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.

Crimson - given the relatively low chances of death from mishpa in 6th - 1/6, down from 1/1 in 4th - it can be a way to keep important but fragile units off the table until later in the game, when they are more useful to you. A unit of 5 plaguebearers on turn two is less useful than on turn 3, 4, etc.

 Mywik wrote:

But for the result "misplaced" you are required to "deploy" them in a different location. Not "place" them again. So this doesnt work. This explicitly prohibits deploying in impassable terrain and you dont roll for scatter again.

So? Just put them over another unit on the board and cause a mishap. What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

Your opponent may deploiy anywhere on the table[...](excluding impassable and lethal terrain, but including difficult terrain[...]in a valid deepstrike formation but without rolling to scatter again.

Also see how this explicitly restricts what "anywhere on the table" means as opposed to the initial deepstrike placement step that you guys are arguing about?

I think you should re-read what it says. It says anywhere on the table. Only exceptions are impassable & lethal terrain.

Darth - again, "deploy" is a key word different to "place"

Deploy cannot be on top of other models, as it refers back to the deployment rules. "Place" has no such inherent restrictions, despite certain people attempting to claim otherwise

 DarthOvious wrote:

 Mywik wrote:

But for the result "misplaced" you are required to "deploy" them in a different location. Not "place" them again. So this doesnt work. This explicitly prohibits deploying in impassable terrain and you dont roll for scatter again.

So? Just put them over another unit on the board and cause a mishap. What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

So? You've just broken a rule. As Nos' said. Theres a difference between placement and deployment.
You deploying a unit that had "Misplaced"-Result isnt even remotely the same as an initial deepstrike placement.

I think you should re-read what it says. It says anywhere on the table. Only exceptions are impassable & lethal terrain.

When deploying the unit note how it also says you have to find a spot where the whole "deepstrike" circle can be completed. So theres an additional restriction. Again, note the difference between the deepstrike placement rules and the misplaced result rules. You definitely dont deepstrike again (and therefor cant mishap again). The opponent deploys (given the restrictions in the "misplaced"-result rules) the unit.



Additionally. I dont understand the hostility that is noticable in this thread. Please stop taking rules discussions personal! Thanks.

 nutty_nutter wrote:

personalized attacks on people go against the forum rules for YMDC.

also again, the question has to be asked as to why my point has not been addressed by you and others of your mind set.

I can, quite easily place my drop pod, on top of your models while simultaneously touching the table. I could even place the drop pod upside down on the basis there is no rule saying I couldn't do so so that your infantry model is within the leaves at the centre of the lip, I'm sure you would rather I didn't place my large heavy model in a position to damage your models or would you for the sake of as written?

I find it ironic that in your last post you mention that you would refuse to play anyone who argues against this type of deep strike method and then you go on to claim you can place your model upside down during this process. It might not be RAW because the language used can be interpretated in an ambigious way but its clear beyond belief that this type of stunt is not RAI.

Sir please be advised that I played against you and you attempted this sort of stuff I would just pack my models and leave. THIS KIND OF CRAP IS NOT IN THE SPIRIT OF THE GAME.

The deep striking rules say you need to place the model on the table. You do not have permission to remove the model again unless you scatter. If you roll a hit the model stays in place. If you are wanting to place your freaking drop pod on top of my models because you interpret models as being part of the table, I will not allow it and it as it can potentially cause damage to my models.

Once again, you do not get permission to point on the table and go "I will place it there", you have to place it on the table with only express permission to remove it off the table again in the event that you actually scatter. If you roll a hit the rules says that the model stays put. If you have not placed the model to begin with then it cannot stay put on its position on the table. End of story.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 nutty_nutter wrote:
a drop pod has no base

Roflmao.

Seriously? This is your argument? At this point you are just messing around with the English language to alter the rules to say things it doesn't say. The drop pod has a base. Heck, even the instructions for gluing it together recognises its a base.

Darth - not by what the game defines as a base it doesnt. It has a bottom of the model, but not a 40k -base.

Initial placement CAN be on another model. You have no rule against this, and we have rules allowing this. If you wish to play strict rules silly games, then I will indeed place the model on top of your model and leave it there on a hit, until I remove it due to the mishap (which you seem to forget will imediately happen...)

If you are, however, slightly reasonable then pointing to where I want it placed will be sufficient, if it would be otherwise awkward.

Your hostility in this thread - where you appear to be confusing a discussion about the rules of the game, and an actual game in progress in real life - is telling. Please step away from the keyboard for a little, reread and note the difference.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
I'm sorry you dont get that that precludes placing the models within forests. According to your restricted definition of "the table"

Indeed it does. Luckily though we have FAQs and examples where it is expressed as being allowed. We do not have permission for anything else though i.e. models and as pointed out the rules for the Mawloc cannot be used since the terror fo the deep rules change the deployment method for the mawloc explicitely.

