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.

If you want to play it so that enemy units count as terrain I can think of many examples that will shoot big holes in that premise. You are just opening another big can of worms, that's all.

G

Krak_kirby wrote:I think Malice has made the equation simple enough for me to run my events and allow deep strike placement anywhere in the play area...

So would you also let me consider my models to count as terrain when an opponent wants to shoot or assault me? By that formula, I would clearly be within those "rules".

Inquisitor_Malice wrote:

witchcore wrote:
The rules for Impassable Terrain say (rulebook, pgs 13-14): "Impassable terrain includes deep water, lava flows, steep rocky cliffs and buildings that models cannot enter, as agreed with your opponent. Remember that other models, friends and enemies, also count as impassable terrain.

so if impassable terrain=table, and other models=impassable terrain, then other models must = Table.

Has everyone just missed this point by Witchcore? The transitive properties listed above follows the exact guidelines for deepstriking and allows models to be placed on other models to start the deepstriking process.

Wow, that's an amazing argument. That because models are impassable terrain, clearly enemy models must be allowed to be placed there... Yeah, that makes all sorts of sense.

First, other models are not impassable terrain. The transitive law falls apart right here. Terrain = table. But, on page iv, armies are a distinct entity to table. So, while they may count as terrain when asking whether other models can move through them, they're not terrain, they are models. When you ask, "are enemy models terrain", the answer is no, they are not terrain. They simply count as terrain for some movement purposes.

I believe that you can place your model on impassable terrain, if you so choose. But, if you're saying that the rules on page 13 apply during a deep strike (I don't think they do), then surely you cannot also be claiming that you can ignore the definition of impassable terrain on that same page, "Impassable terrain cannot be moved across or into."

You can't have this one both ways. If you're saying that the movement phase definitions of terrain apply throughout, then the movement phase on restrictions about such terrain must also apply throughout.

quick question: I don't have a Nid codex with me, but does it say that when the Mawloc arrives the other models are moved out of the way or no?

WarsawTom wrote:quick question: I don't have a Nid codex with me, but does it say that when the Mawloc arrives the other models are moved out of the way or no?

Only after they are hit with the Mawloc attack and only if the Mawloc cannot be placed 1" away from the unit that was attacked. So it would be dependent on how many models are wounded and then killed as to whether the need to move models out of the way would need to happen.

I don't know what to think anymore. It's like a million psykers tearing my mind apart. hahaha.

but I have this to add to this thread:

White Dwarf issue 360 January 2010 pg. 65 (in the photo caption)

"As the Terminators powered down their weapons from fighting the Raveners, the ground beneath them ruptures and a creature of monstrous proportions surged out of the ground. Two terminators were instantly killed as the Mawloc surfaced directly beneath them. The remainder of the squad scattered as the Mawloc announced its arrival onto the battlefield with a deafining, alien howl."


this is a GW interpretation. Is it not?

WD reported that a model with a Mark of the Wulfen got 7 thunderhammer attacks which is not legal. WD battle reports are known for their inaccuracies.

And while I do not have that WD unpacked right now, the Mawloc could have just as easily rolled for scatter and ended up beneath said terminators.

also in the design notes section of White Dwarf issue 360 January 2010, on pg. 22 under Subterranean Assault it is written:

"The Mawloc, on the other hand, works quite differently, and is able to erupt from the ground beneath its enemies, inflicting a Strength 6, AP 2 hit on any model caught in its cataclysmic arrival!"...(this isn't a battle report).

I'm just trying to say that GW seems to be pointing us in the direction that the Mawloc is actually allowed to do the deep strike within an enemy unit. I'm just pointing out how this can lead to alot of confusion and misinterpretation among players.

No one is questioning whether or not the Mawloc can arrive from beneath a unit. It is being questioned if it can originally be placed there or if it needs to scatter there.

oh, I see.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
hopefully there will be an errata or faq soon, to help ease the tension for both tyranid players and non-tyranid players. And I hope this is resolved before 'Ard Boyz tournaments start for 40K this year.

First round is on me if GW rules that the Mawloc can't choose to deepstrike onto units. We all know that is how it will be ruled, and all these silly, incorrect, wishlisting, non-raw arguments won't change it.

I'm now willing to officially wager on it, because I'm calling the bluff of these asinine arguments. How confident are you in the "models aren't the table" argument.

