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.

Burger Rage wrote:But there is no functional difference between your example and;

Pointing to a spot on the table in the middle of a mess of troops and saying "My Mawloc is going to deep strike here". Rolling the scatter dice and getting a hit result, then resolving the Terror From the Deep.

The entire argument on 'something has gone wrong' = 'mishap' is actually moot because the Mawloc/Terror From the Deep completely bypass the Mishap rules. It doesn't say "If a Mawloc would cause a Mishap during Deepstrike do this", it says "If a Mawloc Deep Strikes onto a point occupied by another model". So you don't have to satisfy any of the conditions on the Mishap section of the Deep Strike rule in order for Terror From the Deep to apply, you only need to Deep Strike onto a point occupied by another model.

I have nothing further to add.

Burg

Except pointing does not satisfy RAW by you placing a model from the unit on the table before rolling to scatter.
Nevermind, I'm going to let my brain go back to sleep.

I've never been convinced that my opponent's model and my model are able to occupy the same space on the table.
Of course, GW probably meant for the Mawloc to be able to deep strike into enemy units, it's the tyranid version of a vindicator; however, I'm not a big supporter of RAI as it just rewards GW for sloppy rules writing and general laziness. Besides, how can we truly know what someone else is thinking unless they tell us?

What we have in all of these threads are irreconcilable differences of opinion as to what was intended by GW when they wrote the rules. I barely know what I'm going to think much less how someone else's brain works....especially the flying monkeys at GW that swing around their office flinging feces (poorly written rules) at us.

Cheers all. I'm done with this particular discussion.

Brother Ramses wrote:More Words

I see now that there is no point in argueing with you, Circular logic is circular, and you refuse to refute the arguement that Tactica has openly discussed with me.

Tactica wrote:

Again, what I am talking about here is Deep Striking mechanics and whether or not those mechanics are additive or supercede the Movement Phase rules of the game as well as, what those rammifications are for those decisions.

Again, I present that as a Special Rule, Deep Strike supercedes the rules normal present for reserves and movement. This works in the same way as any other special rule and how it [special rules] supercedes the basic rules (hence the names), if a special rule was not intended to supercede the normal rules, it will have text that details how it interacts with normal rules. At this point I will just have to let everyone come around to the same conclusion as me over time. Im going back into lurk mode now.

"Deep strike" is a special rule, it is not, in itself, a *specific* override of every other rule.

The movement rules require that you specify when you can place a model into impassable terrain, such as JI or skimmers. Deepstrike does not do this. Just because it is a special rule doesn't make it specific - that is a chronic misunderstanding of the idea of specific vs general. Which is why I pointed out that the WBB vs SA shows what specific means....

Deepstrike rules do not need a similar qualification, as it is essentiually redundant in Droppods rules. In the *exact* same way that the rules for SM bikes reiterate that the toughness bonus does not count for ID purposes, even though it is one of the specific examples int he 5th ed BRB

Evidence of redundancy in one rule does not mean that a lack of redundancy in another rule means anything.

Wrong. The toughness restatement in the SM biker entry is a restatement of Instant Death rules. These are the SAME rule.

The difference in wording between deepstrike and drop pod show a subtle difference between two different rules. Drop pods arrive via a deployment unique to drop pods, (drop pod assault). Deepstrike is a different rule, and so any qualification made to drop pods are not a redundancy of deepstirke, but a difference between the two rules. If it were the same deepstrike, it would say so. . .


To clarify:

SM Bikers ID entry / ID entry in book = same rule, redundant

Deep Strike Rules / Drop Pod Assault = different rules, not redundant.

Demogerg wrote:<snip>

Tactica wrote: Again, what I am talking about here is Deep Striking mechanics and whether or not those mechanics are additive or supercede the Movement Phase rules of the game as well as, what those rammifications are for those decisions.

Again, I present that as a Special Rule, Deep Strike supercedes the rules normal present for reserves and movement. This works in the same way as any other special rule and how it [special rules] supercedes the basic rules (hence the names), if a special rule was not intended to supercede the normal rules, it will have text that details how it interacts with normal rules. At this point I will just have to let everyone come around to the same conclusion as me over time. Im going back into lurk mode now.

You quoted a portion of a message that was intended to someone else... hopefully you seen that I addressed the Deep Strike as related to Mishap on the previous page (9), and the point I think you were overlooking... but it appears several others got into the conversation.