Good job the context of "the table" actually talks about the entire gaming surface. Try again.

And since when were models considered "the gaming surface"?

RAW there may not be anything that stops this but its clear beyond belief that this is not RAI. Its a silly argument and anyone who wants to argue that such a thing should be legal in a game is a silly player who I will refuse to play against on the basis that it is not in the spirit of the game. I am not allowing any player to place his models on top of my models in such a fashion. I have enough broken models to worry about as it is without my opponents contributing to the matter by shoving their drop pods on top of my fire warriors.

At this point everyone is bending the meanings of English words to suit their own arguments. They want to define table as including models placed on the table. They expect that every english word in the rulebook must be defined explicitely in order for the rules to be clear and I'm sorry but I find this to be totally ridiculous.

 DarthOvious wrote:


RAW there may not be anything that stops this but its clear beyond belief that this is not RAI. Its a silly argument and anyone who wants to argue that such a thing should be legal in a game is a silly player who I will refuse to play against on the basis that it is not in the spirit of the game. .

You dont know the intent of the designers. Therefor you cant claim it. Its not a silly argument and someone playing the game by its rules is in fact within the spirit of the game. Also please take note that not everything what people are arguing here is automatically their HIWPI.


You practically concessing your point and still claiming you would pack up your models over someone trying to play by the rules is telling.

 DeathReaper wrote:
I dont need to find where it says "players models are "the table"" because I am putting the model on the table right where the opposing model is, but it just wont fit due to real lify physics. I have permission to place it so we take note of where it is and we are golden.

Well you're not placing the model in that instance and thus are not following the rule. You need to place the model on the table. If you cannot place the model then you are not following the rule. Note that you do not remove the model afterwards either. If you roll a hit the model stays put, so you do not have permission to remove the model UNLESS you scatter in which case you can remove the model at that point and then place it in its scattered position.

 Steel-W0LF wrote:
You are instructed to place it on the table. You are not given permission to move or touch the opponents model. If you can place a drop pod on top of an enemy unit with the drop pod on the table top, and without touching or moving the opponents models, I'd like to see it.

I just did it, though I had to put the drop pod so the doors open towards the sky instead of fold out like a flower in a downward motion.

No you didn't. You need to place the model on the table, not just say "there, I will place it there". You actually need to place the model not just state where you want to place it and guess what? You'll find very few players who will let you place your drop pod on top of their models because you want to interpretate their models being part of the table.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Bausk wrote:
If that drop pod scatters I assume you're going to maintain its facing exactly and deploy it illegally upsidown or are you going to make up another rule so you can deploy it legally in its upright position?

Hold on there, what rule tells you that the drop pod can not be in any position you wish it to be in?

Its called the rule of common sense.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Darth - again, "deploy" is a key word different to "place"

What is good for the goose is good for the gander. The rulebook has been quoted to show that deepstrike is a deployment. Its just that people here have argued the unit doesn't get deployed until the deep strike scatter is resolved. This however means the same for the mishap table. It doesn't get deployed until the scatter is resolved. meaning I can choose to place the deepstriking unit over another unit and then after that it mishaps again because it can't deploy without being within 1" of a unit.

Deploy cannot be on top of other models, as it refers back to the deployment rules. "Place" has no such inherent restrictions, despite certain people attempting to claim otherwise

And you miss the point that deep strike is a deployment.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mywik wrote:

So? You've just broken a rule. As Nos' said. Theres a difference between placement and deployment.
You deploying a unit that had "Misplaced"-Result isnt even remotely the same as an initial deepstrike placement.

No dice. Deep striking is a form of deployment and you mishap as soon as a model cannot be placed legally. if you deep strike, get a hit and you can place the first model, you still mishap if the next model cannot be placed within 1". Like I said what is good for the goose is good for the gander.

The very fact that you want to restrict the very rule that you are using just says it all here. There is no difference between placing by deep strike and by placing by mishap. They are still getting placed by the deep strike rule and they are still both deployments. The deep strike rule specifically refers to itself as a deployment. So if you cannot deploy over another unit as you claim then you cannot deep strike over another unit then. If you want to claim that the unit doesn't get deployed until after the deep strike is resolved then a mishapped unit can placed over another unit since the deep strike rule doesn't get resolved until after you place the mishapped unit.

When deploying the unit note how it also says you have to find a spot where the whole "deepstrike" circle can be completed. So theres an additional restriction. Again, note the difference between the deepstrike placement rules and the misplaced result rules. You definitely dont deepstrike again (and therefor cant mishap again). The opponent deploys (given the restrictions in the "misplaced"-result rules) the unit.

