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.

Actually if it teleported in, it really did just materialise there.

But the model never actually gets deployed at the spot if it cant deploy its whole unit. Were talking about deployement here. Deployement has its own specific rules. Deployement doesnt need to roll to hit nor does it need to worry about morale or unit coherency. Its got a very clear set of instruction that really doesnt have any problem with (besides a monolith - but that its a unique one-of-a-kind vehicle) carrying out in any circumstance.

Using the wording "place" I would be quite happy for a player to place (and hold, not letting go) a model over a spot, while rolling a scatter die, to see what happens if the model could not balance on its own/had another model in the way.

You can rules-lawyer asss muuch as you like. It is very obvious thats exactly what your doing. Its really not a strong position to laywer from neways (read the above). Your arguement is based, at the moment, entirely around the word "move" and your using it as an exact definition (the model is infact "moving" when it is on the board, as the planet is spinning/orbiting/drifting through the cosmos - no differeance between that & the logic youve used) rather than using it in the proper gaming context as this discussion is really about 40k.

But, if you insist - then fine. I have made my points and will not respond to help stop me repeating myself!

So now you're trying to use fluff to justify your position? It doesn't matter if the model doesn't get deployed there or not. You're still moving the model within 1" of the enemy. The rules don't make an allowance for moving within 1" of an enemy model if you don't end your move there. You can't voluntarily move within 1" of an enemy model at any time if you're not assaulting. Only the scatter allows you to move within 1" by specifically telling you what happens if you do end up within 1" of an enemy model. The intial placement has no such exception. Hence the rule remains in play.

I agree with the responders about messing with the other player's figures. They are works of art.(not all) Smart people would place a marker then move the figures.
The GW grapevine said, only a small % of players attend Turnaments. Most of the games are friendly,"spirit of the game". (Yea, right guys,gw)This was relayed from a turny player from GW. I think it is a rule lawyer issue. Maybe treat it like tank shock, with a chance to get out of the way. Then there is the side that says "I am ramming, with my Deepstrike vehicles" It seems to me some gamers want to squeese any free attacks as possiable.

Ok. Last time.

No im not, it was merely an offhand comment. That should be obvious. It was all on its own. It didnt relate to anything else in the post. Like this sentence.

Your not moving anything. Your placing. Its deployement, not moving. Why are you looking/quoting from page 11 of the BGB when it is not a movement issue? Because you are rules laywering and your rules-lawyers stance requires the word "move" to be integral to your arguement. Thats what I can work out anyways.

The intial placement & the resulting possible scatter are all contained within their own little bubble of deployement. All the instructions are on that page. (p95 bgb)

And again, you've not proven that 'placing' is not 'moving'. It is. The rules don't have a distinction that 'placing' is not 'moving', yet you're trying to claim that they do. Provide an actual rules quote that says so. If the model was not there and then suddenly is, then it was moved there from where it was.

'Placement' requires you to move the model. It is moving.

Razerous wrote:"...Your not moving anything. Your placing. Its deployment, not moving. Why are you looking/quoting from page 11 of the BGB when it is not a movement issue?.."

The deployment part happened when you first put the unit in Reserves ( you deployed them in Reserves ). The Deep Strike issue happens in the Movement phase - as such DS units count as moving; there's even a specific rule that states how far a vehicle counts as moving during deep strike.

So this also makes Spore Mines useless.... by your interpretation.

So, then how about providing an actual rule that supports your 'interpretation'.

toxic_wisdom wrote:

Razerous wrote:"...Your not moving anything. Your placing. Its deployment, not moving. Why are you looking/quoting from page 11 of the BGB when it is not a movement issue?.."

The deployment part happened when you first put the unit in Reserves ( you deployed them in Reserves ). The Deep Strike issue happens in the Movement phase - as such DS units count as moving; there's even a specific rule that states how far a vehicle counts as moving during deep strike.

Actually kids, entering play is deployement.

Ghaz wrote:And again, you've not proven that 'placing' is not 'moving'. It is. The rules don't have a distinction that 'placing' is not 'moving', yet you're trying to claim that they do. Provide an actual rules quote that says so. If the model was not there and then suddenly is, then it was moved there from where it was.

'Placement' requires you to move the model. It is moving.

What rules? Ive already told you where to look with page referances. Ive also told you to stop looking at another page as it is irrelevant.

Im pretty sure the phrase (p95) "..in the position you would like the unit to arrive.." ,emphasise mine, is a fairly decent reason to say that this placement acts as a place marker. Your not deploying your troops until after the scatter dice have stopped rolling. Then you do what the die & page 95 tells you, refering to the right-hand-side of the page if you cant deploy your troops.

Can you see how im using the word deploy. Can you also note how im trying to mirror the wording used in the pages reguarding deep-striking. If you mention the word "move" one more time without backing it up (yes I know it comes from p.11) then please do not reply.

Sorry. (I got weak. was too easy)

And yet again, you've moved the model:

move
–verb (used with object)

12. to change from one place or position to another.

You can't move a model wiothin 1" of an enemy model if you're not charging that model. Placing your model is indeed 'changing it's location'. Your 'references' don't change that, period.

