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.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Rules quote that a model is impassable terrain

THis was removed in 7th, so you may struggle wit hthis. So dont claim it.

BRB page 18

A model cannot move within 1" of an enemy model unless they are charging into close combat in the Assault phase, and can never move or pivot (see below) through another model (friend or foe) at any time. To move past, they must go around.

BRB page 108

Unless noted otherwise in their special rules, models cannot enter, cross or move into or through impassable terrain - they must go around.

Models are IMPASSABLE as per GW rules in the core rulebook. They are not stated to be "Impassable Terrain" because they are not Terrain, but that does not mean that they can suddenly be moved through, because the rule specifically states that they cannot.

I have actual rules defending my position, which is exponentially better than saying you can do whatever the you want because you haven't found a rule that says you can't.

 Bill1138 wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Rules quote that a model is impassable terrain

THis was removed in 7th, so you may struggle wit hthis. So dont claim it.

BRB page 18

A model cannot move within 1" of an enemy model unless they are charging into close combat in the Assault phase, and can never move or pivot (see below) through another model (friend or foe) at any time. To move past, they must go around.

BRB page 108

Unless noted otherwise in their special rules, models cannot enter, cross or move into or through impassable terrain - they must go around.

Models are IMPASSABLE as per GW rules in the core rulebook. They are not stated to be "Impassable Terrain" because they are not Terrain, but that does not mean that they can suddenly be moved through, because the rule specifically states that they cannot.

I have actual rules defending my position, which is exponentially better than saying you can do whatever the you want because you haven't found a rule that says you can't.

And i agree with the above:

A) per your first quote, you may not move onto or through another model. That is indeed RaW

B) per your second quote, you may not move onto or through impassable Terrain. That is indeed RaW. Some Flyer and skimmer rules overrule this by the way.

But finally:
C) Both of those quotes about movement have got nothing to do with deployment.

The rules for deployment have been quoted:
BrB, no page from Digital ed.

models must either deploy within their deployment zone, (...) may not be deployed in impassable terrain.

I'm sorry i missed the part where you said "without Battlements".
A building "without Battlements" is usually impassable.

The Rule quoted above restricts you from deploying " in impassable terrain".

The top surface of a Rhino is not Impassable Terrain, as it is not Terrain. And we're back to insaniak's example:
-You may stand in the kitchen.
If i stand on the kitchen table, am i standing in the kitchen? I'm sure it's be a very awkward place, but the answer is still a "Yes".

A dreadnought deployed on top of a Rhino is "deployed within their deployment zone" and not "deployed in impassable terrain", so completely legal. Anything that happens next is as awkward as you'll get in 40K as standing on the kitchen table is......

No offense but ur friend sounds like an asshat..... if someone did that to me and said find me a rule thats says you cant do that... i would say find me a rule that says you can do that... then i would totally mess with the person the whole game.. like.. tell them my space marines are having sex with each to produce more space marines.. and proceed to put a squad of SM on the board.. and if he said i cant do that.. tell him to find you where in the rulebook it says you cant.... hahaha

 BlackTalos wrote:
And i agree with the above:

A) per your first quote, you may not move onto or through another model. That is indeed RaW

B) per your second quote, you may not move onto or through impassable Terrain. That is indeed RaW. Some Flyer and skimmer rules overrule this by the way.

But finally:
C) Both of those quotes about movement have got nothing to do with deployment.

The rules for deployment have been quoted:
BrB, no page from Digital ed.

models must either deploy within their deployment zone, (...) may not be deployed in impassable terrain.

I'm sorry i missed the part where you said "without Battlements".
A building "without Battlements" is usually impassable.

The Rule quoted above restricts you from deploying " in impassable terrain".

The top surface of a Rhino is not Impassable Terrain, as it is not Terrain. And we're back to insaniak's example:
-You may stand in the kitchen.
If i stand on the kitchen table, am i standing in the kitchen? I'm sure it's be a very awkward place, but the answer is still a "Yes".

