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.

Can somebody please, please, tell me one ruling that they made which wasn't already accepted by the majority of gamers?

Games Workshop publishes incomplete rules, therefore any and all interpretations of those rules could be accused of "house rules". So, if you don't like it, don't go!

I am so tired of the power gamers, who essentially brow beat their opponents with rules interpretations, that may or may not be accurate, in ways that benifit them.

So how does Adepticon deal with this, they release their own FAQ, and they do it months ahead of time. If you really think you are the better player, show up and prove it, or stay home. I don't agree with all their rules interpretaions, but I will be there, will you?

Posted By Mahu on 09/26/2006 10:38 AM
Can somebody please, please, tell me one ruling that they made which wasn't already accepted by the majority of gamers?

Games Workshop publishes incomplete rules, therefore any and all interpretations of those rules could be accused of "house rules". So, if you don't like it, don't go!

I am so tired of the power gamers, who essentially brow beat their opponents with rules interpretations, that may or may not be accurate, in ways that benifit them.

So how does Adepticon deal with this, they release their own FAQ, and they do it months ahead of time. If you really think you are the better player, show up and prove it, or stay home. I don't agree with all their rules interpretaions, but I will be there, will you?

I don't know anyone that's ever told someone that a deepstriking model that scatters into friendly troops is dead. I don't doubt they do that out there, but we don't do it here. That's a major rules change.

And no, I won't be there. But that's because I'm done with 40K all together, not this FAQ.

Posted By mauleed on 09/26/2006 11:22 AM

Posted By Mahu on 09/26/2006 10:38 AM
Can somebody please, please, tell me one ruling that they made which wasn't already accepted by the majority of gamers?

Games Workshop publishes incomplete rules, therefore any and all interpretations of those rules could be accused of "house rules". So, if you don't like it, don't go!

I am so tired of the power gamers, who essentially brow beat their opponents with rules interpretations, that may or may not be accurate, in ways that benifit them.

So how does Adepticon deal with this, they release their own FAQ, and they do it months ahead of time. If you really think you are the better player, show up and prove it, or stay home. I don't agree with all their rules interpretaions, but I will be there, will you?

I don't know anyone that's ever told someone that a deepstriking model that scatters into friendly troops is dead. I don't doubt they do that out there, but we don't do it here. That's a major rules change.

And no, I won't be there. But that's because I'm done with 40K all together, not this FAQ.

This Dakka Thread here shows that the majority of players disagree with your local gaming group, so calling it a "major rules change" is inaccurated. It is doubly inacurate when you go into the little fact that there are no rules actually addressing this issue. Besides, you have said yourself on many occasions that if there are two possible outcomes to an ambigous rule, you always take the less advantageous interpretation.

http://dakkadakka.com/Forums/tabid/56/forumid/15/postid/105984/view/topic/Default.aspx

But needless to say, I am sorry you won't be able to attend, as many people are interested to see you face off against many of the other "top tiered" players in the country. I respect you for being forward with your reasons not to attend.

But back to my original point, if you don't like it don't attend. Nobody ever said these are "official" rulings. I do find it sad, that they are the only ones to actually address these issues. I know, my local gaming group will probably abide by them and I hope that other areas make the change as well.

Concensus doesn't equate to correctness. Alot of people thought the world was flat, but that didn't make it so.

The rules aren't ambiguous on the point at all: if you deepstrike on to your own models they get stacked up. I know no one that wants to stack up models, so the practical convention is that you place them as close as possible.

But the rules definitely do not support declaring the models dead. If you guys want to change the rules to make them dead, knock your socks off. But trying to pass that off as anything but a change to the rules wouldn't be genuine.

But really, I don't care anymore. Now if you want to talk about declaring charges against units you can't possibly reach, let me know.

Mind arguing that one in a Premise-Conclusion format? As far as I can tell, there's nothing in the DS rules that supercede the "you can't place models on top of each other" rules.

At best, its a case of "the rules don't say exactly what to do." So we went with the whole "break no rule" thing...

Posted By Centurian99 on 09/26/2006 3:08 PM

The rules aren't ambiguous on the point at all: if you deepstrike on to your own models they get stacked up.

Mind arguing that one in a Premise-Conclusion format? As far as I can tell, there's nothing in the DS rules that supercede the "you can't place models on top of each other" rules.

At best, its a case of "the rules don't say exactly what to do." So we went with the whole "break no rule" thing...

Before I do that, find me a rule that says you can't place models on top of each other. I see one that says you can't move your models on top of each other, but nothing about them getting there some other way.

And I definitely don't see anything about them treating friendly models as impassible terrain or enemy models, the only things defined to kill the deepstrikers.

But why am I arguing this? I said it all before, when this was first posted, and obviously it fell on deaf ears. And I don't even play 40k anymore.

Ed...are you seriously going to argue that deep striking isn't movement?

