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.

So I know that this has come up before in response to questions on various rules, but I can't find a thread that covers the issue as a whole. The book doesn't address it directly and everyone in my group is running armies/units that are affected by it and we are trying to make a ruling on how we want to play it, so I'm trying to get some outside opinions on how others see it working.

- Does Deployment = Movement and follow the same restrictions?

- Does Deployment from reserves (via walking on the table, deepstriking, outflanking, etc) = Deployment and thus follow the same rules and restrictions?

Deployment does not follow the same rules as movement, if you deploy in dangerous terrain you do not need to make a test and you can place units in places they cannot normally go. However, this only applies to actual deployment, pre-game moves like Scouting still require associated terrain tests.

Coming in from reserves is not the same as deployment, although some units may use special rules that would apply during deployment (for example, combat squadding out of a drop pod).

Edit: This is a REALLY broad question, I am sure there are some exceptions in the rule set that I may have missed.

Yeah, I know it's a pretty broad question, but I'm going under the assumption that unit/codex special rules will generally override the BRB. Some of the codex rules are a bit sticky, but we need a starting point to begin ruling on those.

EDIT: As a side note to the dangerous terrain point you brought up, would jump infantry, jet bikes, and skimmers be able to deploy in impassable terrain without having to make a dangerous terrain test as well?

No, because the rules state you may not deploy in impassable terrain* - you may be able to move there witha special rule, however NOTHING indicates that deployment, the bit that happens before the game starts, ever has any movement associated. And because it isnt movement, a rule allowing you to finsih a move on impassable terrain does not apply.

So no, deployment, the bit before the game starts, has NO movement resitrctions as it is not Movement. Yes, you can deploy basilisks at the top of buildings, and No, people cannot stop you from doing that (from a rules stand point anyway...)

*could be wrong, dont have rulebook on me right now

nosferatu1001 wrote:No, because the rules state you may not deploy in impassable terrain* - you may be able to move there witha special rule, however NOTHING indicates that deployment, the bit that happens before the game starts, ever has any movement associated. And because it isnt movement, a rule allowing you to finsih a move on impassable terrain does not apply.

So no, deployment, the bit before the game starts, has NO movement resitrctions as it is not Movement. Yes, you can deploy basilisks at the top of buildings, and No, people cannot stop you from doing that (from a rules stand point anyway...)

*could be wrong, dont have rulebook on me right now

Well, that's the thing...under Deploying Forces (BRB pg 92) there are no "Deployment" rules stating how units can be placed in relation to terrain, only the mission specific rules (spearhead, DoW, etc.). So my guess is to refer to the terrain rules under movement as they are the only rules available. Under Impassable Terrain (BRB pg 14) it says that "Models may not be placed in impassable terrain unless the models concerned have a special rule in thier profile granting them an exception or both players agree to it." Then looking at the rules for the unit types I mentioned it gives the rule that they may end thier movement in impassable terrain.

So I agree that if you follow the RAW under the assumption that deployment is not movement (and I'm not saying you shouldn't make that assumption, I'm still up in the air on the subject..hence the thread ), you would not be able to place those units in impassable terrain. If you go under the assumption that deployment is not movement in regards to terrain, how then do you classify deploying from reserves? Is it movement or is it deployment? All of the methods in the BRB of deploying from reserve that I'm aware of refer to moving in from a table edge or in the case of deepstriking say the unit "may not move any further" which indicates that they consider it movement.

Maelstrom808 wrote:
Well, that's the thing...under Deploying Forces (BRB pg 92) there are no "Deployment" rules stating how units can be placed in relation to terrain, only the mission specific rules (spearhead, DoW, etc.). So my guess is to refer to the terrain rules under movement as they are the only rules available. Under Impassable Terrain (BRB pg 14) it says that "Models may not be placed in impassable terrain unless the models concerned have a special rule in thier profile granting them an exception or both players agree to it." Then looking at the rules for the unit types I mentioned it gives the rule that they may end thier movement in impassable terrain.

So I agree that if you follow the RAW under the assumption that deployment is not movement (and I'm not saying you shouldn't make that assumption, I'm still up in the air on the subject..hence the thread ), you would not be able to place those units in impassable terrain. If you go under the assumption that deployment is not movement in regards to terrain, how then do you classify deploying from reserves? Is it movement or is it deployment? All of the methods in the BRB of deploying from reserve that I'm aware of refer to moving in from a table edge or in the case of deepstriking say the unit "may not move any further" which indicates that they consider it movement.

You cannot deploy a unit in impassable terrain (BRB pg 14 like you said), otherwise the isn't any restriction regarding deployment at the start of the game.

Deploying a unit from reserves is considereed movement and as such is restricted by all the rules that cover moving units.

PhantomViper wrote:Deploying a unit from reserves is considereed movement and as such is restricted by all the rules that cover moving units.