Suffice it to say, the issues are many, including but not limited to...
- Does Deep Strike operate in addition to the 1" and impassible terrain rules... or in place of them
- Does the "Mishap" rule identify when and how Mishaps occur which means you must scatter to get to within 1" of the enemy or on impassible terrain... or not

Though I'm sure this will not be resolved without GW intervention, perhaps there's enough in this thread for the INAT folks to give the issue a nother look. I have a feeling Deep Strike isn't even on GW's radar... if anything, i suspect they will come up with a quick and dirty fix for Mawloc, if anything, and move on... and who knows where that will land.

Regardless, I enjoyed today's conversation,

Lurk mode sounds like a good idea. I should get something done at work today... lol,

Tac

Tbh, i don't see why you'd deepstrike a mawloc when you can burrow it, a much simpler method.

Sorry for thinking that a 10-page thread is unnesesary, i can see why you're confused a bit, i am too :-).

apwill4765 wrote:Wrong. The toughness restatement in the SM biker entry is a restatement of Instant Death rules. These are the SAME rule.

The difference in wording between deepstrike and drop pod show a subtle difference between two different rules. Drop pods arrive via a deployment unique to drop pods, (drop pod assault). Deepstrike is a different rule, and so any qualification made to drop pods are not a redundancy of deepstirke, but a difference between the two rules. If it were the same deepstrike, it would say so. . .

No,wrong.

Both arrive using Deepstrike, the pod then modifies this rule in specific ways and wraps this up as Drop Pod assault. Reread the rules for Droppod assault and you will notice it starts of by saying they arrive by deepstrike.....

You have also not explained how Deepstrike *specifies* that you can place the model into impassable terrain despite the fact that at no point does it do so. Your argument is a fatal misunderstanding of specific vs general, as it entirely hinges on special rules always overriding other rules. Which is wrong, they only override the rules they specifically override.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

apwill4765 wrote:Wrong. The toughness restatement in the SM biker entry is a restatement of Instant Death rules. These are the SAME rule.

The difference in wording between deepstrike and drop pod show a subtle difference between two different rules. Drop pods arrive via a deployment unique to drop pods, (drop pod assault). Deepstrike is a different rule, and so any qualification made to drop pods are not a redundancy of deepstirke, but a difference between the two rules. If it were the same deepstrike, it would say so. . .

No,wrong.

Both arrive using Deepstrike, the pod then modifies this rule in specific ways and wraps this up as Drop Pod assault. Reread the rules for Droppod assault and you will notice it starts of by saying they arrive by deepstrike.....

You have also not explained how Deepstrike *specifies* that you can place the model into impassable terrain despite the fact that at no point does it do so. Your argument is a fatal misunderstanding of specific vs general, as it entirely hinges on special rules always overriding other rules. Which is wrong, they only override the rules they specifically override.

Um, no. Read "drop pod assault". No where in the entry does it say to use deepstrike rules. NOWHERE. All the rules to resolve the arrival of a drop pod are covered in "drop pod assault". It NEVER says to use deepstrike.

EDIT: edited for snarkiness

nosferatu1001 wrote:

You have also not explained how Deepstrike *specifies* that you can place the model into impassable terrain despite the fact that at no point does it do so. Your argument is a fatal misunderstanding of specific vs general, as it entirely hinges on special rules always overriding other rules. Which is wrong, they only override the rules they specifically override.

Yes it does. Anywhere. The argument has no fatal misunderstanding. The Movement section contains a list of general movement restrictions. Other units/movement types override these restrictions in their own way. Deep Strike is one of these.

-Yad

Yad - "Anywhere" is not specific. In fact, as has been explained many, many times, it is in fact General.

Impassable terrain requires that you "specify otherwise" - this has not done so. Edit: which is why I was pointing people to Stubborn USR and WBB vs SA - these are example of what GW MEAN by "specify"

Apwil - no, you are so entirely wrong you should be embarrased. First sentence of the rules for Drop Pod Assault. first sentence, not even buried half way int he paragraph. Please, PLEASE learn to read, you are embarrasing yourself.

agnosto wrote:

Burger Rage wrote:But there is no functional difference between your example and;

Pointing to a spot on the table in the middle of a mess of troops and saying "My Mawloc is going to deep strike here". Rolling the scatter dice and getting a hit result, then resolving the Terror From the Deep.

