any other non-Citadel scenery model.

 Nilok wrote:
So your saying you can't find any explicit or implicit permission to be on top of a Rhino, vehicle, or any other non-Citadel scenery model.

No, that was covered in the first page. You deploy per this rule:
"models must either deploy within their deployment zone, or be held back in Reserve."

Space Marine Captain on top of a Rhino is wholly "within his deployment zone". RaW

Do i ever play that way or even allow it in games? Of course not.

The problem with that argument is it's the same as saying "it doesn't tell me I can't". By lacking the permission to do something, it automatically counts as restricted.

The permissions we have in this argument are, we can deploy in our deployment zone, we can have models on the board, and we can have models on Citadel scenery models. We lack the permission to have models on non-Citadel scenery models.

Without the permission, explicitly or even implicitly, to have models on non-Citadel scenery models, it is restricted.

I know we agree this shouldn't be done in a normal game, I just disagree on the method you are arriving at that conclusion since it looks like the rules already prevent it.

The old discussion, and why we are where we are: (could do with trimming, so sorry for that)

 BlackTalos wrote:
"Some pieces of scenery are called fortifications. These can be included in a player’s army or used as pieces of ‘neutral’ scenery controlled by neither side. If a fortification is taken as part of an army, then it is set up with the rest of the units in the army using the same deployment rules as the other models. If you decide to use a fortification as a piece of neutral scenery, then it is set up during this step. Each fortification has a fortification datasheet that describes how it is used in the game."

Is the Skyshield purchased as a Fortification for your army?
Is the Void Shield Generator purchased as a Fortification for your army?
Do they both have a "fortification datasheet"?

You cannot deploy a Void Shield Generator on top of a Skyshield Landing Platform because you cannot deploy a Space Marine Commander on top of a Rhino. Still applies.

Looking through the rules, maybe someone can enlighten me as to why, but I see no restriction in Deploying a Space Marine Commander on top of a Rhino.

The only rules are about "moving through" during the movement phase. I think 6th Edition had something about "being on table" and i cannot find it it the 7th Book.

 insaniak wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:
You cannot deploy a Void Shield Generator on top of a Skyshield Landing Platform because you cannot deploy a Space Marine Commander on top of a Rhino. Still applies.

By that logic, you wouldn't be able to deploy the Space Marine Commander on the Skyshield either...

Looking through the rules, maybe someone can enlighten me as to why, but I see no restriction in Deploying a Space Marine Commander on top of a Rhino.

No, there is no rule against this in the current edition. The rule that previously stopped it was the one that treated other models as impassable terrain. That rule no longer exists.

I would have argued that you can't put terrain within 3 inches of each other, but that rule seems to have been removed as well.

We are also told that Fortifications are deployed just like the rest of your army like you said.

The other thing is that Citadel scenery model placement must be agreeable by both players, the way the sentence reads, it refers to non-owned terrain, though I can see that being argued both ways since Fortifications are Citadel scenery models.

There is permission to have a Void Shield Generator on top of a Sky Shield Landing Pad, and I can't find the restriction that it can't since the old restriction has been removed. Though the other player could argue that it isn't agreeable and ask you to remove it.

There are no rules to prevent you from placing a Space Marine on a Rhino, but there also no rule to permit it. Without any permission to put the Space Marine on the Rhino, it doesn't matter if there aren't any restrictions.

Can you find any permission to have a model on top of a non-Citadel scenery model?

 Nilok wrote:
There is permission to have a Void Shield Generator on top of a Sky Shield Landing Pad, and I can't find the restriction that it can't since the old restriction has been removed. Though the other player could argue that it isn't agreeable and ask you to remove it.

Where are you finding this permission?

It is the same permission / reasoning to put a Void Shield Generator on top of a Sky Shield Landing Pad as a Commander on a Rhino.

I can understand your point that there is no permission "to have a model on top of a non-Citadel scenery model". But then how do you use the Skyshield? Can you find the BrB definition of "Open Ground"?

 BlackTalos wrote:

 Nilok wrote:
There is permission to have a Void Shield Generator on top of a Sky Shield Landing Pad, and I can't find the restriction that it can't since the old restriction has been removed. Though the other player could argue that it isn't agreeable and ask you to remove it.

Where are you finding this permission?

It is the same permission / reasoning to put a Void Shield Generator on top of a Sky Shield Landing Pad as a Commander on a Rhino.