The misplaced rule states this:

"Misplaced. Your opponent may deploy the unit anywhere on the table"

So if deployment doesn't get resolved until after deep strike is resolved, then you can place it over another unit and then mishap.

Additionally. I dont understand the hostility that is noticable in this thread. Please stop taking rules discussions personal! Thanks.

I'm not being hostile at all. Your reading too much into what I am saying.

No dice. Deep striking is a form of deployment and you mishap as soon as a model cannot be placed legally. if you deep strike, get a hit and you can place the first model, you still mishap if the next model cannot be placed within 1". Like I said what is good for the goose is good for the gander.

Doesnt matter. The point isnt if deepstrike is a kind of deployment. The point is that "Misplaced" isnt deepstriking. Its the opponent deploying the models in a legal position. Thats it. Where in the misplaced results does it tell you that you "deepstrike" again? It doesnt so its not deepstrike anymore.

No dice. Deep striking is a form of deployment and you mishap as soon as a model cannot be placed legally. if you deep strike, get a hit and you can place the first model, you still mishap if the next model cannot be placed within 1". Like I said what is good for the goose is good for the gander.

The very fact that you want to restrict the very rule that you are using just says it all here. There is no difference between placing by deep strike and by placing by mishap. They are still getting placed by the deep strike rule and they are still both deployments. The deep strike rule specifically refers to itself as a deployment. So if you cannot deploy over another unit as you claim then you cannot deep strike over another unit then. If you want to claim that the unit doesn't get deployed until after the deep strike is resolved then a mishapped unit can placed over another unit since the deep strike rule doesn't get resolved until after you place the mishapped unit.

Im not even arguing that point. I am arguing that "Misplaced" isnt deepstrike at all and therefor you cant mishap while being deployed by your opponent after suffering "Misplaced"

The misplaced rule states this:

"Misplaced. Your opponent may deploy the unit anywhere on the table"

So if deployment doesn't get resolved until after deep strike is resolved, then you can place it over another unit and then mishap.

Show permission in the "Misplaced" rules to deepstrike the unit you are allowed to deploy.

Darth - so if I follow the rules, and you prevent me from doing so, *I* am the "bad guy" in your eyes?

Odd. I've even pointed out the usual compromise position, that every player I have ever met does - whcih is to make note of the location. This avoids broken models.

Now, if you make me place the model anyway, thats your issue - it isnt mine any longer.

Misplaced is not Deepstrike, stop conflating the two terms. You cannot Mishap from Misplaced, because you are being deployed NOT deepstriking.

Its fairly obvious where the rules lie, and they do not back up your position. And yes, your tone here IS hostile. Reread what you wrote, and imagine how someone who does not know the inflection you are placing would read it.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Darth - not by what the game defines as a base it doesnt. It has a bottom of the model, but not a 40k -base.

Like I said, at this point you are debating definitions of the English language in order to make your point. The drop pod does indeed have a base as recognised by common sense. It may not be RAW but certainly RAI and by common sense it does. To argue otherwise is to argue silly semantics that just ruin the entire game for everybody.

It is an unreasonable expectation to expact GW to define every single part of the game in every single circumstance. At some point in the rules common sense needs to be applied and its not common sense to deploy a drop pod upside down on the table. This is not within the spirit of the game. The point of the game is to have fun and not make silly arguments about how you are legally entitled to deploy your drop pod upside down just because GW didn't go out their way to define every single english word used within their rulebook.

Initial placement CAN be on another model. You have no rule against this, and we have rules allowing this. If you wish to play strict rules silly games, then I will indeed place the model on top of your model and leave it there on a hit, until I remove it due to the mishap (which you seem to forget will imediately happen...)

Same as above. RAW it may not state that you can't but its clear by common sense principles and by RAI that doing this is a completely bogus move that will earn you a smack in the head for trying to take the rulebook and bend every little thing you want from it. Placing your unit on my model is NOT placing it on the table and your unrealistic expectation of GW to define what they mean by every single english word i.e. table, is just that, an unrealistic expectation. Using common sense and RAI we can determine that table means the actual bloody table and also terrain placed upon the table (Since we have FAQs to clarrify this). We do not have a FAQ to demonstrate that other models can be classified as part of the table.

If you are, however, slightly reasonable then pointing to where I want it placed will be sufficient, if it would be otherwise awkward.

Like I said, saying where you want to place it is not actually placing it and no, you cannot place it on top of my models since you do not have express permission to do so and also its clear beyond daylight thats its not RAI. Everything that lets you place a model on top of a space occupied by another model has explicit rules detailing that you need to move the other models out the road first.