Ghaz wrote:And yet again, you've moved the model:

move
–verb (used with object)

12. to change from one place or position to another.

You can't move a model wiothin 1" of an enemy model if you're not charging that model. Placing your model is indeed 'changing it's location'. Your 'references' don't change that, period.

Razerous wrote:Using the wording "place" I would be quite happy for a player to place (and hold, not letting go) a model over a spot, while rolling a scatter die, to see what happens if the model could not balance on its own/had another model in the way.

If I may attempt a slightly different tactic than trying to batter people with a dictionary theres another factor or two that is worth noting.

Deep strike asks the that models be placed on the table, to which holding a vehicle above another model would mean its not on the table; it would be above it. With the exception of 'wobbly model syndrome' its pretty clear that you're required to produce some contact between the model's base and terra firma at this point. Basically place the model, and when you're done you take your hand off it and roll some scatter... if you don't take your hand off the model you aren't placing it, you're holding it and thats different.

Secondly, I agree that deep strike isn't actually moving (it is deployment as you say), but that doesn't give you permission to be within 1" of an enemy. A good example would be units deploying from a vehicle which similarly isn't described as moving either. However this is happening in the movement phase and as such is bound by the prevention from touching enemy models during the movement and shooting phases (a distance enlarged to 1" for the sake of clarity).

In short while its the not the assault phase you're not allowed within 1" of an enemy for any reason.

Hymirl wrote:

Razerous wrote:Using the wording "place" I would be quite happy for a player to place (and hold, not letting go) a model over a spot, while rolling a scatter die, to see what happens if the model could not balance on its own/had another model in the way.

If I may attempt a slightly different tactic than trying to batter people with a dictionary theres another factor or two that is worth noting.

Deep strike asks the that models be placed on the table, to which holding a vehicle above another model would mean its not on the table; it would be above it. With the exception of 'wobbly model syndrome' its pretty clear that you're required to produce some contact between the model's base and terra firma at this point. Basically place the model, and when you're done you take your hand off it and roll some scatter... if you don't take your hand off the model you aren't placing it, you're holding it and thats different.

Secondly, I agree that deep strike isn't actually moving (it is deployment as you say), but that doesn't give you permission to be within 1" of an enemy. A good example would be units deploying from a vehicle which similarly isn't described as moving either. However this is happening in the movement phase and as such is bound by the prevention from touching enemy models during the movement and shooting phases (a distance enlarged to 1" for the sake of clarity).

In short while its the not the assault phase you're not allowed within 1" of an enemy for any reason.

Its all about wobbly=model-sydrone, when I mentioned placing a unit above another. It is still being placed on the table but it cant actually stay there without assistence.

There isnt any differeance between a lumpy hill, a jagged impassable spire or another model. The consequences of such actions are all dealt with.

Please stop refering to P11 of the BGB. The model is never moved to within 1" of an enemy model. It may be within 1" of an enemy model but that causes the rules included in the deep-strike section (p95) to kick off causing that attempted deep-strike to fail resulting in a roll on the mishap table.

There-fore that model you placed never actually managed to deep-strike at all. It never existed there. Until you sucseed in deploying the ENTIRE unit, nothing is actually deployed/moved/there in game terms. You need to follow the ENTIRE SET OF RULES in thier fullness (read the entire set of rules, play by them & not just read 1/2 and play by 1/2) to carry out a deep-strike properly.

Disembarking from a transport (not taking into concideration drop pods, which have thier own allowances) has specific instructions (just like deep-striking) reguarding what you do. Its a rulebook. It has rules, you follow the rules. You follow, ill be more specific, the relevant rules.

P11 does not apply until the unit has sucessfully deployed.

Can scouts infiltrate to be in base contact? They are being placed on the table as deployment.

If the answer is yes, then the drop podding player is allowed to try and drop the pod in base to base with an enemy model, and in the special case of drop podding can deal with the mishap table. Of course this would lead to issues of how far the targeted models are allowed to move in order to not be under the pod.

If the scouts are NOT allowed to deploy in base to base using infiltrate then I would say a deploying drop pod should not be allowed to make the same attempt.

toxic_wisdom wrote:Should be the nail in the coffin of this subject...

Models In The Way ( Page 11 ) ...a model cannot move so that it touches an enemy model during the Movement or Shooting phases... Hhmmm - the models are clearly touching if they are stacked on top of each other, and Deep Strike happens in the Movement phase ( toxic wisdom takes out hammer and swings )...

Agreed. That clinches it. If the models are touching then it's illegal.

A model can not go from "not touching" to "touching" without moving - usually via a player picking it up and moving to a new location.

Thanks, toxic!

Razerous wrote:[Its all about wobbly=model-sydrone, when I mentioned placing a unit above another. It is still being placed on the table but it cant actually stay there without assistence.

There isnt any differeance between a lumpy hill, a jagged impassable spire or another model. The consequences of such actions are all dealt with.

This is very amusing, for someone who decided to have a rant about people reading entire rules instead of picking bits out of context it would have been a good idea for you to practice what you preach. If you buy a rulebook, open it, and take a look at page 13 you'll be able to see 'wobbly model syndrome' for yourself, and you would know that it only applies to TERRAIN.