I can understand your point that there is no permission "to have a model on top of a non-Citadel scenery model". But then how do you use the Skyshield? Can you find the BrB definition of "Open Ground"?

deploying on a fortification is different to deploying on a vehicle. the skyshield landing pad is described as being open ground on top, and other units can be deployed on there - other fortifications are other units, so can be deployed on there.

there is, however, nothing stating you can deploy, move onto, or in any way result-in-being on top of another of your own models.

if we're going to take the deployment rules out of context, then why not:

"2: The side deploying first must set up all the units in their army."

note the word "Must". that's not an option, sorry, you get no reserves, drop pods start on the table, and so do my fliers, as they must be set up.

in essence, friendly models are treated as impassable terrain all game, correct? You can't deploy in impassable terrain.

rules as intended are oh, so clear. heck, being a permissive ruleset, it doesn't say you can, so you can't. it says you can deploy in fortifications and vehicles, but fails to mention "on".

RAW: No permission to do so.
RAI: no permission to do so.
HIWPI: Anyone else want to play me? anyone at all?

 Nilok wrote:
There are no rules to prevent you from placing a Space Marine on a Rhino, but there also no rule to permit it.

Sure there is. You're told to place models in your deployment zone. So long as the rhino is in your deployment zone, and barring any rule to the contrary, then placing the marine on top of the rhino satisfies that criteria.

 insaniak wrote:

 Nilok wrote:
There are no rules to prevent you from placing a Space Marine on a Rhino, but there also no rule to permit it.

Sure there is. You're told to place models in your deployment zone. So long as the rhino is in your deployment zone, and barring any rule to the contrary, then placing the marine on top of the rhino satisfies that criteria.

That is still saying "It doesn't tell me I can't". An extreme example, but it would be the same as if someone left a bunch of dice on the board and decided to deploy on top of the dice in their deployment zone to get better line of sight. It's still is in his deployment zone and it doesn't tell him he can't.

As I went over with you earlier though, we only have permission to have models on the board, which is open ground, or Citadel scenery models. We have no permission to have models on dice or on other non-Citadel scenery models.

If you can find any rule that grants permission, explicitly or implicitly, to have models on non-Citadel scenery models, the whole argument will be turned on its head.

Unless you're arguing somehow that the top of the Rhino is not in the deployment zone then the rules do seem to allow it.

 Nilok wrote:

That is still saying "It doesn't tell me I can't".

No, it's saying "permission to do something gives you permission to do something ".


You're given permission to place models in your deployment zone. You don't need specific permission to place a model in This specific spot in the deployment zone. That spot is allowed unless a specific rule says otherwise.

 insaniak wrote:

 Nilok wrote:

That is still saying "It doesn't tell me I can't".

No, it's saying "permission to do something gives you permission to do something ".


You're given permission to place models in your deployment zone. You don't need specific permission to place a model in This specific spot in the deployment zone. That spot is allowed unless a specific rule says otherwise.

Can you then tell me how your argument prevents the dice example since it is still in your deployment zone?

It doesn't. Nor do the rules cover what to do if the tape you are measuring range with blocks your LOS, or if you accidentally scatter Dorito's crumbs on an otherwise open and clear piece of terrain.

 insaniak wrote:
It doesn't. Nor do the rules cover what to do if the tape you are measuring range with blocks your LOS, or if you accidentally scatter Domino's crumbs on an otherwise open and clear piece of terrain.

Then you either ignore it is it was unintentional, or you are not allowed to do it since you are never given permission to do so.

Dropping some crumbs on the board is, usually, a mistake that can literally be brushed aside. When you intentionally try and perform an action that the rules do not permit or even have rules for such as putting models on something that doesn't have a Terrain Type, even implicitly, then you are violating the idea of a permission based rule set to gain an advantage.

 Nilok wrote:
Then you either ignore it is it was unintentional, or you are not allowed to do it since you are never given permission to do so.

Except as noted, you are given permission to do so because its your deployment zone. Where is this restriction that forbids you from deploying in your deployment zone because its on top of a vehicle?

 Nilok wrote:

Dropping some crumbs on the board is, usually, a mistake that can literally be brushed aside

Really?

Can you please quote the rule that says that obstacles can be ignored if they wound up on the board accidentally?

I mean, if we're going to use silly extremes to try to prove a given rules interpretation, you' re going to get some disagreement over just how silly to go...

When you intentionally try and perform an action that the rules do not permit or even have rules for...

But you are given rules for it. You're told you can place models in your deployment zone.

 insaniak wrote:

 Nilok wrote:

Dropping some crumbs on the board is, usually, a mistake that can literally be brushed aside

Really?