The entire argument on 'something has gone wrong' = 'mishap' is actually moot because the Mawloc/Terror From the Deep completely bypass the Mishap rules. It doesn't say "If a Mawloc would cause a Mishap during Deepstrike do this", it says "If a Mawloc Deep Strikes onto a point occupied by another model". So you don't have to satisfy any of the conditions on the Mishap section of the Deep Strike rule in order for Terror From the Deep to apply, you only need to Deep Strike onto a point occupied by another model.

I have nothing further to add.

Burg

Except pointing does not satisfy RAW by you placing a model from the unit on the table before rolling to scatter.
Nevermind, I'm going to let my brain go back to sleep.

I've never been convinced that my opponent's model and my model are able to occupy the same space on the table.

Except they do occupy the same space on the table if they were to scatter into them. You roll the scatter, move the initial model. This may mean it moves into the same spot occupied by other models, which then triggers a Mishap result or Terror From the Deep.

Or are you suggesting that when the Deep Strike rules tell you to move the initial model 2D6 inches when you roll a scatter result you don't have to do it?

You'll have to quote it for me, the first sentence in MY codex reads: "Space marine armies are frequently deployed from strike cruisers and battle barges"


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, your personal attacks are in violation of Rule 1

nosferatu1001 wrote:Yad - "Anywhere" is not specific. In fact, as has been explained many, many times, it is in fact General.

Impassable terrain requires that you "specify otherwise" - this has not done so. Edit: which is why I was pointing people to Stubborn USR and WBB vs SA - these are example of what GW MEAN by "specify"

Yes, the word 'anywhere' is not specific, I'm not and have never, disputed that. The Deep Strike mechanic however is. It overrides the general movement restrictions by allowing you to place a model anywhere on the table. Simiilar to the movement rules for a Skimmer allowing it to 'hover' over impassable terrain. Or the Wraith's movement rule allowing it to 'pass through' impassable terrain. Deep Strike allows you to drop anywhere on the table.

-Yad

Drop Pod Assault rules, page 69. I I did not say the first line of the codex, in fact I said twice I was referring to the rules for Drop Pod Assault. The fact you could get it wrong twice, claiming that it NEVER mentions deepstrike, is indicative of an inabiltiy to read - a statement of empirical fact as opposed to a personal attack.

Can you find it now?

Edit: Yad, the mechanic is NOT SPECIFIC, the key is that nowhere does it state you CAN place it in impassable terrain. In fact, if you reread the examples you pointed out they BOTH *specify* that they can override the normal rules on impassable terrain.

The lack of a *specific* exemption to impassable terrain does, in fact, mean that Deep Strike cannot override the rules for placememnt in impassable terrain. That is how specific > general works, and why I pointed out where *other* rules specifically overrode other rules by specifically stating they did so.

The prohibition into placing into impassable terrain is a specific prohibition that must be specifically overridden. DS does not do this.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Drop Pod Assault rules, page 69. I I did not say the first line of the codex, in fact I said twice I was referring to the rules for Drop Pod Assault. The fact you could get it wrong twice, claiming that it NEVER mentions deepstrike, is indicative of an inabiltiy to read - a statement of empirical fact as opposed to a personal attack.

Can you find it now?

Nope, we are quoting from different codices. I am using my BT codex, as I don't own codex: SM. Which, I mentioned before. So. . . yea. . . Kind of makes your continued personal attack ironic, though I'm not going to go there.

Now, whether they changed the drop pod assault rule for Codex: SM is something I don't know about.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Specific > General
Deepstrike (specific) > Movement (general)

Movement: no impassable terrain, etc.
Deepstrike: Anywhere.

The specificity of the wording within the rule does not matter, it is the specificity of the rule itself that matters. Deepstrike overrides Movement as it is more specific, it doesn't matter if it says "anywhere" or "anywhere on the table" or "anywhere on the table in the room underneath your bedroom off to the right of the water heater"

Get it now?

nosferatu1001 wrote:Drop Pod Assault rules, page 69. I I did not say the first line of the codex, in fact I said twice I was referring to the rules for Drop Pod Assault. The fact you could get it wrong twice, claiming that it NEVER mentions deepstrike, is indicative of an inabiltiy to read - a statement of empirical fact as opposed to a personal attack.

Can you find it now?

Edit: Yad, the mechanic is NOT SPECIFIC, the key is that nowhere does it state you CAN place it in impassable terrain. In fact, if you reread the examples you pointed out they BOTH *specify* that they can override the normal rules on impassable terrain.

The lack of a *specific* exemption to impassable terrain does, in fact, mean that Deep Strike cannot override the rules for placememnt in impassable terrain. That is how specific > general works, and why I pointed out where *other* rules specifically overrode other rules by specifically stating they did so.