For instance, the Mawlocs rule state that the other models need to be moved out the road first before you place the Mawloc. If you are Tank Shocking another unit, yet again you have rules telling you to move the tank shocked unit out the road before proceeding.

The fact of the matter is this. No two separate distinct items can occupy the same place at the same time. This is against the laws of physics. Thus placing your models over my models is not placing them on the table, because my units are placed on the table whereas you placed your unit on top of my models. Also pointing to a point on the table is still not placing the model on the table. The model needs to be on the table NOT ON A POINT on the table but on the table. This means that the model needs to fully occupy itself on the table NOT ON A POINT on the table. Others have stated they can place a model on the table as well as another model, but once again, it needs to be on the table NOT ON THE TABLE AND ANOTHER MODEL.

Please note that: On the table =/= On the table and another model.

Your hostility in this thread - where you appear to be confusing a discussion about the rules of the game, and an actual game in progress in real life - is telling. Please step away from the keyboard for a little, reread and note the difference.

The point of the matter is that the rulebook clearly states within the spirit of the game section that common sense needs to be applied and arguing over the rulebook because the RAW doesn't make something clear thats obviously not RAI is just arguing silly semantics. Use a little common sense here. Its not kosher to place your models on top of somebody elses models, no mater what. The rules also state that you need to physically place the model on the table. RAI its clear you are not supposed to place you model on top of other peoples models, thereby breaking their models and their property in the process. Models were not designed to have other models placed on top of them like that. The table and terrain are a different story since they were designed with such a condition in mind.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mywik wrote:

You dont know the intent of the designers. Therefor you cant claim it. Its not a silly argument and someone playing the game by its rules is in fact within the spirit of the game. Also please take note that not everything what people are arguing here is automatically their HIWPI.

Absolute hogwash. Its clear beyond belief that RAI you cannot place your models on top of others. Enough with the semantics and enough with the RAW and "Oh yeah ya can" snarkiness. You can either play the game in an amicable fashion or you can just not play the game at all because nobody will play you because you argue for such rediculous easter eggs within the rules.

Of course its not how anybody would play it but that much is abundantly clear since they would actually like to get a game to begin with. I have not argued that it is not RAW but arguing that RAW is the only consideration in a rulebook which explicitly states that you are not to use the rulebook as the be all and end all gaming Bible is just not on. Remember that the rulebook explicitely states that misunderstandings may occur and that common sense may need to be used. Its part of the game.

You practically concessing your point and still claiming you would pack up your models over someone trying to play by the rules is telling.

No its not telling at all. The reason being is because although I do play within the rules to a specific extent, when its clear beyond belief that something is not in the spirit of the game or is not RAI then common sense needs to prevail. Once again, I do not use the rulebook as the be all and end all gaming Bible with no room for interpretation. Everything needs to be interpretated and pretty much anything can be misinterpretated to say something that is not what is meant.

 DarthOvious wrote:


It is an unreasonable expectation to expect GW to define every single part of the game in every single circumstance. At some point in the rules common sense needs to be applied and its not common sense to deploy a drop pod upside down on the table. This is not within the spirit of the game. The point of the game is to have fun and not make silly arguments about how you are legally entitled to deploy your drop pod upside down just because GW didn't go out their way to define every single english word used within their rulebook.

And you dont think that its an unreasonable expectation that GW isnt printing their rules into the rulebook but the customer has to use his "imagination" to find the intent? No ... in reality the rules tell you what to do. You just refuse to accept them. You failed to provide any proof to your assertions so far and have been constantly proven wrong.

Absolute hogwash. Its clear beyond belief that RAI you cannot place your models on top of others. Enough with the semantics and enough with the RAW and "Oh yeah ya can" snarkiness. You can either play the game in an amicable fashion or you can just not play the game at all because nobody will play you because you argue for such rediculous easter eggs within the rules.

Intent is never a good point to bring up ... you still cant give any proof of what the intent is while other people have shown you what the RAW are telling us. You already acknowledged that so move on and realise you are arguing a house rule. You cant proof your interpretation of what the intent is. Its not clear (at least not to your interpretation) ... and what i wrote is not "hogwash" but again you get hostile. I will stop arguing with you at this point. Wer're already at the point where all relevant rules have been quoted to death. I think the reader is able to draw his own conclusions.

HF GL

 Mywik wrote:
Doesnt matter. The point isnt if deepstrike is a kind of deployment. The point is that "Misplaced" isnt deepstriking. Its the opponent deploying the models in a legal position. Thats it. Where in the misplaced results does it tell you that you "deepstrike" again? It doesnt so its not deepstrike anymore.