Would you say that deep striking is also included in that?

Maelstrom808 wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:Deploying a unit from reserves is considereed movement and as such is restricted by all the rules that cover moving units.

Would you say that deep striking is also included in that?

Yes, why wouldn't it be?

I've seen it argued that "counts as having moved" is not the same as actually as moving as it pertains to terrain.

Maelstrom808 wrote:I've seen it argued that "counts as having moved" is not the same as actually as moving as it pertains to terrain.

I'm not sure I understand what you are trying to explain here...

If you are talking about the "move" from where you wan't the deepstrikers to enter to the place on the table where they actually end up due to scatter, then that doesn't count as movement and no dificult / dangerous terrain tests need to be taken, etc...

The actual deep strike IS considered movement as is stated in the BrB pg 95.

Basicly the argument was centered around deepstriking skimmers, but the same could be applied for jet bikes and jump packs. If I remember correctly, the two sides were:

- A deep striking skimmer can deepstrike onto impassable terrain without mishaping because the deepstrike is a move. The skimmer rules allow them to end thier move on top of impassable with a dangerous terrain test.

vs.

- The same skimmer will mishap if it lands on impassable terrain because while the deepstrike counts as moving, it is not actually a move, therefore they cannot safely deploy on top of the terrain.

Maelstrom808 wrote:Basicly the argument was centered around deepstriking skimmers, but the same could be applied for jet bikes and jump packs. If I remember correctly, the two sides were:

- A deep striking skimmer can deepstrike onto impassable terrain without mishaping because the deepstrike is a move. The skimmer rules allow them to end thier move on top of impassable with a dangerous terrain test.

vs.

- The same skimmer will mishap if it lands on impassable terrain because while the deepstrike counts as moving, it is not actually a move, therefore they cannot safely deploy on top of the terrain.

Hmm, that really doesn't have anything to do with the problem of deep-striking beeing a movement or not.

The problem with that scenario is if the Skimmer rules override the Deep Strike rules or vice versa. I would say that the skimmer abilitty to ignore impassable terrain wins this one, since the Deep Strike mishaps rule say that the unit mishaps if they land on a point where they can't be deployed, but skimmers can end their movement in impassable terrain, so no mishap, just a dangerous terrain roll...

PhantomViper wrote:
Hmm, that really doesn't have anything to do with the problem of deep-striking beeing a movement or not.

The problem with that scenario is if the Skimmer rules override the Deep Strike rules or vice versa. I would say that the skimmer abilitty to ignore impassable terrain wins this one, since the Deep Strike mishaps rule say that the unit mishaps if they land on a point where they can't be deployed, but skimmers can end their movement in impassable terrain, so no mishap, just a dangerous terrain roll...

That's pretty much how I read it all, but I wasn't sure if there was an overwhelming opposition to this, because I can see it both ways.

Coming on from reserves requires you to move - otherwise you have not moved on.

Whether you do this via deepstrike or not is irrelevant, you have always moved in order to arrive, even via deepstrike.

Nos has it exactly right, if you move onto the table via either walking/ driving on or deep striking you have moved onto the table.

As for deep striking in particular, dont get too stuck on the one part of the rule that says it obviously counts as moving for the shoting phase. There is also a line that says that the unit may not move any further. And there is also a line that says the unit are too disrupted from their deep strike move.

So there are three separate points in the DS rules that DS is referred to as a move or movement.


Sliggoth

That works for me, thanks

I notice that there hasn't been any discussion about whether the initial placement of deep striking is actually placement or not. And that's going to matter for things like deep striking Monoliths, spore mines, and Mawlocs.

Well, to be fair, that simply has been discussed to death from what I've seen and it's an argument that just goes round and round.

I guess I'm just curious why there would need to be a "ruling on whether deployment is movement" without examining particular instances where such a ruling would matter. And if one were to say "Clearly, deploying by deep striking is movement" then someone else could conclude "Then clearly a spore mine cannot deep strike on an enemy unit, since it can't move onto the enemy model," and that my not be a good conclusion to reach.

Well, I think that you have to dertermine if deploying from reserves is movement in regard to terrain before you can tackle the question of whether or not those units can specificly target another unit. The next issues to resolve is what part of the deepstrike move is considered movement and therefor has to follow the limitations of movement - the placement before scattering, the position after the scattering, or both. I personally think it's both since there are no other rules that tell you to do otherwise that I can think of right now (I don't have my rulebook with me atm).

The thing is that no individual part of deep striking has to be movement in order for whatever arrived to have moved (or counted as moving).

As an example, if the scattering associated with deep strike is movement, then the rules for not moving within 1" of an enemy model or into impassible terrain should apply, right? And if those movement rules apply, then it's actually impossible to scatter into impassible terrain or within 1" of an enemy model.