Can you please quote the rule that says that obstacles can be ignored if they wound up on the board accidentally?

I mean, if we're going to use silly extremes to try to prove a given rules interpretation, you' re going to get some disagreement over just how silly to go...

When you intentionally try and perform an action that the rules do not permit or even have rules for...

But you are given rules for it. You're told you can place models in your deployment zone.

We are only given permission to add terrain and obstacles (Citadel scenery models) in Preparing For Battle, so even normal scenery models can't be placed on the board after it is setup. The only exception I can imagine to that is if there is a special mission a group comes up with to represent the warp or something changing the battlefield, but that isn't in the rules.

You keep saying you have permission to setup in the deployment zone, which I agree, however, I have repeatedly asked for you to show me any permission, explicit or implicit, for models to be on something that lacks a Terrain Type. Even the board itself has a Terrain Type, but a non-wrecked vehicle doesn't.

 Nilok wrote:
We are only given permission to add terrain and obstacles (Citadel scenery models) in Preparing For Battle, so even normal scenery models can't be placed on the board after it is setup. ...

Well, that nicely resolves your dice scenario...

You keep saying you have permission to setup in the deployment zone, however, I have repeatedly asked for you to show me any permission, explicit or implicit, for models to be on something that lacks a Terrain Type.

And you're going to keep getting the same answer.

 insaniak wrote:

 Nilok wrote:
We are only given permission to add terrain and obstacles (Citadel scenery models) in Preparing For Battle, so even normal scenery models can't be placed on the board after it is setup. ...

Well, that nicely resolves your dice scenario...

You keep saying you have permission to setup in the deployment zone, however, I have repeatedly asked for you to show me any permission, explicit or implicit, for models to be on something that lacks a Terrain Type.

And you're going to keep getting the same answer.

I presented the scenario since I knew it was already solved by the rules.

Why do you believe that you can place a model on top of something that has no permission to have anything placed on top of it?

I don't.

I believe that a rule that says that you can place models anywhere in your deployment zone means that you can place models anywhere in your deployment zone, unless a different rule specifically renders part/s of that deployment zone off-limits.

I read it slightly differently. When I read deployment, you are given permission to deploy models in that zone, however, you are not given any permissions on what you can deploy on. For what your models can be on, you need to refer to Terrain Types. The only extra restriction is that you can't deploy on Impassible Terrain since some models can move up there and down, while other cannot.

You have permissions to place models in your deployment zone, but only the board and terrain have permission to have models on them and to move across them.

However, a normal model lacks any of those rules. Normally for a a rules void such as that, you do everything to avoid it since you have no permission to interact with it in that way. When models are attempted to be deployed on top of a normal model, there are no rule to explain that interactions and fails.

It would be similar if you suspended a model in the air above the board in your deployment zone. It is in the vertical slice that is your deployment zone, but there are no permission for a model to be above the board not on any terrain.

 Nilok wrote:
For what your models can be on, you need to refer to Terrain Types.

Can you please quote the part of the Open Ground section that grants specific permission for models to be in Open Ground?


On a quick skim through the terrain section, I can't actually see any specific permission for models to be in any of the listed terrain types. There are rules for how they are affected if they are in the terrain, but no actual permission to be there in the first place.

 insaniak wrote:

 Nilok wrote:
For what your models can be on, you need to refer to Terrain Types.

Can you please quote the part of the Open Ground section that grants specific permission for models to be in Open Ground?


On a quick skim through the terrain section, I can't actually see any specific permission for models to be in any of the listed terrain types. There are rules for how they are affected if they are in the terrain, but no actual permission to be there in the first place.

Terrain Types: "When one of the following rules refers to a model being 'in cover behind' a piece of terrain, this means that the model is at least 25% obscured by the scenry, and therefore eligble for a cover save. On the other hand, when one of the following rules refers to a model being 'in' a piece of terrain, this means that model, or some part of it, is actually standing on the piece of scenery, whether it is obscured from view or not."

Open Ground: "Models in open ground..."

All Terrain Types have a "models in x" that implicitly states that models can be standing on terrain. I cannot find any Terrain Types except Impassible Terrain that lacks a 'models in x".

But that was my point. The rules deal with what happens when models are in terrain. But the terrain section never actually grants permission for them to be there, just tells us what to do if they are.

