Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

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

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

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

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

. . .No.

General: Models may be placed on the table.

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

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




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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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




Automatically Appended Next Post:

FlingitNow wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No it is not it is a general thing.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It's a silly, incorrect argument

Yes it is so why persist with it?

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

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

Sigh, personal attacks not good apwil.

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

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

FlingitNow wrote:

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

No it is not it is a general thing.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It's a silly, incorrect argument

Yes it is so why persist with it?

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

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

Damn my argumentative nature. OK, one more time:

brb, pg 95, DEEPSTRIKING:

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

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

Enlighten me.

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


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Sigh, personal attacks not good apwil.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Deep Strike is deployment.

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

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

Deploy /= DeployMENT. Two different terms.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

what do the rules state exactly for it?

Damn my argumentative nature. OK, one more time:

brb, pg 95, DEEPSTRIKING:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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