P1: Deep strikers start in reserve.
P2: When they become available, reserves move onto the table as per the reserves section of the mission description or the deep strike rules.
C: Deep strikers move onto the table.

Posted By Centurian99 on 09/26/2006 7:10 PM
Ed...are you seriously going to argue that deep striking isn't movement?

P1: Deep strikers start in reserve.
P2: When they become available, reserves move onto the table as per the reserves section of the mission description or the deep strike rules.
C: Deep strikers move onto the table.

P3: Deep striking models have a special rule that says they deploy onto the board.

Page 84 "Roll for the arrival of these units in the reserves rules then deploy them as follows."

C: Deep strikers do not move onto the table.

So no, they don't move onto the table. They have a special rule that says they deploy onto the table. If I've missed a rule that says you can't deploy models on top of each other, let me know.

Maybe I missing something but to me deep strike is a special type of movement. I suppose you can argue all movement is special in its own way. The bit about stacking models on top of each other is a bit disturbed.

Bloater, Bill and I are trying to have a rules discussion. If you've got a reference to a rule to interject, fantastic. But your opinion, unless based on a rule I've missed, provides no value to Bill's argument.

Why don't you play 40K any more Ed?

BYE

Posted By Mahu on 09/26/2006 10:38 AM
So how does Adepticon deal with this, they release their own FAQ, and they do it months ahead of time. If you really think you are the better player, show up and prove it, or stay home. I don't agree with all their rules interpretaions, but I will be there, will you?

The only difference between the Adepticon FAQ and a FAQ that Games Workshop can put out is that Games Workshop has the ability to stamp a "Chapter Approved" or some other silly "official" moniker on it.

And that moniker doesn't make Games Workshop any less arbitrary (or for that matter correct or incorrect) than Adepticon's effort.  The only advantage Games Workshop brings to the table is that their FAQ would be considered to be a rule, versus Adepticon's being viewed as a house rule on a larger scale.

But again, that "official" designation doesn't make the GW FAQ well thought out or well written. 

mauleed - Would you stack models on top of each other in a game to keep them from being destroyed? Answer that and I will give a sound answer based on the written rules.

<sarcasm on=""></sarcasm>

Yep, Bill ... it's commonly accepted as proper form to stack an entire squad during deployment on one 20mm base? I see that all the time.... :thumbs up:

I'm going to stack my 3 Predators here in the woods one on top of another .. does my top tank count as size 9? and I'm taking concealment for my three tanks from this one stand of woods ...plus

as a follow up I'll deploy my 10 man squad on this 20mm base. I've installed steel plates in each of the models helmets with rare earth magents in bases so they will stack up nicely. My heavy weapon guy will be on top naturally to take advantage of LOS.

Ed are you serious?? .. that you can deploy models on top of one another? Or are you just following through with some ill thought out comment of yours and being stubborn again?

The only way I allow the above in a game is if they had them modeled up as circus performers with the base guy done up as a strongman. I would then Mind War the strongman and insist the rest of the squad was entangled rolling for wounds as per getting blown out of a transport. Then and only then I might allow it.

Ok or if it is Jen or Kari. Then I allow about anything ..

<sarcasm off=""></sarcasm>

Posted By muwhe on 09/27/2006 6:58 AM
<sarcasm on=""></sarcasm>

Ok or if it is Jen or Kari. Then I allow about anything ..

<sarcasm off=""></sarcasm>

Once again demonstrating its not who you know, or what you know, but how much cleaveage you have.

 

The whole idea of "show me in the book where it doesn't allow you to do something" is quite possibly the most abusive interpretation I have read.  With that I think I will place my Rhinos with their bottoms facing the enemy.  Nothing in the rules says you can't.  The bottom has no armor value and therefore can't be penetrated, thus making them invulnerable.  Hell, all my vehicles will deploy that way.  That way they can't be destroyed before I can use them 1st turn.

The very fact that there is an arguement about this rule proves my point.

I don't think anybody can prove logically that this isn't an ambigous rule.

My original post was essentially "if you make a ruling on an ambigous rule, than that is not a "major rules change" as the rules where never clear to begin with".

If there was ever any "major rules change" it would be with their ruling towards the range of Rapid Fire weapons.

But again back to my point, you are being told what is being judged on beforehand, and you can adjust your tactics accordingly. This will only double my respect for next years winners because they will enter a fair competitve match and would have come out on top. That is a greater acomplishment than going undefeated and your list contains Doomfists and first turn Deamon Icons.

Posted By mauleed on 09/27/2006 4:32 AM

Posted By Centurian99 on 09/26/2006 7:10 PM
Ed...are you seriously going to argue that deep striking isn't movement?

P1: Deep strikers start in reserve.
P2: When they become available, reserves move onto the table as per the reserves section of the mission description or the deep strike rules.
C: Deep strikers move onto the table.

P3: Deep striking models have a special rule that says they deploy onto the board.