So where does the misplaced rule appear? Because the last time I noticed, it was under the deep strike rules. The unit is deep striking, its just not deep striking where it wants to deep strike.

Im not even arguing that point. I am arguing that "Misplaced" isnt deepstrike at all and therefor you cant mishap while being deployed by your opponent after suffering "Misplaced"

Of of course, I forgot that misplaced appears in the movement section of the rulebook............. Wait a minute, no it doesn't. Misplaced appears in the deep stirke rules. it even appears on the DEEP STRIKE MISHAP TABLE.

Please do me a favour and actually try to argue a valid point. Telling me that a misplaced result is not a deep strike when it occurs under the rule for deep strike isn't going to convince me otherwise.

Show permission in the "Misplaced" rules to deepstrike the unit you are allowed to deploy.

Its under the deep strike rules. The unit is still deploying by deep strike, its just not deep striking where it wants to. This is abundantly clear.

Again ... please cite the portion of the "misplaced" rule or any other rule that gives you permission to deepstrike the unit after suffering "misplaced" or concede. Page and para please.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Darth - so if I follow the rules, and you prevent me from doing so, *I* am the "bad guy" in your eyes?

Yes, you are the bad guy. You are the very definition of TFG trying to make the rules read what you want them to read. trying to get every little thing you want from the rules despite the fact that its clearly not RAI. That is pretty much the defintion of TFG and nobody likes TFG.

You have been shown again and again why this line of thought is just not productive for the gaming setting. You've have been showing time and time again where even if there was a slight gap in the rules which allows you to do this RAW, its by no means intentional.

Odd. I've even pointed out the usual compromise position, that every player I have ever met does - whcih is to make note of the location. This avoids broken models.

Taking note of a location is not placing said model on the location. Everything in the game that tells you to take note of a location tells you to do so. i.e. Ymgarl Genestealers, noting where they enter play.

Now, if you make me place the model anyway, thats your issue - it isnt mine any longer.

And I will pack up my models and not play you and I can gurantee you that plenty of other players would do the same thing. If you are willing to bend the interpretation of the rules in such a way in a game then I don't want to play you. End of story. Its clear beyond daylight that this is not RAI but if you wish to do it anyway then I will wonder what other TFG stuff you would wish to pull out later during the game.

Its clear that you place the model and you only have express permission to move it in the case that it scatters. You cannot say "I will place it there". Thjis does not place the model and you are not allowed to remove it again. If you place it ontop of my models then you are not placing it on the table. You also have to place the model on the table NOT on the table & another model. You do not have express permission to place it on a model on any point.

Misplaced is not Deepstrike, stop conflating the two terms. You cannot Mishap from Misplaced, because you are being deployed NOT deepstriking.

Deep strike is a deployment, so your statement doesn't make sense, also misplaced appears under the deep striking rules. You're not going to find the misplaced rules in the movement section of the book.

Its fairly obvious where the rules lie, and they do not back up your position. And yes, your tone here IS hostile. Reread what you wrote, and imagine how someone who does not know the inflection you are placing would read it.

I know what the rules imply and they nowhere near imply what you want in this situation. If you think my tone is hostile then I will point out it is no less hostile than yours. So if you want me to stop being hostile with my tone then go and grab a mirror and have a look at yourself. Your language used to defend your position was no less confrontational than mine.

Once again, stop trying to have your cake and eat it. You want to dictate the whole terms of this conversation by being as hostile as you want and by bending the English language as much as you want and by ignoring the points made as much as you want and by ignoring common sense as much as you want, meanwhile breaking every single one of these rules yourself.

Darth - I think it is clear that debate isnt possible here. You are simply arguing.

Please, play by your houserule all you want to - as pointed out, the compromise position is also one (yet you seem to tink I am not saying that it is - I am) - just realise it is one.

You cannot, CANNOT, Mishap from a Misplaced result. It is entirely impossible to do so. Your refusal to accept this does not alter the fact

 Mywik wrote:

And you dont think that its an unreasonable expectation that GW isnt printing their rules into the rulebook but the customer has to use his "imagination" to find the intent? No ... in reality the rules tell you what to do. You just refuse to accept them. You failed to provide any proof to your assertions so far and have been constantly proven wrong.

Bald Assertion Fallacy. I have shown multiple times why this sort of thinking is not within the spirit of the game or the spirit of the rules. I have explained the process of actually placing your model on the table and not on top of anybody elses models. You do not have permission to place your model on top of mine. End of story.

Intent is never a good point to bring up ... you still cant give any proof of what the intent is while other people have shown you what the RAW are telling us. You already acknowledged that so move on and realise you are arguing a house rule. You cant proof your interpretation of what the intent is. Its not clear (at least not to your interpretation) ... and what i wrote is not "hogwash" but again you get hostile. I will stop arguing with you at this point. Wer're already at the point where all relevant rules have been quoted to death. I think the reader is able to draw his own conclusions.