Redbeard wrote:

Inquisitor_Malice wrote:

witchcore wrote:
The rules for Impassable Terrain say (rulebook, pgs 13-14): "Impassable terrain includes deep water, lava flows, steep rocky cliffs and buildings that models cannot enter, as agreed with your opponent. Remember that other models, friends and enemies, also count as impassable terrain.

so if impassable terrain=table, and other models=impassable terrain, then other models must = Table.

Has everyone just missed this point by Witchcore? The transitive properties listed above follows the exact guidelines for deepstriking and allows models to be placed on other models to start the deepstriking process.

Wow, that's an amazing argument. That because models are impassable terrain, clearly enemy models must be allowed to be placed there... Yeah, that makes all sorts of sense.

First, other models are not impassable terrain. The transitive law falls apart right here. Terrain = table. But, on page iv, armies are a distinct entity to table. So, while they may count as terrain when asking whether other models can move through them, they're not terrain, they are models. When you ask, "are enemy models terrain", the answer is no, they are not terrain. They simply count as terrain for some movement purposes.

I believe that you can place your model on impassable terrain, if you so choose. But, if you're saying that the rules on page 13 apply during a deep strike (I don't think they do), then surely you cannot also be claiming that you can ignore the definition of impassable terrain on that same page, "Impassable terrain cannot be moved across or into."

You can't have this one both ways. If you're saying that the movement phase definitions of terrain apply throughout, then the movement phase on restrictions about such terrain must also apply throughout.

the way i see it is Deep strike is a Special rule that only applies to certain models (and is not normal movement), i first select where i would like to arrive and this rule allows me to select anywhere on the table, and per the impassable terrain rule "Models may not be placed in impassable terrain unless the models concerned have a special rule in their profile granting them an exception (like being able to fly above the terrain) or both players agree to it.", now since the excepion has been made, "The Deep Strike rules says (rulebook, pg 95): "First place one model from the unit anywhere on the table, in the position you would like the unit to arrive, "where i arrive and where i would like to arrive are not the same. now i need to find out if i arrive where i intend to arrive or if i scatter. ".....roll the scatter dice. If you roll a hit the model stays where it is, but if an arrow is shown this determines the direction the model is scattered in. If a scatter occurs, roll 2D6 to see how many inches the model moves away from the intended position." now the second paragraph of the rule recognizes that you may be in violation of some pre established general rules and specificaly tells you how to resolve that violation. "Once this is done, the unit's remaining models are arranged around the first one...If any of the models in a deep striking unit cannot be deployed because they would land off the table, in impassable terrain, on top of a friendly model, or on top or within 1" of an enemy model, something has gone wrong." and now i must adhear to the DS mishap table. "The controlling player must roll on the deep strike Mishap table and apply the results." after my results are applied i would no longer be in violation of the general rules.
To sum it all up, during Deep strike i am allowed to place a model in impassable terrain until the deep stike has concluded. Once the deep stike portion of my movement has ended I now must adhear to the more general rules, if i have models that are still in violation of the general rules i must handle those models with the results of the mishap table. All rules have been now been satisfied.

Sigh. Yes, we all know what the pro-"I can start my deep strike on top of your unit" stance is. No need to repeat the whole thing again, just for us to point out that you have to place the initial model for your deep strike and that the rules prohibit you from placing your model on top of my model, regardless of whether anything is or isn't impassable terrain. And then there;s those that consider deep strike, to include the initial model placement before scatter, to be part of your movement, and of course, you cannot move within 1" of an enmey model during your movement phase.

Let's see, have I posted all the counterarguments?

Anyways, we're going to disagree until GW posts an FAQ, and probably even then.

sigh. but the counterarguments all fail to acknowledge the fact that special rules are exceptions to general rules thus during certain points of the game the general rules are suspended or may not apply

Yep. And the basic disagreement between the two viewpoints is on whether or not a unit can indeed start it's deep strike move in a location where it would mishap if it does not scatter. I don't believe that it can, for the reasons stated above. Spore mines are a special case, the only special case. No other unit has anything in print saying that they can do this, so they cannot. Until GW FAQs it, that's my viewpoint, and I do believe that if they FAQ it, that's what they'll say. I could be wrong tho. If so, so be it, just makes my Nids a bit better.

So, the Monolith may deepstrike onto enemies because it is a skimmer?

