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.

The unit being inside of one got me thinking about just how gakky the deployment rules are and unclear.


So start listing them i guess Ill start


Deloying inside a non dedicated transport such as a landraider before the game begins.

Shrikes rule of course which doesnt actually work as written

Karrandras is another one.


No real rules about deploying outside of coherency , impassable terrain seems iffy.

If you can even deploy on multilevels as per rule mechanics it seems movement is the only way to get on ruins. I have actually seen people argue this.


Etc..


So list your problems with the Deployment rules and missions.

The player going second does not have to stay 12" away from the centre point or line, but people are mistakenly convinced that they do.

In fairness, deploying beasts et al, on the upper levels of ruins is only sort of wierd. The restriction is against them moving TO the uppper levels, not FROM them.

Impassible terrain isn't much of an issue for deployment because the impassible terrain rules include a statement about not being able to place models there. Although it would be consistent with GW style (if that's a good thing) to include a reminder that most models cannot be placed in impassible terrain.

Hollismason wrote:Shrikes rule of course which doesnt actually work as written

just being nitpicky, but I thought Shrikes rules do work as written. The discontent is that as written they don't work as most feel they are intended to work.

Kaaihn wrote:

Hollismason wrote:Shrikes rule of course which doesnt actually work as written

just being nitpicky, but I thought Shrikes rules do work as written. The discontent is that as written they don't work as most feel they are intended to work.

Correct. They work fine. They allow a unit normally unable to outflank to outflank, with their dedicated transport if they so wish.

Gwar! wrote:

Kaaihn wrote:

Hollismason wrote:Shrikes rule of course which doesnt actually work as written

just being nitpicky, but I thought Shrikes rules do work as written. The discontent is that as written they don't work as most feel they are intended to work.

Correct. They work fine. They allow a unit normally unable to outflank to outflank, with their dedicated transport if they so wish.

Much like how people are upset because they can't embark on their transports (in deployment) unless they place those transports in reserve...

solkan wrote:Much like how people are upset because they can't embark on their transports (in deployment) unless they place those transports in reserve...

No, that is unclear. This is crystal clear.

Gwar - I think you've made a mistake there

Shrike, being jump infantry, cannot embark a vehicle, meaning he cannot be joined to the unit in their vehicle, meaning they cannot gain Outflank...

nosferatu1001 wrote:Gwar - I think you've made a mistake there

Shrike, being jump infantry, cannot embark a vehicle, meaning he cannot be joined to the unit in their vehicle, meaning they cannot gain Outflank...

Unless a special rule says he may, or if an edition change allows him to embark, which may be applicable at some point in the future Unlike GW, I futureproof my rulings. Yes, as of 5th edition, he cannot embark, but should 6th edition allow jump infantry to embark he would allow them or you could just throw about TMIR like everyone else seems to do and say that if you don't let me embark Shrike you are making my game unfun thus you are cheater and I win automatically.

tl;dr: I drank too much ale and am not thinking straight. FOR RUSS!

Gwar! wrote:

solkan wrote:Much like how people are upset because they can't embark on their transports (in deployment) unless they place those transports in reserve...

No, that is unclear. This is crystal clear.

Tomato, toh-mah-toh. The absence of the embarkation rule for deploying in transports is just as clear. One might suspect that it is being called "unclear" because the rule works to their disadvantage and doesn't work how they claim it should.

Lets not get off topic please.


Shrike as written does not allow the INFILTRATE ability.


There is no rule as written of placing models during period.


All Coherency etc.. relies on moving out of during movement phase etc...


As far as I know you could take a combat squad of 5 marines put them 72 inches apart . They have to move to get in coherency but still I believe it is legit.


Let's just list problems.

Hollismason wrote:Lets not get off topic please.


Shrike as written does not allow the INFILTRATE ability.


There is no rule as written of placing models during period.


All Coherency etc.. relies on moving out of during movement phase etc...


As far as I know you could take a combat squad of 5 marines put them 72 inches apart . They have to move to get in coherency but still I believe it is legit.


Let's just list problems.

And yet thousands of people play friendly games and very competitive tournament games, every weekend, with no problems at all. How the hell can they do it.)

mikhaila wrote:

And yet thousands of people play friendly games and very competitive tournament games, every weekend, with no problems at all. How the hell can they do it.)

This thread is not about "WH40k is a fun game that i can totaly understand that people enjoy playing, despite certain unclear parts of the rules". Feel free to go make such a thread on the general 40k forums. This thread is neither about how I think GW is annoyingly sloppy with their wording and their rules and could use a few creative and slightly autistic proofreaders and testplayers to make this game not only a great and fun game, but also a game with clear and consistent rules. This thread is about finding and discussing possible unclear points in in the deployment rules of wh40k. If this subject does not interest you, please do not partake in this conversation. Maybe make a thread with a topic like: "Help composing a list of rules lawyering annoyances and ways to play 40k without worrying too much about the wording". I'm pretty sure I would come post in it.

Sorry about the harsh tone. I've had a bad day and I took it out on someone who's biggest failure was posting irrelevant posts in a thread.

Alright so coherency :


The only thing I have found about it is in the Movement section for moving models of the same squad into coherency.



Here is the problem I am seeing that is made unclear.


and you can tell me if this is legit.



I take a 19 man Chaos Raptor Squad and set 10 12 inches from one side of the board.

I place the other 9 on the other side of my deployment out of cover.


During your turn you fire at the 9 man part. The 10 man is in cover so now since 50 percent of my squad is in cover i take cover saves.


Then I remove models from the ten man squad.



Now its my turn and they have to move as i assume quick as possible to get back into coherency.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
Alright so coherency :


The only thing I have found about it is in the Movement section for moving models of the same squad into coherency.



Here is the problem I am seeing that is made unclear.


and you can tell me if this is legit.



I take a 19 man Chaos Raptor Squad and set 10 12 inches from one side of the board.

I place the other 9 on the other side of my deployment out of cover.


During your turn you fire at the 9 man part. The 10 man is in cover so now since 50 percent of my squad is in cover i take cover saves.


Then I remove models from the ten man squad.



Now its my turn and they have to move as i assume quick as possible to get back into coherency.

You have to deploy in coherency.

Vermillion wrote:You have to deploy in coherency.

There is no rule in the book stating such a restriction. If you believe otherwise, please provide references in the rulebook.

Hollismason, is the ability to deploy out of coherency really a problem? A unit horribly out of coherency has to move closer together, and it probably can't assault (the out of coherency parts of the unit wouldn't be able to satisfy the assault requirements), and if the unit had to fall back it would be unable to rally (even with ATSKNF). Almost all of the time, it would mean that the divided unit is giving up half of its shooting in exchange for a cover save in some conditions. The rules for coherency don't really address what to do if normal movement doesn't restore coherency, and a suitably strict house rule there would eliminate any potential abuse in this case.

Theres just some weird backwards stuff with the coherency and deployment issue.

True. On second thought, it would be better if deployment required a unit to be deployed in coherency, if only to prevent accidents or someone trying to take advantage of a weak coherency house rule to walk across the board in cover while shooting.

gah there's more some ones all ready point that out ... why did the page not scroll ...