A dreadnought deployed on top of a Rhino is "deployed within their deployment zone" and not "deployed in impassable terrain", so completely legal. Anything that happens next is as awkward as you'll get in 40K as standing on the kitchen table is......

Every rule regarding deployment or movement refers to being in terrain (open or otherwise). There is no exception given for being on something that isn't terrain. (If I am standing on a bus, and that bus is on the road, am I standing on the road? No.) You may say there isn't a rule against deploying on another model, while I say there is no rule allowing you to do so. Even if you assume that through a loophole you can deploy a model on top of another model, then because any movement at all on the part of either model would be movement through the other, neither model would be allowed to move for the rest of the game until one of them was removed as a casualty. All you would be getting would be turning the Rhino into a 35 point upgrade for the Dreadnought that removes its mobility, and gives it a slightly higher position from which to shoot.

There are no rules giving permission to deploy a unit on top of a vehicle, and you have to interpret the rules that exist in their narrowest context to make that loophole to not have rules expressly forbidding it.

The top surface of a Rhino is not Impassable Terrain, as it is not Terrain. And we're back to insaniak's example:
-You may stand in the kitchen.
If i stand on the kitchen table, am i standing in the kitchen? I'm sure it's be a very awkward place, but the answer is still a "Yes".

I said the top surface of a Rhino was impassible, as in, there are no rules allowing you to climb up it, or to be on it. In fact there are rules preventing you from getting on it. It is an Impassable Unit, just like every unit. I never claimed it was Terrain. Please acknowledge this difference.

Terrain isn't everything above the edges of the table, or else if I'm playing a game on the first floor of a building, I could run up to the second floor and deploy models there. If you're standing on a table, then you are not standing on the Floor. The rules regarding deployment assume a 2 dimensional approach to terrain (each level of a multi-level ruin counting as its own 2 dimensional surface). It is not designed as a 3 dimensional approach (models being deployed above terrain instead of on it, like your "in the kitchen" example) If you deploy on a unit that is resting on terrain, then the unit in question is not Deployed in that terrain. It is not deployed within the 2 dimensional framework of the game. It is deployed within another unit.

Would you permit an opponent to deploy 5 Vindicare Assassins upon an Imperial Knight where they can see over the terrain and they can't be assaulted because you can't move through the Imperial Knight to get to them? Would you permit a pair of Vindicare Assassins to be deployed on a Dreadknight's hands? Would you permit an opponent to carefully stack a unit of Terminators, one upon another so that the entire unit takes up the space of a single Terminator?

 Bill1138 wrote:
Every rule regarding deployment or movement refers to being in terrain (open or otherwise).

There are indeed a lot of Rules in the book about movement and Terrain (open or otherwise).
There are almost none about deployment and Terrain (open or otherwise).
The rule-book does not mention anything about deployment being a form of movement.

As such, I would kindly ask that you supply all the rules you are able to find on the permissions and restrictions of deployment (there aren't that many, so it should not be long).
Remeber though, that unless you also find a Rule stating so, any Rules about "movement" or "move" are not what i'm asking for here.

 Bill1138 wrote:
There are no rules giving permission to deploy a unit on top of a vehicle, and you have to interpret the rules that exist in their narrowest context to make that loophole to not have rules expressly forbidding it.

There are no rules giving permission to deploy a unit "in a location" full stop. As such, that permission is indeed very broad.

Allowing deployment "anywhere" is not a narrow context, as there is not much context about deployment in the first place (refer to my question above)

 Bill1138 wrote:
I said the top surface of a Rhino was impassible, as in, there are no rules allowing you to climb up it, or to be on it. In fact there are rules preventing you from getting on it. It is an Impassable Unit, just like every unit. I never claimed it was Terrain. Please acknowledge this difference.

As i would like you to acknowledge the difference between "movement" (underlined above), and the Rules for deployment, not mentioned here.

 Bill1138 wrote:
The rules regarding deployment assume a 2 dimensional approach to terrain (each level of a multi-level ruin counting as its own 2 dimensional surface).