@Yakface,
To address some of your previous questions/comments, I offer the following:

There are 3 Phases of game (1) Movement, (2) Shooting and (3) Assault. Deep Striking occurs in Movement Phase.

After Reserve rolls, Deep Striking consists of (1) model placement onto the table, (2) scatter, (3) Check for Mishap, (4) placement of rest of unit

The step (4), placement of rest of unit, counts as Movement in the Movement Phase. Note: Deep Striking does not count as Assault.

The first model placement on the table is the player’s intended point you wish your unit to Move to as you are picking your point where you intend for it to appear from Deep Striking. Model placement is not Movement. However, the first model placement prior to scatter is the player’s intended and desired point of the unit’s Movement.

Scattering after model placement does not count as Movement. By definition, scattering is the act of adjusting a model that represents a point a unit may occupy. It is an unintended adjustment to the intended point where you wanted the model to appear.

Mishap’s occur when a unit does something unplanned by the player. The rules state it is the result of something going wrong beyond the player’s control which in game is represented by the unplanned result from the scattering action. Therefore, Mishap’s do not occur by player design.

1” rule states you may not move within 1” of the enemy unless assaulting. The logic is that if you cannot move within 1” unless assaulting, then you cannot perform an action of “intent to move” within 1” either. Therefore, you cannot intentionally place a model within 1” of enemies when Deep Striking as you would be intending to move within 1” and intentionally trying to violate the 1” rule by an act that results as Movement when completed.

Once the final position is found, model placement for the rest of the unit occurs. As mentioned earlier, the unit now counts as having moved.

Note: I have not addressed models “counting as” impassible terrain nor have I addressed the definition of “table” as I believe neither are relevant or applicable for this discussion if the logic and interpretation above is accurate.

PS - I'm sorry it took so long to respond, real life took its toll on me for a couple days...

Tac

Redbeard wrote:The rules for Deep Strike are what matters when you are resolving a Deep Strike. It's not a normal move, it's a Deep Strike, and as such, only needs to deal with the rules specified for Deep Striking. Hence, "place on the table" is what matters. The 1" issue is resolved within the Deep Strike rules for these cases - either you're mishapping, or you're triggering a special rule instead of mishapping. Either way, the end result of the Deep Strike is that you're not within 1", so no problem.

I agree with the latter, but not the former. Given that we need to resolve the scatter before the unit’s actual placement is determined, and before 1” proximity (and whether a mishap is triggered) is discovered, I think Yak’s theory that the initial model is only a marker holds. While the process given in the rulebook says to place a model, if a mishap occurs, you’re going to be picking that model right back up. Despite the placement of a model, the unit is not actually there until and unless the final position is determined and any mishap (or special rule avoiding it, in the cases of the Monolith and Mawloc) is resolved.

Redbeard wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:By the interpretation I’m using, the phrasing “anywhere on the table” as used in the Deep Strike rules, can include a point directly on top of an enemy unit.

Indeed, the Table refers to the play area. That's fine. Problem is, two objects cannot occupy the same space (you won't find this in the 40k rulebook. You might in an entry-level physics text, but then if they go into quantum stuff new rules apply). So you cannot place your model in the play area if my model is already there. You simply can't do it. The best you can do is place your model on top of my model, which isn't what is required.

The rules on page 95 don't say, 'pick where you want to go', they say, 'place'. That means you put it down there.

All right. But how about if the model is only being placed as a marker? Much like placing a blast marker on top of a unit. The marker goes on top, and you scatter/resolve the effect from there. As Yak points out, despite a model being placed, the unit is not actually on the table until AFTER the scatter (and mishap, if applicable) is resolved. When you scatter that first model, he’s not considered to be literally moving laterally across the table. The scatter isn’t reduced by impassible or stopped by the board edge. It’s a process of determining WHERE the actual Deep Strike move will land, and that unit isn’t actually considered to be on the table yet, despite the use of a model from said unit.

Redbeard wrote:

I can understand that premise, and I agree that it’s a workable way to play, but if the rule allows you to place it within 1”, GW’s already broken the proscription on proximity to enemy models. That space is no longer sacrosanct.

This is resolved before the conclusion of the Deep Strike action, and as such, doesn't break the prohibition at all. You never leave the Deep Strike step with your model within 1" of an opponent's model - either a mishap occurs, or a special rule is triggered, and the proximity rule is restored.