Using your argument, we need explicit permission to put models into that terrain, and since that doesn't exist no model can ever be placed anywhere on the board.

 insaniak wrote:
But that was my point. The rules deal with what happens when models are in terrain. But the terrain section never actually grants permission for them to be there, just tells us what to do if they are.

Using your argument, we need explicit permission to put models into that terrain, and since that doesn't exist no model can ever be placed anywhere on the board.

Due note I constantly asked for explicit or implicit permission, so that was never my argument.

And you have neither.

A rule that details what happens when you do something is not permission to do that thing.

So you argue that even though there is repeated statements of models being "in" terrain, which is defined as them being on the terrain, that there is no permission in any way, for them to be there.

You also argue, that even though we are told that there do not need any extra rules for Open Ground and that models can be on Open Ground that we do not have permission have models on Open Ground.

Finally, you are arguing that even though we have clear instructions on how to move into Difficult Terrain, through Difficult Terrain, and models can be on Difficult Terrain, that we have no permission at all for models in Difficult Terrain.

Is any of this correct?

 Nilok wrote:
So you argue that even though there is repeated statements of models being "in" terrain, which is defined as them being on the terrain, that there is no permission in any way, for them to be there.

You also argue, that even though we are told that there do not need any extra rules for Open Ground and that models can be on Open Ground that we do not have permission have models on Open Ground.

Finally, you are arguing that even though we have clear instructions on how to move into Difficult Terrain, through Difficult Terrain, and models can be on Difficult Terrain, that we have no permission at all for models in Difficult Terrain.

Is any of this correct?

Yes. Because, again, a statement of what happens when you do something is not permission to do that thing. It's a statement of what happens if you do that thing.

As an example, a sign that says 'Trespassers will be prosecuted' is a statement of what will occur if there are trespassers. It's not permission to trespass.


In the case of terrain, we simply assume that models are free to go (within any imposed movement limitations) into any terrain that doesn't specifically prohibit it. Which is a bit backwards, as game rules go, but that's the way it is.

 insaniak wrote:

 Nilok wrote:
So you argue that even though there is repeated statements of models being "in" terrain, which is defined as them being on the terrain, that there is no permission in any way, for them to be there.

You also argue, that even though we are told that there do not need any extra rules for Open Ground and that models can be on Open Ground that we do not have permission have models on Open Ground.

Finally, you are arguing that even though we have clear instructions on how to move into Difficult Terrain, through Difficult Terrain, and models can be on Difficult Terrain, that we have no permission at all for models in Difficult Terrain.

Is any of this correct?

Yes. Because, again, a statement of what happens when you do something is not permission to do that thing. It's a statement of what happens if you do that thing.

As an example, a sign that says 'Trespassers will be prosecuted' is a statement of what will occur if there are trespassers. It's not permission to trespass.


In the case of terrain, we simply assume that models are free to go (within any imposed movement limitations) into any terrain that doesn't specifically prohibit it. Which is a bit backwards, as game rules go, but that's the way it is.

That argument is a logical fallacy, since you are trying to apply a restrictive based rule system (law), to a permissive based rule system (40k). Any direct comparisons not being used to show the contrast, only leads to misinterpretations.

In a restrictive system, you can freely go anywhere, however, if you try and enter that area without permission, to trespass (the restriction), you will be prosecuted. In a permissive system, you can't go anywhere, unless you are told you can.

For the terrain, we a told that models can be on them (the permission), and how they move, with Open Ground not changing anything, and Difficult Terrain having its own modifications, along with any other mechanics.

 Nilok wrote:
That argument is a logical fallacy, since you are trying to apply a restrictive based rule system (law), to a permissive based rule system (40k).

Yes, I pointed that out.

Although I'm not 'applying' anything. I'm pointing out that a rule we all assume to exist doesn't actually exist.

For the terrain, we a told that models can be on them (the permission), and how they move, with Open Ground not changing anything, and Difficult Terrain having its own modifications, along with any other mechanics.

Except, again, we're not told that models can be on them, or when this can occur. We're simply told what to do if they are on them.

The rest is just assumption.

Made an account just to disprove this lunacy.

Page 18 of the rulebook. Models cannot voluntarily move off the board. So no climbing on top of a rhino. There is specific exceptions regarding climbing terrain.

Deploying on a rhino.

Deployment zones as described in the Dawn of War, Hammer and Anvil, and Vanguard, are each sectioning off the BOARD. Not the space around the board. The Board itself. Therefore, to deploy in your deployment zone, you must deploy on the board itself, not above it on a rhino.