The only safe thing to say about deep striking or reserves is that once the unit arriving has arrived, it has for all intents and purposes moved. And, really, at the moment I wouldn't want to swear to that.

And if those movement rules apply, then it's actually impossible to scatter into impassible terrain or within 1" of an enemy model.

Well as I see it, no because the scattering and mishap rules overlay/replace parts of the normal movement rules. They basicly tell you that in deepstriking you are allowed to move within 1" of enemy models or on to impassible terrain (in fact you HAVE to if the scatter dice puts you there) however once you do, you have to roll for mishap....but again, that's just how I read it.

And there you have a portion of the deep striking rules which looks like movement but that isn't subject to any of the movement rules because it has replaced them. More importantly, now that that portion of the deep striking rules has been established as not subject to the movement rules, it must follow that the rest of the deep striking rules may also not be subject to the movement rules.

So, why is that you want to establish whether or not deep striking is movement?

If you take it as an all or nothing affair, I can see where you would draw that conclusion, but what's stopping you from then applying that same method to other things. The movement rules state that you can't enter impassable terrain at all, however jump infantry rules say that they can. Since this replaces a portion of the movement rules, do you then say that jump infantry movement is not actually movement?

Do the jump infantry rules contain such a detailed set of steps that a person could reasonably read them as completely replacing the normal movement rules?

In contrast, the deep striking rules do present a thorough and methodical list of steps, and by your own admission at least one of those steps doesn't work without the assumption that the movement rules are being overridden. There's even a deep strike mishap mechanism which only triggers in those cases that the normal movement rules would have prevented. So where are the movement rules supposed to fit in, given the presence of rules which appear to be more specific and cover the entire process?

Also, keep in mind that the precedent from GW is that deep striking models can be deliberately placed such that they will land on enemy models if they don't scatter. Do you really want to claim "The Spore Mine can't hit"?

Do you really want to claim "The Spore Mine can't hit"?

Well, what I want, and how the rules read to me aren't necessarily the same thing.

There's even a deep strike mishap mechanism which only triggers in those cases that the normal movement rules would have prevented. So where are the movement rules supposed to fit in, given the presence of rules which appear to be more specific and cover the entire process?

The problem here is that the mishap mechanics don't completely override the movement rules. It says you mishap IF you can't deploy due to terrain/models. You still have to refer to the movement rules themselves to determine if you have the ability to deploy as there is nothing in the mishap rules that specificly prohibits you from doing so in any situation..

You misunderstand my previous point. It's a known fact that the 4th edition Tyranid spore mines could indeed deep strike directly onto an enemy unit. If you want to claim that spore mines can't do that, you've reached a conclusion which is counter to the known facts, and that would imply that your understanding of the rules is incorrect.

It would be a bit like deciding that since arriving from reserves is movement (and subject to the movement rules), and since the edge of the board is impassible terrain (since you can't deploy models there or voluntarily move there), that models can't actually arrive from reserves because that would involve either being placed in impassible terrain or moving through impassible terrain to get to the table. It's just not terribly useful to conclude that it's not possible to arrive from reserve (especially since so many published documents show that units do arrive from reserves), so conclusions leading in that direction aren't terribly useful.

Of course, if you're convinced that the spore mine shouldn't be able to deep strike directly on an enemy unit, and you want to convince your group to rule that all deployment is movement, that's just the way it is. You'll just have to contend with the fact that at least one person on the Internet thinks you're wrong to do it.

If you go under the assumption that deployment is not movement in regards to terrain, how then do you classify deploying from reserves? Is it movement or is it deployment?

This seems to be the crux of your problem. Deploying is not movement but movement is movement. So deploying from reserves and deepstriking (and out flanking) are all both deploying and moving. Just like being fat is not the same as being tall it is still possible to be tall and fat.

Deepstriking is movement because the rules refer to it as such. The "counts as movement" phrase people calling to to try to prove it isn't is part of a larger sentence where is says it "obviously counts as movement" which implies it is movement as the obviously reiterates that it is indeed movement (though not in the traditional sense). The rules also refer to not be able to move further and flatout go on the refer to the deep strike move...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

In contrast, the deep striking rules do present a thorough and methodical list of steps, and by your own admission at least one of those steps doesn't work without the assumption that the movement rules are being overridden. There's even a deep strike mishap mechanism which only triggers in those cases that the normal movement rules would have prevented. So where are the movement rules supposed to fit in, given the presence of rules which appear to be more specific and cover the entire process?

Even reading the rules this way does not preclude the possibility of a deepstrike mishap, whilst the first model can't get to a point where it would deepstrike if it is part of a larger unit then they could cause a mishap.

Do you really want to claim "The Spore Mine can't hit"?

Given that the only time spore mines deep strike is before deployment I'm wondering how on earth they possibly would hit when deepstriking? How are you hitting your enemies models before he's deployed?