Good point. Okay, so let me apply my concept above. If the initially-placed model (prior to scatter) is really a marker indicating the potential/aimed position of the unit after the DS is completed, and since the Mishap table or the Monolith or Mawloc special rules serve to prevent the actual units from sharing the same physical space or being within an inch, then were is the problem? With the Monolith- move the unit out of its way. With the Mawloc, resolve the large ordnance marker attack, then place the Mawloc/displace the targeted unit as instructed. With other units, resolve the Mishap.

Redbeard wrote: I've seen WD battle reports played wrong so many times that you cannot seriously be considering them as evidence.

Believe it or not, that’s what I’m doing. I’m pointing out that the guy who wrote the book appears to have played it that way in a game of which we have a public record. Yes, WD battle reports are notorious for occasional errors. That’s why I said its indicative and circumstantial evidence, not conclusive.

Redbeard wrote:If they issue Errata for this, I'd believe that they'll change it so that it is obvious what the Mawloc can do. If it were up to me, I'd write it so that you don't actually Deep Strike, but you place the blast marker first, resolve any hits beneath it, and then place the Mawloc where the Blast Marker was. If the Blast Marker scatters off the table or into impassable terrain, go to Deep Strike mishap resolution. That's clean and elegant and leaves no doubt as to what is supposed to be happening.

Yup. That’s how I’d have done it too. I wish they’d hire a darn technical editor to fix this stuff.

Redbeard wrote: If they FAQ it, it's anyone's guess which way they'll go. I wouldn't have expected them to rule that a chaos model with wings is different than one with a jump pack (for the same cost), but they did, because that's what the book actually says.

Anyhow, I don't drink hard liquor. I'd be happy to see your vodka with a six pack of your choice of microbrew, though I claim that if they declare it Errata (as in, we meant to write it differently) rather than just an FAQ answer, that means I was right.

I’m perfectly happy betting a sixer of nice microbrew instead. Vodka was GBF’s idea. I drink more beer nowadays. Is it just me, or does the addition of alcohol to the discussion make things feel more cordial and friendly?

I concede that the FAQs are sometimes unpredictable and occasionally dumb (like the wings v. jump pack distinction you cited).

I still feel pretty confident that GW is going to rule it this way. Whether they call it a FAQ or Errata I can’t predict, though I suspect that it’s going to be just an FAQ. My original bet was that when the GW FAQ comes out, GW will say that the Mawloc can target its DS right onto enemy units. I think the text is actually ambiguous, but that the RAI is clear enough to know what the Mawloc's supposed to do. Your focus seems to be more on the RAW test. The existing bet does not consider whether the eventual ruling will be called a FAQ or an Errata. Just whether GW is going to say “yes, you can do it” or “no, you can’t.” Are you up for that bet?

Tactica wrote:
There are 3 Phases of game (1) Movement, (2) Shooting and (3) Assault. Deep Striking occurs in Movement Phase.


1” rule states you may not move within 1” of the enemy unless assaulting. The logic is that if you cannot move within 1” unless assaulting, then you cannot perform an action of “intent to move” within 1” either. Therefore, you cannot intentionally place a model within 1” of enemies when Deep Striking as you would be intending to move within 1” and intentionally trying to violate the 1” rule by an act that results as Movement when completed.

the 1" rule is a general rule that applies to unit movement in the moving and shooting phase

the Deep Strike special rule gives an exception to that restriction by saying you may place the model anywhere. If i wanted to I could place a deep striking blood thirster on the top of a flagpole in the center of a 6 story building on the corner of the table, it might not be a good place to put the model, but I could. Under most circumstances this is not a problem, but what about when the place I want to put my model is on top of your models?

in a permissive ruleset I need something that tells me I can do something, and in this case I have a special rule which allows it (deep strike) which is a specific rule about a type of deployment that allows a player to place the model anywhere on the table. It is a classic case of specific vs general. Naturally no one wants their opponent to physically set a model on top of their finely painted/converted minis, and this is resolved by utilizing the Wobbly Model Syndrome rule. This ends up working out extremely well because the end result of the deep strike (usually a mishap) would result in the deep striking model not being on top of the existing models, so there will be no case of confusion of the actual position of the models once the deep strike has been resolved.