Why is intent never a good thing to bring up? Sometimes intent is clear because common sense prevails rather than just assuming you're allowed to do anything you want in the game unless the rulebook explicitly forbids it. According to you because the rulebook doesn't explicitly state that I cannot urinate on your models, then that means that I can urinate on top of your models. Afterall show me the rule in the rulebook which says that I can't.

If you want to end the conversation then fine, but I have no less been hostile than both you or Nos for that matter. You have both been adamant in your views that the rulebook must explicitely state that a model cannot be placed on top of another model when deepstriking and you have continuously ignored the fact that the model must be placed on the table, not on another model and not another model and the table at the same time.

 DarthOvious wrote:

 Mywik wrote:

And you dont think that its an unreasonable expectation that GW isnt printing their rules into the rulebook but the customer has to use his "imagination" to find the intent? No ... in reality the rules tell you what to do. You just refuse to accept them. You failed to provide any proof to your assertions so far and have been constantly proven wrong.

Bald Assertion Fallacy. I have shown multiple times why this sort of thinking is not within the spirit of the game or the spirit of the rules. I have explained the process of actually placing your model on the table and not on top of anybody elses models. You do not have permission to place your model on top of mine. End of story

You can write "End of Story" as often as you like but that doesnt make you right. You have shown nothing. You have shown how you think the rules should work and claimed this is the intent of the designers.

Why is intent never a good thing to bring up? Sometimes intent is clear because common sense prevails rather than just assuming you're allowed to do anything you want in the game unless the rulebook explicitly forbids it. According to you because the rulebook doesn't explicitly state that I cannot urinate on your models, then that means that I can urinate on top of your models. Afterall show me the rule in the rulebook which says that I can't.

If you want to end the conversation then fine, but I have no less been hostile than both you or Nos for that matter. You have both been adamant in your views that the rulebook must explicitely state that a model cannot be placed on top of another model when deepstriking and you have continuously ignored the fact that the model must be placed on the table, not on another model and not another model and the table at the same time.

Intent is never a good thing because you never have a proof of it unless you ask the person that was intending something what he/she was intending. But go on with your "holier than thou"-attitude

Again your example shows what your intent seems to be and its not having a healthy conversation.

Is it just me, or is it crazy that when there is a clear break in the game like this, one person can still claim to be the only correct person and say everybody else's assertations and coming to a different conclusion is 'strawman' or other underhanded attacks.

Ease up on your 'I am God of the Rules' and go post on other forum parts to show you aren't here just to argue with people and throw around snide things like 'your strawman arguements have nothing on my pure logic that is not capable of being wrong!'

Some people just need to calm down and understand that different perspectives of where the permissions reside from this situation allow for multiple conclusions and subsequent necessary house rulings.

As I do not feel that anywhere on the table means on my models, HIWPI is it cannot start on top of my models because that is my interpretation of RAW. If another player disagreed, we'd dice it off because we could disagree as to what 'anywhere on the table' means.

 Mywik wrote:
Again ... please cite the portion of the "misplaced" rule or any other rule that gives you permission to deepstrike the unit after suffering "misplaced" or concede. Page and para please.

I already have, its under the deep strike rule, the entry is on the deep strike mishap table in the deep strike section of the rules and the unit must be placed in a deep strike formation. What part of the deep strike rule do you not understand? The unit is arriving by deep strike. it is using the deep strike rule to deploy. Just because the unit mishapped then this doesn't mean it is no longer arriving from deep strike. If its no longer arriving by deep strike then what reserve rule are you using for the unit to arrive? Are you all of a sudden using the outflank rules to deploy? No, you're not. Are you all of a suddent using the Callidus Assassins Polymorphine rule to arive? No you're not. Are you all of a sudden now a Ymgarl Genestealer? No you're not. Are you all of a sudden a flyer and flying in from the table edge? No you're not.

The deep strike mishap table is part of the deep strike rules and you're still using the deep strike rule to deploy. To argue otherwise is deny the obvious.

This is exactly what I mean when I say that you and Nos are no less confrontational than I or anybody else in this thread. The fact that you want to deny that a unit which is using the deep strike rules to deploy is not actually using the deep strike rule is stubbourness in its complete sense.

 DarthOvious wrote:

 Mywik wrote:
Again ... please cite the portion of the "misplaced" rule or any other rule that gives you permission to deepstrike the unit after suffering "misplaced" or concede. Page and para please.