Other models aren't terrain, they're other models. Notice the difference? Good, now you understand why you can't use that rule.

Please stop refering to P11 of the BGB. The model is never moved to within 1" of an enemy model. It may be within 1" of an enemy model but that causes the rules included in the deep-strike section (p95) to kick off causing that attempted deep-strike to fail resulting in a roll on the mishap table.

Please stop asking people to stop mentioning all the rules that prove you are wrong? Gee, well if you insist.

Wait... I think I will mention that because the rule preventing models being near enemies applies for the entire shooting phase and pointing it out causes your whole argument to fall down. And Deep strike, which happens in the shooting phase, doesn't give an exception to that rule, 'anywhere on the table' is more than capable of operating within that limitation and so provides no assistance in the matter.

Therefore that model you placed never actually managed to deep-strike at all. It never existed there. Until you sucseed in deploying the ENTIRE unit, nothing is actually deployed/moved/there in game terms. You need to follow the ENTIRE SET OF RULES in thier fullness (read the entire set of rules, play by them & not just read 1/2 and play by 1/2) to carry out a deep-strike properly.

It clearly was there since the rules told you to place it there, the fact that you then get told to move it someplace else doesn't change the fact it was there... and thats the key reason why you're wrong. Deep strike describes the scattering process as a 'move' when the model is moved away from where you intended it to be. Since obviously you can't move within 1" of an enemy model it would be illegal to start your move there, similarly since you move from one position to another by performing the very action is clear that your start position for the move was in fact on the table in an illegal position.

So yes, reading the entire set of rules is a good idea indeed. Maybe you ought to give it a try...

Disembarking from a transport (not taking into concideration drop pods, which have thier own allowances) has specific instructions (just like deep-striking) reguarding what you do. Its a rulebook. It has rules, you follow the rules. You follow, ill be more specific, the relevant rules.

And its a similar example using similar rules that surprise surprise as a similar outcome. Incidentally, since you seem to so enjoy heavy doses of sarcasm when you wrote your reply to me I've been sure to fill this reply with lots of it just for you; I don't mind because I'm much much much better at being sarcastic that you are. Plus of course I'm right. kthxbye.

Hymirl wrote:

Razerous wrote:[Its all about wobbly=model-sydrone, when I mentioned placing a unit above another. It is still being placed on the table but it cant actually stay there without assistence.

There isnt any differeance between a lumpy hill, a jagged impassable spire or another model. The consequences of such actions are all dealt with.

This is very amusing, for someone who decided to have a rant about people reading entire rules instead of picking bits out of context it would have been a good idea for you to practice what you preach. If you buy a rulebook, open it, and take a look at page 13 you'll be able 'wobbly model syndrome' for yourself, and you would know that it only applies to TERRAIN.

Other models aren't terrain, they're other models. Notice the difference? Good, now you understand why you can't use that rule.

Please see pages 13, under the examples of impassible terrain. I believe the sentence is "Remember that models, friend or foe, are considered impassible terrain," but I'm quoting from memory.

Meaning that you can't move across it and therefore still preventing models pretending they are there, although I guess a skimmer could be entitled to do so.

Although since use of 'wobbly model syndrome' is only for models being placed on the table it still doesn't help since you aren't allowed within 1" of enemies.

By that theory, a monolith can land on it's own guys and shove them out the way but a drop pod still has to head for passable ground.

I tried to explain my point.. but people keep using the not-allowed-to-move-within-1" line.

Fair doos.

Razerous wrote:"...Actually kids, entering play is deployement..."

Page 94 - Rolling For Reserves ...one of the units arriving and deploys it, moving it on to the table as described later...

Razerous wrote:I tried to explain my point.. but people keep using the not-allowed-to-move-within-1" line.

Well, if you had any evidence that you could use to show the rule wouldn't apply, then you'd have an answer for that... as opposed to just complaining that people keep using the rule that proves you wrong.

Spore mines do this all the time.

Shrug

Democratus wrote:

toxic_wisdom wrote:Should be the nail in the coffin of this subject...

Models In The Way ( Page 11 ) ...a model cannot move so that it touches an enemy model during the Movement or Shooting phases... Hhmmm - the models are clearly touching if they are stacked on top of each other, and Deep Strike happens in the Movement phase ( toxic wisdom takes out hammer and swings )...

Agreed. That clinches it. If the models are touching then it's illegal.

A model can not go from "not touching" to "touching" without moving - usually via a player picking it up and moving to a new location.

Thanks, toxic!

Just remember, if you're going to play with this interpretation (that the placement of the initial model is indeed movement) then when the initial Deep Strike model scatters, that "move" (as quoted from the Deep Strike rules for scattering) would then need to stop when it comes within 1" of an enemy model.

IMHO, it is important to understand the implications of potential interpretations and apply them uniformly. If you won't allow your opponents to Deep Strike their models directly over enemy units but you then demand that the Deep Strike scatter can indeed move over enemy units then you are most certainly breaking the rules.