Please take a moment to let that sink in, the literal translation of the text in the deep strike special rule does not include any restrictions or limitations on where you may place the model (on the table, of course) and as a special rule it takes precedence over the general rules governing movement.

"Anywhere" does not override "may not be placed in impassable terrain" as "Anywhere" is NOT specific. It is in fact General.

WBB vs SA vs ATSKNF, Stubborn USR etc. They all give very good guidance on what Specific means within the GW ruleset. Saying you can be placed Anywhere does NOT override the specific prohibition on placing models in impassable terrain.

nosferatu1001 wrote:"Anywhere" does not override "may not be placed in impassable terrain" as "Anywhere" is NOT specific. It is in fact General.

WBB vs SA vs ATSKNF, Stubborn USR etc. They all give very good guidance on what Specific means within the GW ruleset. Saying you can be placed Anywhere does NOT override the specific prohibition on placing models in impassable terrain.

Exactly, Anywhere does not override other rules which are meant to always be in effect.

To elaborate, I do not believe Deep Striking occurs in absence or overrides other rules such as the 1" rule or the impassible terrain rule.

The reason I feel this way is that it does not expressly state other 'always in effect rules' in the game are overridden. Unless the Deep Strike rule expressly stated othwise, they must co-exist.

The 1" rule gives clear meaning, it is not to be violated unless assaulting. It gives no exception to Deep Striking. Deep Striking does occur in the movement phase. It's an addition to the Movement phase, it does not override the rules of movement phase except for where it expressly states. Example: Once final position is determined, you can make no further Movement in the Movement phase as you count as having moved already.

Therefore, you MAY place your model anywhere on the table. You may NOT violate the 1" rule intentionally. You may NOT place the model in impassible terrain.

Unless GW rules otherwise, this is the most conservative and non-evasive interpretation.

Im not refering to the word Anywhere, Im refering to the Special rule "Deep Strike" which as a whole, is more specific than the General restrictions on movement.

Also, not every unit can Deep Strike, almost every unit CAN assault, so in the general text of the rulebook they will describe restrictions to units which do NOT have special rules that override said restrictions.

Demogerg wrote:
the 1" rule is a general rule that applies to unit movement in the moving and shooting phase

I disagree. It is not general, its a rule that is always in effect.

the Deep Strike special rule gives an exception to that restriction by saying you may place the model anywhere. <snip>

It does not state that it overides the 1" or impassible terrain rule. Deep Striking exists in concert with other rules. Its merely a way to get your models into the play space, it does not give permission to override the other rules of the game.

in a permissive ruleset I need something that tells me I can do something, ...<snip>

We agree here. By my reading, the Deep Striking does not give you that permission. It's simply giving you an order of operations for the special deployment of your unit which when completed, counts as movement. It occurs in a Phase of the game where other standard - always in play rules still co-exist.

Please take a moment to let that sink in, the literal translation of the text in the deep strike special rule does not include any restrictions or limitations on where you may place the model (on the table, of course) and as a special rule it takes precedence over the general rules governing movement.

I have. I think we view the game in very similar principles. I can see you are a thoughtful person by your post. However, I believe we find our crossroads at whether or not Deep Striking overrides or is simply giving an order of operations while other rules such as 1" and impassible terrain are always in effect.

Cheers for the post,

Tac


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Demogerg wrote:Im not refering to the word Anywhere, Im refering to the Special rule "Deep Strike" which as a whole, is more specific than the General restrictions on movement.

Also, not every unit can Deep Strike, almost every unit CAN assault, so in the general text of the rulebook they will describe restrictions to units which do NOT have special rules that override said restrictions.

In my opinion, Deep Striking is a means of unit arrival. The same can be said for Reserves moving on from a table edge, models arriving from Outflank or passenger models Disembarking from a vehicle. All of these methods allow uints to be placed onto the table.

None of these rules override the always in effect rule of 1" and impassible terrain. In a permission based game, as you've pointed out, the rule must give permission to override.

Perhaps this is one of the many subtlties that have significant rammifications to the argument one way or the other. One of the many reasons we could stand to have GW rule on Deep Striking in general.

Tac

Tactica wrote:
I have. I think we view the game in very similar principles. I can see you are a thoughtful person by your post. However, I believe we find our crossroads at whether or not Deep Striking overrides or is simply giving an order of operations while other rules such as 1" and impassible terrain are always in effect.