I already have, its under the deep strike rule, the entry is on the deep strike mishap table in the deep strike section of the rules and the unit must be placed in a deep strike formation. What part of the deep strike rule do you not understand? The unit is arriving by deep strike. it is using the deep strike rule to deploy. Just because the unit mishapped then this doesn't mean it is no longer arriving from deep strike. If its no longer arriving by deep strike then what reserve rule are you using for the unit to arrive? Are you all of a sudden using the outflank rules to deploy? No, you're not. Are you all of a suddent using the Callidus Assassins Polymorphine rule to arive? No you're not. Are you all of a sudden now a Ymgarl Genestealer? No you're not. Are you all of a sudden a flyer and flying in from the table edge? No you're not.

The deep strike mishap table is part of the deep strike rules and you're still using the deep strike rule to deploy. To argue otherwise is deny the obvious.

This is exactly what I mean when I say that you and Nos are no less confrontational than I or anybody else in this thread. The fact that you want to deny that a unit which is using the deep strike rules to deploy is not actually using the deep strike rule is stubbourness in its complete sense.

Theres no permission to deepstrike in my rulebook. Theres permission to deploy but no permission to deepstrike.

If you happen to have a misplaced result - why are you following the deepstrike and not the "misplaced" rules. The book more than certainly tells you to. If misplaced is using "deepstrike" why is the paragraph not referring to it and instead tells you a different sequence, with different wording?

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Darth - I think it is clear that debate isnt possible here. You are simply arguing.

An argument which you have started and you refuse to listen to what others have told you. RAW you may argue some small gap and I do mean a small gap which is not clear, but as shown it is abundantly clear that RAI this is not allowed. Do you honestly think that the rules would state that it is acceptable for you to place your models on top of somebody elses models? Do you really think this is intended? Do you really think that GW intend for you to physically place your drop pod on top of a unit of fire warriors, breaking them in the process? And yet the rule calls for you to actually place the model. It does not give you permission to note or write or point out a location for such an instance. They intend for you to actually place the model in a legit manner.

Please, play by your houserule all you want to - as pointed out, the compromise position is also one (yet you seem to tink I am not saying that it is - I am) - just realise it is one.

Call it a houserule all you want but that isn't going to change the matter at hand at all. The rulebook is very clear in what it says in that the rulebook is a guide and not all rules are 100% defined to a tee and are in anyway air tight. However it is abundantly clear to recognise RAI by the spirit of the game and its been shown without a doubt that RAI is that placing your drop pod on top of other peoples models =/= equal placing your drop pod on the table.

The semantics come about because you want to apply your own definition of what it means by the word "table". Well I will only supply at this point a dictionary defintion of term table for you.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/table?s=t

And before you argue about terrain, we have permission with FAQs to say we can place models in terrain. We do not have any express permission to place models on top of other models.

You cannot, CANNOT, Mishap from a Misplaced result. It is entirely impossible to do so. Your refusal to accept this does not alter the fact

And yet you don't explain why. You just assert it.

Notice I do not argue that you can actually mishap from a misplaced result. I only argue that you can using the defintion of deep strike that you have provided. If you can place your model over another model when using deep strike then why can't I? You have not answered this in way shape or form and the reason why you haven't is because it shows RAI that you cannot choose to place your unit over another unit when deep striking. Its just not in the spirit of the rules.

 DarthOvious wrote:

You cannot, CANNOT, Mishap from a Misplaced result. It is entirely impossible to do so. Your refusal to accept this does not alter the fact

And yet you don't explain why. You just assert it.

.

He did. But i'll happily repeat it. The misplaced result tells you exactly how to treat models that suffered a "misplaced" result which is different to the deepstrike rules and doesnt involve scattering or rolling on the mishap table (which are not the only differences to deepstrike).

 Mywik wrote:

You can write "End of Story" as often as you like but that doesnt make you right. You have shown nothing. You have shown how you think the rules should work and claimed this is the intent of the designers.

Another bald assertion fallacy. Boy you keep racking those up don't you? Once again, you need to place the model on the table. Placing the model on a model is NOT placing the model on the table. Also placing the model on the table and another model =/= placing the model on the table. You do not have permission to place your model on top of mine. End of story.

You have yet to still to counter this point.

Intent is never a good thing because you never have a proof of it unless you ask the person that was intending something what he/she was intending. But go on with your "holier than thou"-attitude

Non sequitur. Do you need the designer of your toaster to tell you what the intent of your toaster is? I'm assuming you talked to him to find this out, since apparently you don't know what a toaster does unless you ask the designer.

The part in bold is as I mentioned a non-sequitur. Your conclusion does not follow from your argument. If this was the case then we wouldn't know what the Roman Colluseum was for since we didn't talk to the Romans to find out or how about an aquaduct? Did we ask the Romans what those were used for? For instance one of the foundations of archeology is to find out what people throughout histroy have done and guess what? They don't necessarily need to talk to them to find that out.

