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.

 doctortom wrote:

 kirotheavenger wrote:
I think the fact that taking the gospel interpretation of "anywhere" would allow you to place the Magnifier on top of models should be strong enough evidence that it does not override all the usual rules.

If you put the Magnifier on top of a model it would not be on the battlefield, as there would be a model in the way.

If you place it so one edge is on a model and the other is on the battlefield, doesn't that satisfy "On the battlefield"?

 Jidmah wrote:

PoorGravitasHandling wrote:
No, as above, the terrain rules have only hills as terrain that counts as the battlefield

I'm allowed to deep strike blight lord terminators on top of ruins though, who use the same "anywhere" wording.

I've also done this but without thinking about it. I think the scalable rules (which dictate that you can place infantry/etc models on the top floors and anything on the ground floor) allow for arrival from reserves on that terrain.

The hill rules say "hills are considered a part of the battlefield rather than a terrain feature", so... this seems to point to deep strikes only happening on scalable terrain if at all (its not like this is novel, 4th and 5th had models explode if they hit terrain. But I've certainly not been playing it this way thus far).

So not into craters or woods. Scalable also says other models, so the MM would set up on the ground floors of scalable area terrain?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
But digging into this more, deep striking may not be allowable on terrain at all if you have to land on the battlefield and the hill rules illuminate that terrain isn't.

GW released a clarification on what charge roll is required if you're charging from a building after deepstrike.
I think it's fairly clear that you can deepstrike into terrain, otherwise they'd have just said "you're not allowed to do that anyway".

If you say an explicit statement is required to overcome a restriction you cannot place on another model because the rules restrict you from doing so and there is no exception in this case. (Their may be an exemption in other cases such as terminators dropping onto the top floor of a building have an exemption in the terrain rules)

If you say anywhere is permissive and refers to anywhere includeing all geography sub distances etc.... and that this is a statement capable of overriding restrictions such as the 3" terrain rule then their is no reason anywhere shouldn't override other restrictions such as placing on models (and the only reason you can't is a restriction)- it is the same logic - by setting a low bar for statement the permissive rule covers all areas of the board includeing those with models on it and ignores the restriction. so you should be able to place your model on another or in it.

Now I would argue this is obviously wrong and that therefore evidence that the second definition is wrong - unless a clear criteria can be put forward why this restriction isn't overridden but the first is

 kirotheavenger wrote:
GW released a clarification on what charge roll is required if you're charging from a building after deepstrike.
I think it's fairly clear that you can deepstrike into terrain, otherwise they'd have just said "you're not allowed to do that anyway".

I think thats backwards if we're looking at the same FAQ. The chaos terminators are on the board, charging into a ruin. They do later say that you can do this within a large ruin (landing on top and charging to a lower floor) but again, I think this is allowed specifically via "scalable" and not naturally.

Scalable doesn't state the terrain counts as the battlefield though, only that models can be placed on top of it.
It also only states "upper floors" for what it allows - does that mean you're not allowed to deploy or step on the ground floor of a ruin at all? Or more likely is that just generally allowed anyway.

The idea of hills not being terrain is more because they don't give any cover, so the rule is to preclude various factions from getting bonuses for standing in the open on a hill.

As to terrain
By definition in the core rules terrain sits on the battlefield except hills which are part of the battlefield

If it is area terrain you have permission to move " up over or down" this gives you permission to be in it unless otherwise restricted


scalable is a keyworded terrain trait for a restriction that limits what can go on top of terrain - it has no bearing on the ground floor which defaults to the normal area terrain rules unless otherwise restricted

this functions normally if you require a stated exemption to remove a restriction but is a clear example where the permissive anywhere permits your tank to be on the top floor because anywhere overrides restrictions




Ok so having combed the rulebooks on a technical RAW basis assuming you require stated exemptions

models deploying via normal can deploy on any terrain they could be placed on eg top floor if a ruin for infantry as the normal deployment rules do not refer to the battlefield

If deploying by a rule with an area limitation such as strategic reserves that does not refer to the battlefieldso this is also true

If deploying via deep strike rule referencing the battlefield you could only deploy on a hill or the battlefield as hills count as the battlefield

However RAI its pretty clear they can do it and the faq support that so I'm assuming its an oversight from the 8th wording not functioning perfectly in 9th its clearly intended so I would ignore the technical RAW

if you go by the permissive anywhere interpretation restrictions don't apply as anywhere/wholey within overule the restrictions

Any model can setup on the ground floor from the rule. Upper floors have a model type restriction.