Though it gives you the exception to deploy within a transport, building, or fort.

Eh I see nothing wrong with deploying/climbing onto a vehicle but not riding on it currently. Though it's always bothered me that IG can't hitch a ride on a russ ala infantry in WWII it would make sense from a fluff perspective. Just rule that if the russ goes more than combat speed they can only fire snap shots. But I guess none of that is either here or there.

I'd allow standing on a tank but without specific rules addressing movement & how many can ride on I'd say no for sure to moving either & that a unit must climb down before the tank can move or fire its turret at anything out of the forward 45* arc. Just me though.

Datastream wrote:
Made an account just to disprove this lunacy.

Page 18 of the rulebook. Models cannot voluntarily move off the board. So no climbing on top of a rhino. There is specific exceptions regarding climbing terrain.

Deploying on a rhino.

Deployment zones as described in the Dawn of War, Hammer and Anvil, and Vanguard, are each sectioning off the BOARD. Not the space around the board. The Board itself. Therefore, to deploy in your deployment zone, you must deploy on the board itself, not above it on a rhino.

Yes, that interpretation has already been mentioned. You'll get some disagreement as to whether something sitting on something else is no longer on the board.

That interpretation would also stop models from being able to deploy onto terrain in their deployment zone.

 insaniak wrote:

Datastream wrote:
Made an account just to disprove this lunacy.

Page 18 of the rulebook. Models cannot voluntarily move off the board. So no climbing on top of a rhino. There is specific exceptions regarding climbing terrain.

Deploying on a rhino.

Deployment zones as described in the Dawn of War, Hammer and Anvil, and Vanguard, are each sectioning off the BOARD. Not the space around the board. The Board itself. Therefore, to deploy in your deployment zone, you must deploy on the board itself, not above it on a rhino.

Yes, that interpretation has already been mentioned. You'll get some disagreement as to whether something sitting on something else is no longer on the board.

That interpretation would also stop models from being able to deploy onto terrain in their deployment zone.

I'll have to reread the thread. I don't know how much more clear "cannot move off the board" can be.

As for terrain, the battlefield is terrain. "The battlefield is to be considered open ground" pg 130.

So you are given permission to deploy on terrain already, with the exception of impassible terrain.

Datastream wrote:
I'll have to reread the thread. I don't know how much more clear "cannot move off the board" can be.

Given that, in context, it's talking about moving off the edges of the board, not climbing onto stuff sitting on the board, it would need to be somewhat clearer if that's the intention.

As for terrain, the battlefield is terrain. "The battlefield is to be considered open ground" pg 130.

So you are given permission to deploy on terrain already, with the exception of impassible terrain.

That gives you permission to deploy onto the board, as you said. It doesn't give you permission to deploy into a forest sitting on the board, if you assume that standing on something that is on the board is not sufficient to qualify as being 'on the board'.

 insaniak wrote:

Except, again, we're not told that models can be on them, or when this can occur. We're simply told what to do if they are on them.

The rest is just assumption.

So you are asserting that the rule that defines having a model on top of it, moving into it, or moving through it, does not in fact grant even the implied permission to have a model on top of it, at any time.

I which case, I have to assume we are speaking two different languages, because that makes no logical sense.

 insaniak wrote:

Given that, in context, it's talking about moving off the edges of the board, not climbing onto stuff sitting on the board, it would need to be somewhat clearer if that's the intention.

It's a stand alone paragraph coming right after talking about infantry not being able to move more then 6"

It's the most straight forward 0's and 1's sentence of the entire argument.

If, to move, i have to lift the model off the board, not going into terrain, then it is an illegal move.

That gives you permission to deploy onto the board, as you said. It doesn't give you permission to deploy into a forest sitting on the board, if you assume that standing on something that is on the board is not sufficient to qualify as being 'on the board'.

This one, I can see where you can split hairs. They are specifically called scenery models. I'll concede its player interpretation on deploying for that one, albeit a well accepted one.

 Nilok wrote:
So you are asserting that the rule that defines having a model on top of it, moving into it, or moving through it, does not in fact grant even the implied permission to have a model on top of it.

Yes.

I which case, I have to assume we are speaking two different languages, because that makes no logical sense.

To return to my previous example, does that 'Trespassers will be prosecuted' sign give you permission to trespass?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Datastream wrote:
If, to move, i have to lift the model off the board, not going into terrain, then it is an illegal move.

That's going to make moving anything anywhere rather problematic.