Again your example shows what your intent seems to be and its not having a healthy conversation.

As provided above. Intention does not rquire you to discuss with the person what they intended. You can use something called common sense, logic, design basics, etc, etc, to work out an intention.

 DarthOvious wrote:
As provided above. Intention does not rquire you to discuss with the person what they intended. You can use something called common sense, logic, design basics, etc, etc, to work out an intention.

In general, maybe. Specific to GW - no, you can't. They've FAQed the opposite of what they wrote many many times, and have changed rules multiple times with an FAQ.

 DarthOvious wrote:

 Mywik wrote:

You can write "End of Story" as often as you like but that doesnt make you right. You have shown nothing. You have shown how you think the rules should work and claimed this is the intent of the designers.

Another bald assertion fallacy. Boy you keep racking those up don't you? Once again, you need to place the model on the table. Placing the model on a model is NOT placing the model on the table. Also placing the model on the table and another model =/= placing the model on the table. You do not have permission to place your model on top of mine. End of story.

Im not arguing that point. I never did. The only thing I am arguing here is that deepstrike=/=misplaced result deployment. I provided rules support. You still failed to provide an answer to why deepstriking and misplacement deployment should be the same although their sequences differ largely per the RAW.

Stop calling me "boy" and the like. Provide rules that support your position and leave the insults at home. Thank you.

I don't think he meant "boy" as an insult - more of a "Boy howdy is this cool." instead of directly addressing you.

Culture mishmash.

 Mywik wrote:
Theres no permission to deepstrike in my rulebook. Theres permission to deploy but no permission to deepstrike.

Then what rule are you using to deploy? What gives you permission to deploy in the middle of the table without scattering because apparently according to you its not the deep strike rule that gives you this permission. If you are not using the deep strike rule to do it then the deep strike rules do not apply to you deploying the unit and thus you cannot deploy said unit in such a manner.

If you happen to have a misplaced result - why are you following the deepstrike and not the "misplaced" rules.

Where are the misplaced rules? They wouldn't happen to be on the deep strike mishap table under the deep strike rules by any chance would they? A model arriving by a mishap is still using the deep strike rule to do so, you cannot mishap in the first place unless you are using the deep strike rule to deploy and only models with the deep strike rule can mishap in the first place.

You are still arriving from deep strike, because you are still using the deep strike rule to make your deployment. The mishap table is part of the deep strike rules and doesn't even get used unless you are arriving from deep strike. This much is abundantly clear.

This is like claiming that just because you crashed and burned after being intercepted with your flyer then this didn't mean that you used the flyer rules to enter from reserve. You still used the flyer rules to enter from reserve, the same way that a misplaced unit is still using the deep strike rules to enter from reserve. They are deep striking, they are just not deep striking where they want to deep strike.

The point was to show, that because you don't consider deployment to occur until after deep strike occurs, this means that when a mishap occurs the deployment is not done until the location of the deep strike is picked. So this means that using your logic, you can choose another unit for the location of the misplacement, since this happens before deployment and that this can be on another unit.

Your refusal to accept this point actually shows that you don't consider deployment to be resolved after the deep strike rule. You consider deployment to occur during the deep strike rule.

The book more than certainly tells you to. If misplaced is using "deepstrike" why is the paragraph not referring to it and instead tells you a different sequence, with different wording?

Why are telling me to deploy while I am using the deepstrike rule? Does this mean you don't consider deployment to happen after the deep strike rule but during it?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mywik wrote:

He did. But i'll happily repeat it. The misplaced result tells you exactly how to treat models that suffered a "misplaced" result which is different to the deepstrike rules and doesnt involve scattering or rolling on the mishap table (which are not the only differences to deepstrike).

So are you telling me that a deployment and deep strike happen at the same time? The models are arriving from deep strike reserve, the misplaced result doesn't change this and yet you are also telling me that I cannot place the unit over another unit to cause a mishap because I have to deploy said unit. Thus you are equating arriving from deep strike and deployment to happen at the same time. This goes against your argument that deployment happens after deep strike and therefore you can ignore deployment limitations.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:

 DarthOvious wrote:
As provided above. Intention does not rquire you to discuss with the person what they intended. You can use something called common sense, logic, design basics, etc, etc, to work out an intention.

In general, maybe. Specific to GW - no, you can't. They've FAQed the opposite of what they wrote many many times, and have changed rules multiple times with an FAQ.

When did they change the rules for being to place your model on top of another? Let me help you out here. They didn't.

Misplacement has rules how to treat the misplaced models. If you want to Break them. Fine.