Page 84 "Roll for the arrival of these units in the reserves rules then deploy them as follows."

C: Deep strikers do not move onto the table.

So no, they don't move onto the table. They have a special rule that says they deploy onto the table. If I've missed a rule that says you can't deploy models on top of each other, let me know.

So I can deploy models on top of each other at the beginning of the game too since that is deployment? I'm stacking those heavy weapons teams on my Leman Russes so they can't be charged!

This has to be the most absurd thing I have seen you post ever as a justification for playing how you want to.

This isn't a case of the rules not telling me I can't.

The deepstrike rules tell me to stack the models, or rather they say to move the model the amount scattered and place around it. The only way to follow that rule when you run into your own troops is to stack them.

Whether or not you can stack models in pre-game deployment isn't relevant, even if you find it amusing to whine about what effect that might have (that's called a slippery slope fallacy for those who care to look it up).

But please, leave the rules arguments to Bill . He won't waste our time yapping about baselessly on how it should be or some girl's breast size or any other non-sense unrelated to this issue we're talking about. He'll just find a rule or logical argument that refutes me or won't. You guys are doing nothing for your claims but providing volume.

Well I figured deep striking is a movement action as it is done in the movement phase. Plus according to the FAQ for marines a deepstriking landspeeder is considered to have moved more than 12".


Now I can see deepstriking onto friendly forces can kill youbecause you cannot simply pile on units ontop of others because WYSISWYG wise and playability wise its impossible unless the said unit is a skimmer.

Posted By thehod on 09/27/2006 12:07 PM
Well I figured deep striking is a movement action as it is done in the movement phase. Plus according to the FAQ for marines a deepstriking landspeeder is considered to have moved more than 12".


Now I can see deepstriking onto friendly forces can kill youbecause you cannot simply pile on units ontop of others because WYSISWYG wise and playability wise its impossible unless the said unit is a skimmer.

You figured wrong.

Sorry, but if you aren't quoting a rule that supports something you're claiming or figuring, you're wasting your time.

mauleed - you should model your terminator with big flat top heads so it will be easier to stack them.

Hey Ed, then why does it say Deepstrike counts as movement for the purposes of shooting then? Sounds like movement to me.

Capt K

Isn 't there also a place in the rules that state that models can't occupy the same area or some such thing? I am at work and don't have the book handy. Either way, if you are basing your decision not to attend because of this...meh...so be it. We'll all get along fine in your absence.

Capt K

Come on mauleed - you always have an answer.

I'll answer when one of you bothers to quote a rule. "My dog ate the rulebook" isn't going to cut it.

Posted By Mahu on 09/27/2006 9:45 AM

This will only double my respect for next years winners because they will enter a fair competitve match and would have come out on top. That is a greater acomplishment than going undefeated and your list contains Doomfists and first turn Deamon Icons.

Heck, there wasn't anything to argue about when Saim-Heinous brought our eldar and won.  We shoot and you make your cover or armor saves if you even get them.  No one could really argue with that. 

Posted By mauleed on 09/27/2006 10:20 AM

This isn't a case of the rules not telling me I can't.

The deepstrike rules tell me to stack the models, or rather they say to move the model the amount scattered and place around it. The only way to follow that rule when you run into your own troops is to stack them.

Whether or not you can stack models in pre-game deployment isn't relevant, even if you find it amusing to whine about what effect that might have (that's called a slippery slope fallacy for those who care to look it up).

But please, leave the rules arguments to Bill . He won't waste our time yapping about baselessly on how it should be or some girl's breast size or any other non-sense unrelated to this issue we're talking about. He'll just find a rule or logical argument that refutes me or won't. You guys are doing nothing for your claims but providing volume.

Funny how your description says that the rules say to 'move' the model.

One thing the rules don't say, however, is to move the model vertically.  The scatter die does not point up at an angle.  So unless you can place the model in the same place as another model without moving vertically, you can't actually place the model, so you resort to the rules don't say I can move the model vertiacally as part of deepstrike also.

Just admit your wrong Mauleed and be done with it.  I know you have trouble with that, but be a real man.

"be a man"? Do you have any idea how ridiculous that sounds when you say it VIA THE INTERNET.

Anyway, this is obviously a waste of time until Bill responds. Bill, email me if you'd like to debate further.

If mauleed doesn't play 40k anymore then why is he still debating 40k rules? If he doesn't care then why is he still here posting?

Either you do still intend to play or we can look forward to a reduction in the level of rancorous and bloviating 40k rules arguments.

Mauleed:

If you subscribe to the idea that models can stack via deepstrike, I am curious on how you move out of that formation. Page 15: "a model may not move into/through the space occupied by a friendly model or through the gap between friendly models smaller than its own bases."

Every method I look at in moving a unit that would be "stacked" would have to move through a space occupied by a friendly model.

So does the unit just deepstrike in, stack up, and then sit there until it takes wounds enough to not have any stacked up models?