Looking above hills, it does seem to suggest that terrain placement is "creating the battlefield". Even though hills rules seem to distinguish between battlefield and terrain.

So I guess, yeah, the MM can set up in terrain (per limitations specified by that terrain's traits, like scalable limiting the MM to the ground floor of area terrain) if terrain is the battlefield. Gnarlmaws would not (even through summoning) as their FAQ dictates 1" away. Webway would have to be 3" per its own rule, etc.






Automatically Appended Next Post:
Yeah, aright, the trait assignment section also refers to the whole package of play area and terrain as battlefield as well. Hills rules are the only outlier here from what I can see.

PoorGravitasHandling wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

PoorGravitasHandling wrote:
No, as above, the terrain rules have only hills as terrain that counts as the battlefield

I'm allowed to deep strike blight lord terminators on top of ruins though, who use the same "anywhere" wording.

I've also done this but without thinking about it. I think the scalable rules (which dictate that you can place infantry/etc models on the top floors and anything on the ground floor) allow for arrival from reserves on that terrain.

The hill rules say "hills are considered a part of the battlefield rather than a terrain feature", so... this seems to point to deep strikes only happening on scalable terrain if at all (its not like this is novel, 4th and 5th had models explode if they hit terrain. But I've certainly not been playing it this way thus far).

So not into craters or woods. Scalable also says other models, so the MM would set up on the ground floors of scalable area terrain?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
But digging into this more, deep striking may not be allowable on terrain at all if you have to land on the battlefield and the hill rules illuminate that terrain isn't.

Haha, you're really trying hard making that "on the battlefield" nonsense work, aren't you?

Let's take that apart as well - there are quite a number of warlord traits that you are only allowed "when your warlord is on the battlefield".

So, a space marine captain with "Master of the Codex" is not allowed to roll to regain a command point when he is standing in crater. He also cannot use the adaptive strategy stratagem or call in an orbital strike.
And let's hope you aren't playing crusade, because all those guys who managed to survive while standing on terrain won't get any XP.

Thats because noone can see the captain and he has signal interference from the rock, and if your hiding in terrain like a cowardly xenos you don't gain as much experience as a nobel guardsman charging the enemy accross an open field with a bayonet

However when someone is going to try and wheedle the word anywhere into meaning an explicit statement decrying the restrictions they don't like while maintaining the ones they do - why should they not do the same with the word battlefield

Please respond to the latest posts.

PoorGravitasHandling wrote:
Please respond to the latest posts.

They did. You didn't.

To reiterate their point, can a Captain with Master Of The Codex regain a CP if they're on a crater?

PoorGravitasHandling wrote:
Any model can setup on the ground floor from the rule. Upper floors have a model type restriction.

Looking above hills, it does seem to suggest that terrain placement is "creating the battlefield". Even though hills rules seem to distinguish between battlefield and terrain.

So I guess, yeah, the MM can set up in terrain (per limitations specified by that terrain's traits, like scalable limiting the MM to the ground floor of area terrain) if terrain is the battlefield. Gnarlmaws would not (even through summoning) as their FAQ dictates 1" away. Webway would have to be 3" per its own rule, etc.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Yeah, aright, the trait assignment section also refers to the whole package of play area and terrain as battlefield as well. Hills rules are the only outlier here from what I can see.

Yes actually, he is not reaponding to the latest post. Battlefield seems to encompass everything, despite the hills rule.

 JNAProductions wrote:

PoorGravitasHandling wrote:
Please respond to the latest posts.

They did. You didn't.

To reiterate their point, can a Captain with Master Of The Codex regain a CP if they're on a crater?

To be fair, he conceded his point while I was typing mine.

Briefly on Gnarlmaws Jidmah, they can't be killed right (and were irritating/game breaking walls). Whereas the MM can be blown off the table/fought and consolidated through. As a point towards the restrictions being intentionally different.

Its not like a bastion void shield, generator, defence line, a bunker or battle sanctum are especially irritating but their subject to it

Four of those are unplayably bad without the restriction.
And two can't be destroyed

Intention is not really knowable in that context so its not really relevant.