The prohibition into placing into impassable terrain is a specific prohibition that must be specifically overridden. DS does not do this.

Disagree (surprise! ). The Deep Strike mechanic represents a very specific type of movement. In that mechanic, which is self-contained, there is no prohibition on where you may place the model. If there were something along the lines of, "...place the model anywhere, in accordance with the restrictions described in the Movement section of the rulebook, on the table..." then I would agree. And no, that is not something I believe to be inferred. Your opinion, to me that's just what it is, that the Deep Strike mechanic is not a specific exception of the movement restrictions doesn't hold water.

-Yad

Something you mentioned once in the middle of a block of text, and failed to mention again?

So, if BT never mention DS, why do you insist that their requirement to "place anywhere, except...." has any relevance to this discussion? In either case it is STILL a redundant qualification, as "place anywhere" appears in both cases and is STILL prohibited by a rule int he BRB stating you must specify otherwise.

The rule does not specifcy otherwise, therefore it does not override the rule stating you must specify otherwise. Its very straightforward.

Edit: Yad: Except that is not how specific vs general works. In fact it would have to specifically say it did NOT follow the rules for placememtn in impassable terrain for it to NOT follow the rules for placement in impassable terrain. Specific vs general requires that your rule *specifically* overrides the rule - and that is something that the rule does not do.

Otherwise "run" does not follow any rules about movement, as it does not specifically state it doesn't. Assault would not have to specifically state you can come within 1" of an enemy model as it is not the movement rules, and therefore that prohibition would not apply. Do you see where that goes? You are requiring that every rule specifically states it is inclusive of all rules that apply to it, otherwise they are not. This means that, as an example, "Lash of Submission" could move models out of coherency (FAQ not withstanding) as "move 2D6" does not reiterate that all normal movement rules apply.

There is a "stack" when it comes to rules, they build one over the other, but only overriding when they say so. JI *specify* they can move onto impassable terrain, Wraiths *specify* that they can move through impassable terrain. DS is *silent* on impassable terrain, and therefore CANNOT specify anything about Impassable Terrain unless it states it ignores ALL normal rules. Which is a specific exemption to everything, and again is still a specific vs general beatdown.

The movement rules don't contain any rules on 'placing' models, only moving them.

Um, before my argument wasn't valid because they are the same rule, and now my argument is irrelevant because they are different rules?

Wow.

Also, I like how you brush off how easy it is to miss something I said in one of my posts, but I must illiterate because you incorrectly assumed that I had quoted from the wrong part of the SM codex, after misreading your post. el oh el.


The point is, the drop pod assault rules qualify the placement of anywhere on the table, and the deepstrike rules do not.

You still have not explained why, if YOUR argument is correct, the deepstrike rules allow placement "anywhere", while the BT drop pod assault rule allows placement "anywhere EXCEPT".

Placement anywhere does NOT appear in both cases.

In one case you may place anywhere on the table except impassable terrain or over other models (drop pod)

In the other you may place anywhere on the table. (deepstrike)

Burger Rage wrote:The movement rules don't contain any rules on 'placing' models, only moving them.

Apart from the one stating models may not be placed in impassable terrain? Odd, page 14 must be in its own section! Please Burger, please tell us what section this is in! /sarcasm

nosferatu1001 wrote:Assault would not have to specifically state you can come within 1" of an enemy model as it is not the movement rules, and therefore that prohibition would not apply. .

Jeez, this is embarrassing nos. . .

As per the assault rules:

"move following the same rules as in the movement phase, with the exception. . ."

Oooo, it DOES specifically state to follow the movement rules, and DS does not. Will you admit you are incorrect now?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The only reason assault rules specifically state that you can come within 1" is that before that it specifically states that you follow normal movement rules. Dang.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
See? I CAN read! Yay....


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, it seems you are the one confused about specific vs. general, not the 60% of dakka that knows how the mawloc's rules actually work

apwill4765 wrote:Um, before my argument wasn't valid because they are the same rule, and now my argument is irrelevant because they are different rules?

Wow.