Cheers for the post,

Tac

Im glad you are willing to debate without name-calling, that is something dakka is terrible about...

Do you agree that Special Rules allow units to do things that are normally not permitted?


if yes, then by looking at the special rule: Deep Strike, as a special rule, with specific text telling you that anywhere is a legal placement, you may then ignore any other restriction anywhere in the rulebook.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Tactica wrote:

In my opinion, Deep Striking is a means of unit arrival. The same can be said for Reserves moving on from a table edge, models arriving from Outflank or passenger models Disembarking from a vehicle. All of these methods allow uints to be placed onto the table.


Tac

I just noticed this, there is a flaw in this arguement in that Reserves are part of the standard rules, passengers disembarking is also part of standard rules, where as Outflank and Deep Strike are two Special Rules which are separate and contained wholly within themselves, Outflank allows a unit to break the normal reserves rules and walk in from one of the side edges, and deep strike allows a unit to brake the normal reserve rules, and be placed "anywhere"

Mannahnin wrote:
I’m perfectly happy betting a sixer of nice microbrew instead. Vodka was GBF’s idea. I drink more beer nowadays. Is it just me, or does the addition of alcohol to the discussion make things feel more cordial and friendly?

I concede that the FAQs are sometimes unpredictable and occasionally dumb (like the wings v. jump pack distinction you cited).

I still feel pretty confident that GW is going to rule it this way. Whether they call it a FAQ or Errata I can’t predict, though I suspect that it’s going to be just an FAQ. My original bet was that when the GW FAQ comes out, GW will say that the Mawloc can target its DS right onto enemy units. I think the text is actually ambiguous, but that the RAI is clear enough to know what the Mawloc's supposed to do. Your focus seems to be more on the RAW test. The existing bet does not consider whether the eventual ruling will be called a FAQ or an Errata. Just whether GW is going to say “yes, you can do it” or “no, you can’t.” Are you up for that bet?

No, because I know damn well what they intended. I don't doubt, for a second, that they intended to allow a mawloc to target a unit. But that's not what they wrote. I expect them to say 'yes you can do that', but I think it will take errata to change the wording of the original rule, rather than just an FAQ answer that says they can do it.

After all, they've intended things before, only to screw it up. In some cases, the FAQ even upholds the screwup... For example, I doubt that the intent of Embolden was to allow a Farseer to re-roll their psychic test, but that's how it's written in the codex,and the FAQ then allows it. I doubt that 'Pelt of the Doppegangrel' was intended to be used only after an entire squad of Blood Claws had been killed, but there you go, that's what the rules say, and the FAQ backs that up too.

Demogerg wrote:Im glad you are willing to debate without name-calling, that is something dakka is terrible about...

Ditto, and I agree. I've opted to avoid responding to those that result to name calling or using desparaging comments as opposed to intelligent debate. It serves no purpose other than to minimalize their contribution in my opinion... but I digress.

Do you agree that Special Rules allow units to do things that are normally not permitted?

1. I believe Special Rules are non-standard rules by definition of them being special.

2. I believe there is an order to all rules as applied, such as: RB v.s. Codex v.s. Mission.

3. I believe some Special Rules allow units to do additional things that are not normally permitted, but they do not break existing rules.
- i.e. Counter Charge (addition, but does not break existing)

4. I believe some Special Rules allow units to break certain rules that are normally observed in play due to blatant override.
- i.e. Assault / Frag Launchers on a Marine Land Raider allow a unit to charge from the closed vehicle expressly override an otherwise static rule (break)

5. I believe some Special Rules allow units to (1) do additional things, and (2) break certain rules normally observed in play.
- i.e. JetPack, allows you to move in the assault phase even though you are not Assaulting(break), and offers the ability to "jump" while doing so.(addition)

if yes, then by looking at the special rule: Deep Strike, as a special rule, with specific text telling you that anywhere is a legal placement, you may then ignore any other restriction anywhere in the rulebook.

In my opinion, and I do respect yours as a counter view point... but in my opinion, I believe this is a logic leap.

First, I believe the Deep Strike is a standard RB Mission game rule as a deployment of a unit. However, only units that have the Deep Strike rule may use it. This is similar to Infiltrate.