Do you not lift models off the board in order to move them?

 insaniak wrote:

 Nilok wrote:
So you are asserting that the rule that defines having a model on top of it, moving into it, or moving through it, does not in fact grant even the implied permission to have a model on top of it.

Yes.

You will need to explain yourself very clearly.

 insaniak wrote:

 Nilok wrote:
I which case, I have to assume we are speaking two different languages, because that makes no logical sense.

To return to my previous example, does that 'Trespassers will be prosecuted' sign give you permission to trespass?

As I explained, you are trying to make a Restrictive Law into a Permissive Rule. It is stating that there is a restriction to entering that area and the consequence is prosecution and has no relevance to the argument.

 Nilok wrote:
As I explained, you are trying to make a Restrictive Law into a Permissive Rule. It is stating that there is a restriction to entering that area and the consequence is prosecution and has no relevance to the argument.

It's not stating a restriction at all. It's saying 'If you do this, then that happens.

Your terrain issue is the same thing. The rule says 'If you enter this terrain, then that happens.

That's not permission to do anything. Not even implied permission. It's simply a statement of what happens if you do that thing.


The best that you can argue is that it is a suggestion that under some unspecified circumstances it is possible for you to do that thing, otherwise there would be no point in that rule existing. But you have nothing that tells you what those circumstances are.

I once again disagree, your interpretation of the rules completely breaks the ability to play the game since, by your own definition, you cannot deploy on the battlefield itself since it also has a Terrain Type and you believe you have no permission to deploy on Terrain Types.

Your assumption that there is a timing for when these rules take place is also incorrect. The rules simply states that they are, and gives no restrictions to when it takes place, so it is always.

Finally, you have ignored several times lines such as, "No additional rules are needed for open ground..." or the entire section detailing how to move with Difficult Terrain.

Your constant stance on that there exist no permission at all is one that isn't backed up by the rules.

 Nilok wrote:
I once again disagree, your interpretation of the rules completely breaks the ability to play the game since, by your own definition, you cannot deploy on the battlefield itself since it also has a Terrain Type and you believe you have no permission to deploy on Terrain Types.

Yes, that was the point.

Or, more specifically, the point was that your original claim (that the fact that we are only given permission to put models on terrain is proof that you can't put them on a tank) is based on a faulty premise, as we are not actually given permission to put them on terrain at all.

We simply assume that models can move freely into any terrain that they are not prohibited from moving into, because that's a logical assumption.

Your assumption that there is a timing for when these rules take place is also incorrect. The rules simply states that they are, and gives no restrictions to when it takes place, so it is always.

Well yes, the rules for difficult terrain will always apply.

But the rules for difficult terrain don't include a rule allowing models to move into difficult terrain.

Finally, you have ignored several times lines such as, "No additional rules are needed for open ground..." or the entire section detailing how to move with Difficult Terrain.

I haven't ignored that at all. The rules for terrain detail all that we need to know about moving in that terrain.

That doesn't change the fact that nowehere in the rules are we told when we can actually do that.

Your constant stance on that there exist no permission at all is one that isn't backed up by the rules.

In that case, please quote the rule that gives a model permission to move into difficult terrain.

 Nilok wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 Nilok wrote:

That is still saying "It doesn't tell me I can't".

No, it's saying "permission to do something gives you permission to do something ".


You're given permission to place models in your deployment zone. You don't need specific permission to place a model in This specific spot in the deployment zone. That spot is allowed unless a specific rule says otherwise.

Can you then tell me how your argument prevents the dice example since it is still in your deployment zone?

Model is of the table edge.

 insaniak wrote:

 Nilok wrote:

Your assumption that there is a timing for when these rules take place is also incorrect. The rules simply states that they are, and gives no restrictions to when it takes place, so it is always.

Well yes, the rules for difficult terrain will always apply.

But the rules for difficult terrain don't include a rule allowing models to move into difficult terrain.

 Nilok wrote:
Your constant stance on that there exist no permission at all is one that isn't backed up by the rules.

In that case, please quote the rule that gives a model permission to move into difficult terrain.

Gladly.

First rule under Difficult Terrain

Moving into Difficult Terrain wrote:
If a unit starts its move outside difficult terrain, the player must declare if he want his unit to try to enter difficult terrain as part of their move. If he chooses not to, the unit moves as normal but may not enter difficult terrain. If he chooses for a unit to do so, the unit must take a Difficult Terrain test.