Could you explain where this is in the rules? And how you deploy 3 Marines on 3 different levels of a Ruin (in 2D they are in the exact same place).

The deployment Rules (that are really not that numerous) do not actually mention anything about 2D, 3D, or any permission / restriction past those I have already quoted.

 Bill1138 wrote:
Would you permit an opponent to deploy 5 Vindicare Assassins upon an Imperial Knight where they can see over the terrain and they can't be assaulted because you can't move through the Imperial Knight to get to them? Would you permit a pair of Vindicare Assassins to be deployed on a Dreadknight's hands? Would you permit an opponent to carefully stack a unit of Terminators, one upon another so that the entire unit takes up the space of a single Terminator?

Would you permit an opponent to deploy 5 Vindicare Assassins upon a Bastion where they can see over the terrain and they can't be assaulted because you can't move through the (occupied) Bastion to get to them? Would you permit a pair of Vindicare Assassins to be deployed on ledges of a Ruin? Would you permit an opponent to carefully stack a unit of Terminators, one upon each level of a Ruin so that the entire unit takes up the space of a single Terminator (if viewed from above)?

I'd assume you see a difference between your options and these option? Why? What rules (for deployment) are actually governing this?
All i have is:

Whichever method you use, models must either deploy within their deployment zone, or be held back in Reserve. Models can be deployed ‘inside’ buildings, fortifications, or Transport vehicles in their deployment zone, subject to their Transport Capacity. Units may not be deployed in impassable terrain. Note that models must be deployed fully within their deployment zone: you can’t have part of a model inside the deployment zone and part of the model outside it!

Could you point me to anything in addition to this, about where Units can or cannot deploy? I am intrigued if you do find anything...

Would you permit an opponent to deploy 5 Vindicare Assassins upon a Bastion where they can see over the terrain and they can't be assaulted because you can't move through the (occupied) Bastion to get to them? Would you permit a pair of Vindicare Assassins to be deployed on ledges of a Ruin? Would you permit an opponent to carefully stack a unit of Terminators, one upon each level of a Ruin so that the entire unit takes up the space of a single Terminator (if viewed from above)?

A Bastion is a piece of Terrain. It has specific rules allowing models to be placed on top of it, which is why models may be placed on top of it. A Vehicle is a Unit, NOT Terrain. It does not have any rules allowing a model to be placed on top of it. You've made a false analogy.

Ruins are Terrain. Each level is Terrain. The rules regarding Unit Coherency allow a unit of Terminators to spread out between levels, so long as each is standing directly on the Terrain. That does NOT allow Terminators to stand on eachother's heads in the open like a totem pole. You've made a false analogy.

Before you ask me to give any more quotations, how about you give me one that expressly permits a unit to be placed on top of another unit (apart from the Flier/Skimmer exception for being over another unit). So far all you have is the lack of a direct statement on the subject as your defense.

 Bill1138 wrote:

Would you permit an opponent to deploy 5 Vindicare Assassins upon a Bastion where they can see over the terrain and they can't be assaulted because you can't move through the (occupied) Bastion to get to them? Would you permit a pair of Vindicare Assassins to be deployed on ledges of a Ruin? Would you permit an opponent to carefully stack a unit of Terminators, one upon each level of a Ruin so that the entire unit takes up the space of a single Terminator (if viewed from above)?

A Bastion is a piece of Terrain. It has specific rules allowing models to be placed on top of it, which is why models may be placed on top of it. A Vehicle is a Unit, NOT Terrain. It does not have any rules allowing a model to be placed on top of it. You've made a false analogy.

Ruins are Terrain. Each level is Terrain. The rules regarding Unit Coherency allow a unit of Terminators to spread out between levels, so long as each is standing directly on the Terrain. That does NOT allow Terminators to stand on eachother's heads in the open like a totem pole. You've made a false analogy.