Way to misrepresent. *slow clap*

No, the argument is irrelevant either way - the qualifiers in both are still redundant as the main rule adequately covers this. It is a reminder as it does not alter the base state - that you mkay not PLACE models in impassable terrain unless otherwise specified. Please find the specific language that overrides this prohibition - an argument from redundancy in one rule has no bearing on another rule not having redundancy. In the exact same way as the SM Bikes reminding you about the ID rules does not mean that another bike unit lacking this reminder suddenly is T5 and not T4(5) (and is why TWC had to be FAQ'd to be true T5, as until then they were essentially bikes)

apwill4765 wrote:Also, I like how you brush off how easy it is to miss something I said in one of my posts, but I must illiterate because you incorrectly assumed that I had quoted from the wrong part of the SM codex, after misreading your post. el oh el.

You said "the first line of my codex", not "the first line of the drop pod assault rules in my codex" - one means the first actual line in the codex, the other does not. If you had actually been precise about what you were stating it might have been a little more obvious. So yes, you were incorrect no matter what codex you were reading, as your statement was incorrect.

apwill4765 wrote:The point is, the drop pod assault rules qualify the placement of anywhere on the table, and the deepstrike rules do not.

No, it doesn't matter, as was already explained. Any qualifier that reiterates a rule is, by definition, redundant.

apwill4765 wrote:You still have not explained why, if YOUR argument is correct, the deepstrike rules allow placement "anywhere", while the BT drop pod assault rule allows placement "anywhere EXCEPT".

Placement anywhere does NOT appear in both cases.

In one case you may place anywhere on the table except impassable terrain or over other models (drop pod)

In the other you may place anywhere on the table. (deepstrike)

I have said that the DPA rules are irrelevant on the DS rules, as a redundant qualifier to a rule is still redundant no matter how many times you repeat it.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Edit: Yad: Except that is not how specific vs general works. In fact it would have to specifically say it did NOT follow the rules for placememtn in impassable terrain for it to NOT follow the rules for placement in impassable terrain. Specific vs general requires that your rule *specifically* overrides the rule - and that is something that the rule does not do.

Otherwise "run" does not follow any rules about movement, as it does not specifically state it doesn't. Assault would not have to specifically state you can come within 1" of an enemy model as it is not the movement rules, and therefore that prohibition would not apply. Do you see where that goes? You are requiring that every rule specifically states it is inclusive of all rules that apply to it, otherwise they are not. This means that, as an example, "Lash of Submission" could move models out of coherency (FAQ not withstanding) as "move 2D6" does not reiterate that all normal movement rules apply.

There is a "stack" when it comes to rules, they build one over the other, but only overriding when they say so. JI *specify* they can move onto impassable terrain, Wraiths *specify* that they can move through impassable terrain. DS is *silent* on impassable terrain, and therefore CANNOT specify anything about Impassable Terrain unless it states it ignores ALL normal rules. Which is a specific exemption to everything, and again is still a specific vs general beatdown.

No. It encompasses both impassable terrain and within 1'' of enemy models/units. You're not treating the Deep Strike mechanic as a self-contained set of rules that are executed in the Movement phase, but do not require the movement rules (as they should be).

-Yad

nosferatu1001 wrote:

apwill4765 wrote:Um, before my argument wasn't valid because they are the same rule, and now my argument is irrelevant because they are different rules?

Wow.

Way to misrepresent. *slow clap*

No, the argument is irrelevant either way - the qualifiers in both are still redundant as the main rule adequately covers this. It is a reminder as it does not alter the base state - that you mkay not PLACE models in impassable terrain unless otherwise specified. Please find the specific language that overrides this prohibition - an argument from redundancy in one rule has no bearing on another rule not having redundancy. In the exact same way as the SM Bikes reminding you about the ID rules does not mean that another bike unit lacking this reminder suddenly is T5 and not T4(5) (and is why TWC had to be FAQ'd to be true T5, as until then they were essentially bikes)

apwill4765 wrote:Also, I like how you brush off how easy it is to miss something I said in one of my posts, but I must illiterate because you incorrectly assumed that I had quoted from the wrong part of the SM codex, after misreading your post. el oh el.

You said "the first line of my codex", not "the first line of the drop pod assault rules in my codex" - one means the first actual line in the codex, the other does not. If you had actually been precise about what you were stating it might have been a little more obvious. So yes, you were incorrect no matter what codex you were reading, as your statement was incorrect.

apwill4765 wrote:The point is, the drop pod assault rules qualify the placement of anywhere on the table, and the deepstrike rules do not.

No, it doesn't matter, as was already explained. Any qualifier that reiterates a rule is, by definition, redundant.

apwill4765 wrote:You still have not explained why, if YOUR argument is correct, the deepstrike rules allow placement "anywhere", while the BT drop pod assault rule allows placement "anywhere EXCEPT".