To take a Difficult Terrain test, roll 2D6 and select the highest result - this is the maximum distance, in inches, that any of the models in the unit may move. Even if the distance rolled is too shot for any of the models to reach the difficult terrain, the unit is still slowed as described above. We assume that their approach is cautious as they attempt to ascertain whether any enemies are within. You should also note that, if you take the Difficult Terrain test, you are not compelled to move the models, as you might not have rolled high enough to make it worth moving at all.

This rule explains how moving into difficult terrain is different normal movement and from open ground, which we are told doesn't need any additional rules.
There is also other rules for moving in Difficult Terrain, which I recommend you review under Terrain Types.

That outlines the process for moving into the terrain. No matter how many times we go back to it, it still won't include permission to actually do so.



Either way, though, I think this has gone on way past its use by date. So just for clarity, I'm not suggesting that deploying onto tanks should be allowed. It wasn't in previous editions, and probably wasn't intended in this one. My point has simply been that there is no actual rules basis for disallowing it.

As with anything, though, you're certainly able to discuss it with your opponent and choose to disallow it on the basis that you think it's a bit silly.

In which case our debate is over.

I still disagree with your interpretation of implicit permissions, however, that is not something we are going to resolve.

It has been an interesting debate at the very least, have a good day.

 BlackTalos wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Also you can only move one unit at a time, so moving the rhino would be breaking this rule as you would be moving two units at once, which is illegal.

Have you read the WMS rule? If you move the Rhino, what happens to the model on top?

I have read the WMS, bit that does not apply here.

You can not move the rhino as if you start to move the rhino you move the unit deployed on top of it, which you can not do since you must complete one units movement before moving on to another unit.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Also you can only move one unit at a time, so moving the rhino would be breaking this rule as you would be moving two units at once, which is illegal.

Have you read the WMS rule? If you move the Rhino, what happens to the model on top?

I have read the WMS, bit that does not apply here.

You can not move the rhino as if you start to move the rhino you move the unit deployed on top of it, which you can not do since you must complete one units movement before moving on to another unit.

I disagree: "If you delicately balance it in place, it is very likely to fall as soon as somebody nudges the table"

The underlined is an example. It could be:
"If you delicately balance it in place, it is very likely to fall as soon as the wind blows"
"If you delicately balance it in place, it is very likely to fall as soon as the Rhino moves"

Therefore, as you lift the Rhino (if that is how you play) or push it forward for movement, you create this "instability".

IE: Before you even start moving your Rhino, you must remove the model on top of it, by WMS.
When the Rhino finishes it's move, you can "replace" your model in its previous location. Or "agreed and know its ‘actual’ location": 2" above the Table, "floating" in mid air and breaking so many rules.
The method to get there is still correct.

"if you start to move the rhino you move the unit deployed on top of it" Never actually happens, you follow WMS first.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 some bloke wrote:
in essence, friendly models are treated as impassable terrain all game, correct? You can't deploy in impassable terrain.

Incorrect. No such rule exists.

could you place a marine on top of a marine? or a marine on top of a centurian's base?

 BlackTalos wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Also you can only move one unit at a time, so moving the rhino would be breaking this rule as you would be moving two units at once, which is illegal.

Have you read the WMS rule? If you move the Rhino, what happens to the model on top?

I have read the WMS, bit that does not apply here.

You can not move the rhino as if you start to move the rhino you move the unit deployed on top of it, which you can not do since you must complete one units movement before moving on to another unit.

I disagree: "If you delicately balance it in place, it is very likely to fall as soon as somebody nudges the table"

The underlined is an example. It could be:
"If you delicately balance it in place, it is very likely to fall as soon as the wind blows"
"If you delicately balance it in place, it is very likely to fall as soon as the Rhino moves"

Therefore, as you lift the Rhino (if that is how you play) or push it forward for movement, you create this "instability".

IE: Before you even start moving your Rhino, you must remove the model on top of it, by WMS.
When the Rhino finishes it's move, you can "replace" your model in its previous location. Or "agreed and know its ‘actual’ location": 2" above the Table, "floating" in mid air and breaking so many rules.
The method to get there is still correct.

"if you start to move the rhino you move the unit deployed on top of it" Never actually happens, you follow WMS first.

Disagree all you want, but you have no basis. WMS does not happen first. as soon as the rhino moves 0.0000000000000001 inches so does the model on top and that is illegal.

The model on top of the rhino is not "delicately balanced it in place" if it were it would be off to the side anyway.