Before you ask me to give any more quotations, how about you give me one that expressly permits a unit to be placed on top of another unit (apart from the Flier/Skimmer exception for being over another unit). So far all you have is the lack of a direct statement on the subject as your defense.

Simply because there is no RaW on the deployment of Units. If the Rulebook said "You can only deploy Units where they can move to" I would completely agree with you.

But they do not, unless you could show me they do. So the question is an easy one that you are aptly dodging by referring to movement ("rules regarding Unit Coherency" = more movement Rules, and what has to be done when you move - "When you are moving a unit,..."):

What Rules exist to define where a model can or cannot be deployed?

 BlackTalos wrote:
Simply because there is no RaW on the deployment of Units. If the Rulebook said "You can only deploy Units where they can move to" I would completely agree with you.

But they do not, unless you could show me they do. So the question is an easy one that you are aptly dodging by referring to movement ("rules regarding Unit Coherency" = more movement Rules, and what has to be done when you move - "When you are moving a unit,..."):

What Rules exist to define where a model can or cannot be deployed?

The absence of evidence is not evidence for the contrary. It's just an absence of evidence. I have given you rules that support my interpretation. You have not given me a single rule that supports yours. All of the rules in the game assume that units will be deployed and will move through terrain (open or otherwise). You are saying they can deploy somewhere that isn't terrain, just because you can't find an exact rule that says you can't. There is no evidence to support your position. If the rulebook had a separate entry for every possible circumstance that might arise, it would be thousands of pages long, so they write rules with logical implications which you are ignoring.

 Bill1138 wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:
Simply because there is no RaW on the deployment of Units. If the Rulebook said "You can only deploy Units where they can move to" I would completely agree with you.

But they do not, unless you could show me they do. So the question is an easy one that you are aptly dodging by referring to movement ("rules regarding Unit Coherency" = more movement Rules, and what has to be done when you move - "When you are moving a unit,..."):

What Rules exist to define where a model can or cannot be deployed?

The absence of evidence is not evidence for the contrary. It's just an absence of evidence. I have given you rules that support my interpretation. You have not given me a single rule that supports yours.

I have, actually. You have given me movement Rules to support a Deployment claim?

I provide deployment rules to support a deployment claim:

 BlackTalos wrote:

My book says:
"models must either deploy within their deployment zone, (...) can be deployed ‘inside’ buildings, fortifications, or Transport (...) may not be deployed in impassable terrain. Note that models must be deployed fully within their deployment zone:"

So, within deployment zone, not in impassable terrain. On top of a Rhino is a permissible "within deployment zone" just as on top of Bastion is.

Deployment Rules: "must be deployed fully within their deployment zone"
Deployment Restrictions: "may not be deployed in impassable terrain"

Do you have a specific definition of what "within their deployment zone" means, in 2D or 3D?
You are still "within" the road when you're on your Bus... If only the deployment Rules were written thus: "must be deployed fully on the ground or terrain in their deployment zone"... life would be a tad simpler.

Loborocket wrote:
How is this even a thing?

If "riding" on models is legal how about I put a Land Raider on top of a rhino, on top of another rhino? They all would stack pretty easy. Move lowest rhino (and the rest of the stack) 12", then move the 2nd rhino (and the landraider on top) 12" more, and then move the land raider 6" more, and finally disembark my terminators in my opponents deployment zone for a turn 1 charge into whatever unit I "aimed" at.

This is exactly what I was referring to when I said you could agree to it as a house rule under TMIR but it would get broken fast.
The flip-side of it would be burning through an entire stack of units with a Melta or something (after all, they're all under the template!).

But yeah, I know the house rule angle is a little bit off-topic but quite frankly it's obviously not legal without it. Maybe it's not made so clear but sometimes you really just need to use some common sense and not try to rules lawyer everything.
Besides, we all know Commander Dante is the only one allowed to ride on top of tanks!

CrashGordon94 wrote:
sometimes you really just need to use some common sense and not try to rules lawyer everything.

That's how I see this subject.