Placement anywhere does NOT appear in both cases.

In one case you may place anywhere on the table except impassable terrain or over other models (drop pod)

In the other you may place anywhere on the table. (deepstrike)

I have said that the DPA rules are irrelevant on the DS rules, as a redundant qualifier to a rule is still redundant no matter how many times you repeat it.

Actually, i said the first line of MY codex, emphasis on the my. Which, in context, assuming literacy, means the first line of DPA in my codex. Sorry that you had to make such a huge leap.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, please respond to the absolute smashing your last example just took. Don't ignore it. Assault rules DO specifically refer you to movement restrictions, while DS does NOT.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I have noticed something in these arguments. Every single piece of raw evidence in these threads has supported intentional mishap placement.

The other side has spent the ENTIRE thread with poor half-baked explanations on why the evidence isn't relevant or correct.

Do you have ANY real RaW evidence that supports your argument, other than "but I don't want it to work that way"

Any at all?

Apwil - No, it still means the first line of your codex - you now, the first ACTUAL line of your codex. If you had said "the first line of the rule..." that would have been context.

And - ignore. You are stuck on a redundant qualification and hanging all your hopes on it, and ignoring that i have addressed it 3 times now. Edit: yes, I have shown the RAW - you have not. The RULES state that Impassable Terrain placememnt requires a specific exemption, DS does not give this exemption. Where are your rules? Anything? Anything at all?

Yad - except you are not told they are a self contained, entirely seperate from the rest of the BRB rules, ruleset, therefore they are NOT entirely self contained and seperate. Simple logic there.

YOU are under requirement to show permission (i.e. that they ignore every rule in the rulebook) to ignore the rules, that is how a permissive ruleset works.

So: I have shown that you may not place in impassable terrain, unless you have a rule specifically stating otherwise. DS does not specify that you may place models in impassable terrain, UNLIKE Jump Infantry, Wraiths, Skimmers, et al - all of which have language that specifically talks about Impassable Terrain. THAT IS THE STANDARD that specific requires - something that is actually specific to the rule, and that is something the exact opposite of what DS tells you.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Apwil - No, it still means the first line of your codex - you now, the first ACTUAL line of your codex. If you had said "the first line of the rule..." that would have been context.

And - ignore. You are stuck on a redundant qualification and hanging all your hopes on it, and ignoring that i have addressed it 3 times now.

Yad - except you are not told they are a self contained, entirely seperate from the rest of the BRB rules, ruleset, therefore they are NOT entirely self contained and seperate. Simple logic there.

YOU are under requirement to show permission (i.e. that they ignore every rule in the rulebook) to ignore the rules, that is how a permissive ruleset works.

So: I have shown that you may not place in impassable terrain, unless you have a rule specifically stating otherwise. DS does not specify that you may place models in impassable terrain, UNLIKE Jump Infantry, Wraiths, Skimmers, et al - all of which have language that specifically talks about Impassable Terrain. THAT IS THE STANDARD that specific requires - something that is actually specific to the rule, and that is something the exact opposite of what DS tells you.

Sweet. he had no answer for the assault example and so I get ignored. lol.

Welcome to arguing on the internet.

good way to ignore the ACTUAL rules and pick up on something irrlevant.

I gues you have no answer for, ooh, the fact your argument is based on a lack of redundancy in a rule meaning somehting? Or do you have an answer yet?

Sorry if I dont answer every point you make, I'm busy answering the glaringly wrong ones you make.

oops. I didn't realize you could see my posts once I was ignored. Does ignore just ignore any PMs you would get from me?

But, maybe now you could answer.

Why, if they both require the movement rules (as you yourself said and even used as an example), do the assault rules tell you to follow movement rules, and deepstrike rules don't?

No, I was just simply ignoring your further arguments - not actually putting you on "ignore". That takes much greater levels of snarkiness.

Redundant qualifications in one rule does not mean that a lack of the same redundant qualifications in another rule means anything. THat is because they are "redundant". Again, I love the way you ignored the Lash example - is that because it is another example of a lack of redundancy (reiterating that you need to follow the mnovement rules when making a "move") that would undermine your argument? Or that, preFAQ, TWM for SW Lords were T4(5) because that is what the ID rules state, despite them not reminding you of this a la Bikes?

In other words: you STILL need to show permission to ignore rules, and you have STILL failed to do so.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Addenda: please show permission to ignore the movement phase rules - this is a permissive ruleset and all.