Even if it were "delicately balanced it in place" and you used WMS to remove the model, as soon as you start moving the rhino you violate a rule because the model that is on top is still there (Even though it is temporarilly removed due to wms).

Ergo illegal to move.

I'd think the cannot go through-must go around rule would prohibit this, simply because if it didn't I could put anything I wanted on spare base area on another model and move it wherever I wanted. Though if I could have an infantry unit camping on a Wraithknight's base to extend threat range I could see Banshees being more useful.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jump-Stacking. Yriel sitting on a Wasp's base sitting on a Wraithknight's base. Thirty inches in one Movement phase.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Disagree all you want, but you have no basis. WMS does not happen first. as soon as the rhino moves 0.0000000000000001 inches so does the model on top and that is illegal.

Your views, mine are that 0.0000000000000000000000000000001 inches would make the model unstable, so WMS is invoked before that happens.

 DeathReaper wrote:
The model on top of the rhino is not "delicately balanced it in place" if it were it would be off to the side anyway.

Even if it were "delicately balanced it in place" and you used WMS to remove the model, as soon as you start moving the rhino you violate a rule because the model that is on top is still there (Even though it is temporarilly removed due to wms).

And what rule would that be?
I thought it was clear that moving under =/= moving through. Or how would your rhino drive through a Ruin that is occupied in the levels above it?

Sure, the Captain is a whole "nothing" inches above the Rhino, but that does not restrict its movement...

 DeathReaper wrote:
Ergo illegal to move.

Possibly in some views. Legal deployment though...(back to OP)

So you are saying that the model "floats" in mid air above the board and any terrain while you move the Rhino. Remember, the unit still has to technically remain there even if you have to move it temperately.

In which case, how do you now resolve a unit "floating" in mid air?

 Nilok wrote:
So you are saying that the model "floats" in mid air above the board and any terrain while you move the Rhino. Remember, the unit still has to technically remain there even if you have to move it temperately.

In which case, how do you now resolve a unit "floating" in mid air?

You don't. The entire point of this is that all rules break down. Whether before movement, or as soon as you do...

Deploying the Unit was legal.
Moving the Rhino is legal if you agree WMS is invoked.

What you are left with though......

I would say if you got to that point you SegFaulted the game.

If you want my HIWPI:

Deployment can only happen on the board, and on terrain placed there before-hand.
With an exception that you can put "army" models (not Fortifications) onto your own Fortifications.

If an opponent puts Fortifications on Skyshield pads (the main OP of these topics usually), I start putting Units on top of my Rhinos, move 12" and claim they haven't moved :p
Of course, the "correct" RaW is described in the thread above...

I think most of us agree with that HIWPI, the rest is just us teasing out how the rules interact with each other currently.

The idea of deploying a model on top of a vehicle is, bluntly, ridiculous. If you could put a Marine on top of a Rhino, does that mean you could deploy on top of a Waveserpent? Just because it's not a flat surface, you'd be forced to say yes, if you say you can deploy on top of a Rhino, in order to be consistent. And why not an infantry model on top of a larger infantry model? How about a Waveserpent on top of a unit of very tightly packed infantry, but hey, it would stop the tank getting charged!

I swear, 40K has a really weird ability of attracting players with the strangest mindsets.

It often happens on this YMDC forum, because sometimes questions like:

Can i put a Bastion on a Skyshield?

Pop up, and we ruffle through our books, looking for exactly where a rule exists that could make this ridiculous-sounding idea impossible "by the rules". Unfortunately, GW doesn't think of everything, so the end answer will be: "Yes you can".
The best way of solving the issue is when GW creates an FAQ to resolve such "frequently" asked questions.. but we know they don't.

But hey, until then you can put eldar on Wave serpents and ask your opponent to prove you wrong....

I'm sure they'll just pack up and walk off...

God In Action wrote:
I swear, 40K has a really weird ability of attracting players with the strangest mindsets.

The players aren't the problem. It's the fact that Gw choose to write their rules in a conversational tone, don't pay a great deal of attention to using precise wording for the important bits, and don't bother to adequately proof-read or test before publishing.

So then you get the sort of conflict that you see here, between the players who just accept that the rules have holes in them and take it for granted that they should just fill in the blanks with whatever seems appropriate, and those who expect game rules to actually do what they are supposed to do.



Regardless, the discussion here seems to have gone about as far as it productively can. In summary: deploying on transports is seen by some as being technically legal within the current rules, but this is probably not intended and is likely to raise eyebrows if you actually try it without discussing it with your opponent first.