Nothing stops you from deploying on tanks by RaW, but my common sense would have me walk away from an opponent who'd ever try this......

The lawyering came from the fact that the OP was "what Rules can I quote to deny this", and in the YMDC forum, "use common sense" is not even an allowed answer (Tenets)

 BlackTalos wrote:

 Bill1138 wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:
Simply because there is no RaW on the deployment of Units. If the Rulebook said "You can only deploy Units where they can move to" I would completely agree with you.

But they do not, unless you could show me they do. So the question is an easy one that you are aptly dodging by referring to movement ("rules regarding Unit Coherency" = more movement Rules, and what has to be done when you move - "When you are moving a unit,..."):

What Rules exist to define where a model can or cannot be deployed?

The absence of evidence is not evidence for the contrary. It's just an absence of evidence. I have given you rules that support my interpretation. You have not given me a single rule that supports yours.

I have, actually. You have given me movement Rules to support a Deployment claim?

I provide deployment rules to support a deployment claim:

No. I have given Movement Rules to show the writers' intent. They wrote the game to have no means of a unit getting on top of another unit, or of getting off of another unit. They did this by simply ruling that units may not be moved through (exceptions excluded, you know what I'm talking about). That they intended players to not be able to deploy a unit on top of another unit goes without saying.

I also gave deployment rules. I did so to show you that there is no rule giving you expressed permission to deploy a unit on top of another unit.

When you quote Deployment rules, you only point out the lack of an exact reference to deploying on another unit. You are arguing from absence. The lack of evidence against something does not equate to being evidence for it.

 BlackTalos wrote:

My book says:
"models must either deploy within their deployment zone, (...) can be deployed ‘inside’ buildings, fortifications, or Transport (...) may not be deployed in impassable terrain. Note that models must be deployed fully within their deployment zone:"

So, within deployment zone, not in impassable terrain. On top of a Rhino is a permissible "within deployment zone" just as on top of Bastion is.

Deployment Rules: "must be deployed fully within their deployment zone"
Deployment Restrictions: "may not be deployed in impassable terrain"

You left out part of the rules. To deploy within a Deployment Zone, the unit must be entirely within the Deployment Zone, but may also be embarked within a vehicle or building. If units could truly be put anywhere within the Deployment zone outside of impassible terrain, that latter part would not have been necessary.

Deploying on top of a vehicle makes the top of a vehicle a battlement. Vehicles are not terrain and do not have battlements, so you may not deploy on them. You have given no rules supporting the contrary.

Do you have a specific definition of what "within their deployment zone" means, in 2D or 3D?
You are still "within" the road when you're on your Bus... If only the deployment Rules were written thus: "must be deployed fully on the ground or terrain in their deployment zone"... life would be a tad simpler.

CONTEXT! Every rule and picture in the game is designed around the tabletop. Even flying units occupy space on the table and have rules regarding how close they can be to other units. If they rewrote the book to cover every possible situation where someone might ignore context looking for loopholes, the book would be thousands of pages long.

Can you imagine if the Deployment rules were written as:
"When it is time to deploy your army, every model of every unit must be sitting completely on a piece of Terrain, or on open ground entirely with your Deployment zone, with no part of any model extending over the edge of the deployment zone, or over the edge of the table, or overlapping another unit, or slightly sticking out beyond a ledge. The exceptions and only exeptions to these rules are when a unit is deployed embarked within a building, a Fortification, or a vehicle, provided the transport capacity allows, and neither the units nor the vehicles or buildings or fortifications they are embarked upon have any rules preventing the unit from embaring or starting the game embarked upon said vehicle or building or fortification. In so far as a unit may not overlap another unit, this means that no part of the base or the model it self is allowed to occupy the same horizontal coordinates as the other model. Similarly no part of any model may overlap part of a vehicle's hull on the horizontal coordinates. This explicitely means that a unit may not be deployed upon or below a vehicle...."
How tedious would that be to read. And even then, someone would find a way to use some sort of loophole.