The main thing is their is no justification for treating any of them differently.





Terrain probably follows the coaster argument

If I put my cup of tea on a coaster its still on the table if I put my model or terrain its still on the battlefield

This whole part of the forum is mental.

Didn't you just argue with them for 5 pages?

Two or three, it’s the tangents they go off on the the lengths they all go to try and prove themselves right. I am much more of a common sense kind of player and am happy to change rules that don’t make sense or work, not really RAW.

PoorGravitasHandling wrote:
Briefly on Gnarlmaws Jidmah, they can't be killed right (and were irritating/game breaking walls). Whereas the MM can be blown off the table/fought and consolidated through. As a point towards the restrictions being intentionally different.

Doesn't matter, both can be deployed "anywhere outside of X". They are the same in that regard, no difference.

This also applies to deploying outside the deployment zone then prior to a game starting. The deployment rules restrict you to X, and X is within anywhere.

I don't get what you are trying to say?

Andykp wrote:
Two or three, it’s the tangents they go off on the the lengths they all go to try and prove themselves right. I am much more of a common sense kind of player and am happy to change rules that don’t make sense or work, not really RAW.

Which would explain why your answers have not been congruent with the rules - this is a rules forum we don't change rules just because we don't like them. We only clarify what they are. You recognise what they are and then advocate something else.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

PoorGravitasHandling wrote:
This also applies to deploying outside the deployment zone then prior to a game starting. The deployment rules restrict you to X, and X is within anywhere.

Their still subject to the 3" terrain restriction as they apply to any fortification regardless of method of deployment unless otherwise stated and they don't state otherwise

I'm all for common sense - but that's not what YMDC is for.

Although in general I think it's best to "rules lawyer" what the RAW is, agreed by 'common sense' what RAI is, then formally houserule it.
Just expecting everyone to agree with you on RAI in every instance is a recipe for disaster.

This thread is actually a great example, common sense tells me that the 3" rule still stands. Obviously that isn't shared though.

Well RAW (Not stated by the 6 definitios) RAI (other interpretation breaks game) and Common sense (we don't want a broken game or picking and choosing of restrictions) all say 3"rule still stands

Vs the anywhere means anywhere which don't meet the definition of stated however argue anywhere overules all restrictions so implies it does but you cant put it on models it doesnt overrule those restrictions that would be silly but can't provide a credible reason to distinguish which restrictions apply and which don't but yeah common sense is on their side because anywhere means anywhere and that was clearly the intention

Really this is about

Lots of players don't like the outcome because the faq rule makes models unplayable and the faq rule is unpopular and their looking for an excuse to ignore it but rather than admit that they are claiming unevidensed RAI/common sense to distort the rules is on an equal footing which is clearly clouding the forum

When Andy kp talks about changing the rules or poorgravitas, talks about a "non functioning game" and "you have a terrain piece that goes where you want and a functioning game" thats what their alluding to but its not a rules answer.

There's a perfectly reasonable HIWPI answer to get around it which is to apply the houserules of the Scottish tourney circuit and ignore the faq entry this frees all fortifications up but if your not going to apply the house rule you can't pick and choose what it applies to models or Restrictions

Can anyone post a link to the data sheet? I don't undertand how this thing doesn't have specific keywords that dictate what it's rules are, ala "Fortification" or "Terrain".

You've been commenting through 5 pages of the thread how can you not have access to the relevant rules - No wonder your input has been useless and just confused the issue.

BOLS published it

https://www.belloflostsouls.net/2021/01/warhammer-40k-death-guard-miasmic-malignifier-rules.html

It has the fortification battlefield role

The malignifier itself its not terrain it is a building

The pox furnace it spawns is terrain

Its specific rules are on the datasheet

https://www.belloflostsouls.net/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/dg-2020-miasmic-malignifier-datasheet.jpg

Basically as discussed, it's a building but has an additional rule governing deployment.

On another note though, it's strength degrades as it loses wounds. What's the point? It doesn't use its strength for anything.

Certain rules can involve a role against strength but its really rare and none are commonly used or relevant. E.G. BA Magna grapple roles against strength (Not that preventing fallback is important the 8th ed version would have been) but it's not really relevant to the thread

Udah you have been needlessly contentious with everyone in this thread, please stop. You can argue your points, but there is really no need to go personal.