I believe the explanation for Deep Strike is as much an order of operations as it is for rules to determine a units final determination. I do NOT believe it is a rule which is designed specifically to override the standard / main rules of the Movement Phase. I do NOT believe it gives permission to ignore other rules. I believe it is additive, as in point 3. above.

The language is written as an order of operation for determining unit arrival, but it does not give express permission to ignore all other rules. In addition, I think the Mishap language is relevant. It clearly spells out that a Mishap occurs when things go wrong. It occurs when they do not go to plan or design - i.e. scatter, not player position of a model. Therefore, I can only interpret Deep Strike is another movement mode for deploying models. However, I cannot reasonably assume that I get to ignore other rules in the game (1" and Impassible Terrain) just because it says to place a model anywhere on the table in a portion of one of the sentences.

I fully appreciate that "anywhere on the table" is a permission. I do not ignore that fact. However, I do not believe this is the ONLY rule in play. I do not believe Deep Strike overrides the other standard rules of the game's Movement phase and model deployment considerations.

I hope that helps understand my position, even if we continue to disagree.

Good discussion. <nod>

Cheers,

Tac

Here is my thoughts about the Deepstrike Rules.

There is no rules stating that you can deepstrike on a unit, the only that are stating the RuleBook is that you can not deepstrike into a build or a transport.
The only reason you dont want to deepstrike on a unit, is because of the mishap table. In this case the Mawloc disregards this table at all times.
If you want GW can start making a new rulesbook, just to keep up with the Codex...ie Warmachine......just did this.
The problem that i see here is that many players are looking into deep with rules and forgetting about the main part of the game.....You just want to have fun.

Do you think the player should have to roll a d6 for movement if they deep strike into difficult terrain? Does this d6 roll reduce scatter? There are a few movement rules that don't make sense if they are applied to Deep Striking, do you just ignore those and pick and chose the rules you want applied to Deep Striking?

Burger Rage wrote:Do you think the player should have to roll a d6 for movement if they deep strike into difficult terrain? Does this d6 roll reduce scatter? There are a few movement rules that don't make sense if they are applied to Deep Striking, do you just ignore those and pick and chose the rules you want applied to Deep Striking?

To answer your question, I will reference my post at the top of this page 8, about 17 or so posts from the top which you may have missed. I believe this addresses your question regarding my belief...

Tactica wrote:<snip>... There are 3 Phases of game (1) Movement, (2) Shooting and (3) Assault. Deep Striking occurs in Movement Phase.

After Reserve rolls, Deep Striking consists of (1) model placement onto the table, (2) scatter, (3) Check for Mishap, (4) placement of rest of unit

The step (4), placement of rest of unit, counts as Movement in the Movement Phase. Note: Deep Striking does not count as Assault.

The first model placement on the table is the player’s intended point you wish your unit to Move to as you are picking your point where you intend for it to appear from Deep Striking. Model placement is not Movement. However, the first model placement prior to scatter is the player’s intended and desired point of the unit’s Movement.

Scattering after model placement does not count as Movement. By definition, scattering is the act of adjusting a model that represents a point a unit may occupy. It is an unintended adjustment to the intended point where you wanted the model to appear.

Mishap’s occur when a unit does something unplanned by the player. The rules state it is the result of something going wrong beyond the player’s control which in game is represented by the unplanned result from the scattering action. Therefore, Mishap’s do not occur by player design.

1” rule states you may not move within 1” of the enemy unless assaulting. The logic is that if you cannot move within 1” unless assaulting, then you cannot perform an action of “intent to move” within 1” either. Therefore, you cannot intentionally place a model within 1” of enemies when Deep Striking as you would be intending to move within 1” and intentionally trying to violate the 1” rule by an act that results as Movement when completed.

Once the final position is found, model placement for the rest of the unit occurs. As mentioned earlier, the unit now counts as having moved.

<snip>

Cheers,

Tac

Tactica wrote:a counter arguement

But I think where the logic falls apart is where Deep Strike is not a normal rule, it is a special rule granted to certain units, Such as move through cover, counter attack, furious charge, acute senses, fearless, stealth, fleet, etc.

and as a special rule it must be taken as a whole that supercedes any conflicting normal rules listed in the game, to play it any other way would be to nullify all existing special rules from being able to do anything. this is why when the special rule says "anywhere" as everyone has been so adamant about, it means anywhere, regardless of the conflicting restrictions that are normally in place.