Incorrect. I have permission to deploy there. Now show how that permission is removed

It isn't "nothing says I cannot". It is "the rules permit me, now show me where this permission is removed"

Your rules quotes do not help your argument. As you admitte,d you are AT BEST arguing implication. That means gak.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Incorrect. I have permission to deploy there. Now show how that permission is removed

It isn't "nothing says I cannot". It is "the rules permit me, now show me where this permission is removed"

Your rules quotes do not help your argument. As you admitte,d you are AT BEST arguing implication. That means gak.

Rules As Written do NOT reflect the ability to deploy on top of another unit. There are no rules regarding being on another unit (Nothing regarding cover, shooting, etc). You cannot move onto or off of or through another unit. Those are explicit rules. At best the ability to deploy on another vehicle is an unintended loophole, which would render both units in question immobile as any movement by either of them would be movement through the other which is illegal.

 BlackTalos wrote:
The lawyering came from the fact that the OP was "what Rules can I quote to deny this", and in the YMDC forum, "use common sense" is not even an allowed answer (Tenets)

Definitely true and sensible, all this difficulty from trying to discuss this probably came about because GW never planned for stuff like this beyond popping in things like TMIR. They expected people to be sensible about this kind of thing and this ridiculous twittery is something the rules weren't really prepared for.
Not to say that you guys are wrong to discuss this properly with the rules and all, that's actually the right way to do it ("common sense" won't convince someone who HAS none!), just saying that's something to kind in mind, really explains why this discussion of a clear-cut issue is going in circles and getting really convoluted.

But I'll throw my hat in anyway!
If you could deploy or move onto Units, wouldn't that make them Terrain? If so, doesn't that mean ENEMIES could get on them too? That's a pretty clear contradiction with how... Pretty much anything to do with moving stuff near enemies works. Not a complete RAW denial but that shows it's completely incompatible with the other rules, marking it out as utter bunk.

 Bill1138 wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Incorrect. I have permission to deploy there. Now show how that permission is removed

It isn't "nothing says I cannot". It is "the rules permit me, now show me where this permission is removed"

Your rules quotes do not help your argument. As you admitte,d you are AT BEST arguing implication. That means gak.

Rules As Written do NOT reflect the ability to deploy on top of another unit. There are no rules regarding being on another unit (Nothing regarding cover, shooting, etc). You cannot move onto or off of or through another unit. Those are explicit rules. At best the ability to deploy on another vehicle is an unintended loophole, which would render both units in question immobile as any movement by either of them would be movement through the other which is illegal.

Incorrect. Rules as written give a general permission as you CANNOT SHOW that this permission has been removed in this specific case, that general permission remains.

A lack of a rule cannot be an explicit rule. By definition. Try again.

Show that the permission to deploy anywhere in your table half has been removed, by trying to deploy on top of a model. Page and graphs failure to provide this is acceptance that your argument has been refuted and you are solely arguing hywpi and failing to mark your posts as such.

Stick a wraithknight with d-sword on a wave serpent and go flat out into his lines, see how he likes that!

Rx8Speed wrote:
Stick a wraithknight with d-sword on a wave serpent and go flat out into his lines, see how he likes that!

See now I just want to make a Wraithknight surfing on a Wave Serpent.

There are six terrain types listed under Battlefield Terrain: TERRAIN TYPES section of the rulebook.

"in this chapter, you’ll find the rules for the terrain with which you can populate your battlefields" Battlefield terrain section.

So we know the battlefield is made up of terrain.

The rules for deployment are written knowing this and the Deployment zone is where you must deploy your models within your section of the battlefield

"The battlefield over which your game is played must be set up before the game begins.
This step is split into two parts: creating the battlefield itself, and placing scenery upon it." (Preparing for battle chapter, The Battlefield section"

So we know what the battlefield is and we know where are deployment zones are within said terrain.

Deployment happens "within their deployment zone" (Preparing for battle chapter, Deployment section).

