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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So, less of the ad hominems please.

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

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

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

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

There is one problem with your argument.

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

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

Same old, same old. Yawn.

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

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

 fuusa wrote:

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

Same old, same old. Yawn.

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

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

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

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

 fuusa wrote:

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

Same old, same old. Yawn.

Sigh.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 fuusa wrote:
Same old, same old. Yawn.

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

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

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

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

Ricter wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

i.e.

X= Deep Stike, Y= Inital placement

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

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

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

The answer is yes.

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

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

Agreed.

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

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

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

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

Scatter is explicitly described as a move.

Remember this???

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

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

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

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

Stormbreed wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Its like those words have meaning.

 fuusa wrote:

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

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

 grendel083 wrote:
[

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

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

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

Done.

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

 Mywik wrote:

 fuusa wrote:

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

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

Compulsory movement (like scatter and fallback).

 fuusa wrote:

 Mywik wrote:

 fuusa wrote:

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

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

Compulsory movement (like scatter and fallback).

Citation required that scatter is compulsory movement.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Already, repeatedly, given.

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

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

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

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

 fuusa wrote:

 Mywik wrote:

 fuusa wrote:

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

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

Compulsory movement (like scatter and fallback).

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

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


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DarthOvious wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Already, repeatedly, given.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 Mywik wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

The answer is yes.

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

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