"If you are using Dawn of War deployment zones, the board is divided into two equal halves across its length." Dawn of War section)

Board = terrain.

deployment happens on the board within the deployment zone.

Deploying on top of another model is not allowed RAW.

Why don't we just used the original dread and rhino, back when the dreadnought was allowed to be transported in the rhino.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Incorrect. I have permission to deploy there. Now show how that permission is removed

It isn't "nothing says I cannot". It is "the rules permit me, now show me where this permission is removed"

Your rules quotes do not help your argument. As you admitte,d you are AT BEST arguing implication. That means gak.

A model cannot leave the table.

So unless your going vertically in terrain, you cannot place a model X distance in the air.

Fragile wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Incorrect. I have permission to deploy there. Now show how that permission is removed

It isn't "nothing says I cannot". It is "the rules permit me, now show me where this permission is removed"

Your rules quotes do not help your argument. As you admitte,d you are AT BEST arguing implication. That means gak.

A model cannot leave the table.

So unless your going vertically in terrain, you cannot place a model X distance in the air.

Again, by deployment rules, this is not a restriction. You may place your model on top of a Vehicle.

Once it's up there, you can just claim WMS once the Rhino moves away....


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DeathReaper wrote:
There are six terrain types listed under Battlefield Terrain: TERRAIN TYPES section of the rulebook.

"in this chapter, you’ll find the rules for the terrain with which you can populate your battlefields" Battlefield terrain section.

So we know the battlefield is made up of terrain.

The rules for deployment are written knowing this and the Deployment zone is where you must deploy your models within your section of the battlefield

"The battlefield over which your game is played must be set up before the game begins.
This step is split into two parts: creating the battlefield itself, and placing scenery upon it." (Preparing for battle chapter, The Battlefield section"

So we know what the battlefield is and we know where are deployment zones are within said terrain.

Deployment happens "within their deployment zone" (Preparing for battle chapter, Deployment section).

"If you are using Dawn of War deployment zones, the board is divided into two equal halves across its length." Dawn of War section)

Board = terrain.

deployment happens on the board within the deployment zone.

Deploying on top of another model is not allowed RAW.

Where in the deployment Rules does it say models need to be deployed on the board? Not snarky, just curious if that RaW exists, it would be a pretty good point against...

 BlackTalos wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
There are six terrain types listed under Battlefield Terrain: TERRAIN TYPES section of the rulebook.

"in this chapter, you’ll find the rules for the terrain with which you can populate your battlefields" Battlefield terrain section.

So we know the battlefield is made up of terrain.

The rules for deployment are written knowing this and the Deployment zone is where you must deploy your models within your section of the battlefield

"The battlefield over which your game is played must be set up before the game begins.
This step is split into two parts: creating the battlefield itself, and placing scenery upon it." (Preparing for battle chapter, The Battlefield section"

So we know what the battlefield is and we know where are deployment zones are within said terrain.

Deployment happens "within their deployment zone" (Preparing for battle chapter, Deployment section).

"If you are using Dawn of War deployment zones, the board is divided into two equal halves across its length." Dawn of War section)

Board = terrain.

deployment happens on the board within the deployment zone.

Deploying on top of another model is not allowed RAW.

Where in the deployment Rules does it say models need to be deployed on the board? Not snarky, just curious if that RaW exists, it would be a pretty good point against...

The permissive ruleset.

We are allowed to deploy in our deployment zone on the battlefield.

There is no allowance to be off of the deployment zone.

 BlackTalos wrote:

Again, by deployment rules, this is not a restriction. You may place your model on top of a Vehicle.

Once it's up there, you can just claim WMS once the Rhino moves away....

.

A model may not leave the table. By definition, a model not on the table is not deployed.

This one is just going to continue to go around in circles. I suspect you'll find that the vast majority of players will quite happily agree that models shouldn't be placed on other models... but the actual rules on it are somewhat dubious. Given the movement issues caused by it, though, along with the problem that arises the moment the bottom model dies... I doubt it's likely to actually come up at the table very often.


Moving on.