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.

paidinfull wrote:Bro,

Bro???

If I place a model within 1" of another model have I "come" within 1"?

What does this have to do with moving on from the edge of the table?

You don't place the model on the table edge. You measure from the table edge, and then place the model in the final position.

Those who do not agree with my standpoint are attempting to make an exception from a rule that simply isn't written anywhere.

As opposed to taking a single statement out of context and trying to bend it into a rule in its own right?

To go even further than that, this is a Codex FAQ which, as Antonin carefully pointed out, supersedes the BGB.

That doesn't mean that it changes the way every rule in the game works.

If the portal can not be used because emerging models may not move within 1" of the surrounding models, then surely models that don't need to move within 1" of the surrounding models won't have a problem.

Again, you can't just take the part of the rule that proves your point and remove it from all context. That's not RAW... it's taking a statement out of context... which makes it meaningless.

paidinfull wrote:If that isn't clear... why don't you explain to me what "this" is referring to in the sentence. "If you do this"

"if you do this" refers to holding models in reserve under the WPP rule (note the WPP rule is not limited only to situations where the scenario does not allow reserves - it applies to all missions. Believe me, there are many times DE players would like to be able to bring their WPP reserves in from the normal table edge!)

However, this is OT - I'm more interested in what you have to say in response to insaniak's points.

Yes,
"Bro" its a common colloquialism, like "man" or "dude"

What does this have to do with moving on from the edge of the table?

I should have elaborated. If I place a model, not move it in game terms, just place it, set it down, 0.5" away from another model. Is it now within 1" of another model? Has it come within 1"?
This has nothing to with movement, as you keep trying to make it so that skimmers are exempt from the web way portal rule, and everything to do with PROXIMITY.

The normal rules regarding enemy in proximity apply, notably that you cannot come within 1" of an enemy model except during an assault.

The act of being NEAR another model. Doesn't matter how it happens, you can't be there... which applies even to skimmers! Skimmers can't be within 1" of an enemy model.

PROXIMITY: the quality or state of being proximate
PROXIMATE: very near

The FAQ does not say... the normal rules for movement apply. It says "The normal rules regarding enemy in proximity apply"
Since the skimmers can not be NEAR, a ka within 1", of an enemy model as well, they are bound to the FAQ statement. There is no exemption for movement. A statement that applies to every model in game terms, "you cannot come within 1" of an enemy model except during an assault" is followed by a rule, IMO, a clarification in yours, that if the portal is surrounded then it can not be used. Since the portal can not be used they can not move in from that point

To go even further than that, this is a Codex FAQ which, as Antonin carefully pointed out, supersedes the BGB.

Actually, Paidinfull, I said that codex rules supersede the main book. So, you have changed my quote. I said nothing about the codex FAQs. Note that there have been issues with out of date FAQs. Also, I would not say that a codex FAQ rule which says nothing about skimmers deprives then of an ability which is listed for them in the rules - i.e the ability, unlike other models, to go over models. The FAQ reference is for the normal situation, and does apply to the normal situation (foot troops) but to take it the step farther and eliminate rules by implication is too much of a leap.

True
I apologize for mis quoting you.
Unfortunately, in this case, the Codex is very abstract as to how the web way portal works. It is a Second Edition Codex after all.

I am sorry Paid, but I just can't explain this another way. I tried, but you are not comprehending. How, I don't know. In fact, I am beginning to wonder if it is intentional. It isn't a difficult concept, but I just can't explain it in another fashion, or more clearly for you.

I appologize.

Paid: I get your points. I do. Trust me...

But I think that it is mostly a case of two things which makes them not work:

First, the DE dex is old. The FAQ is old.

Secondly and while it's been mentioned several times, I think it maybe has not had the right emphasis placed on it,

The normal rules regarding enemy in proximity apply, notably that you cannot come within 1" of an enemy model except during an assault.

Now you have been using this in order to argue that proximity is what keeps skimmers from flying out of the WBB and over surrounding troops. Correct?

I'm going ot use it in a slightly different fashion. It's the word normal that I'm going to focus on instead of proximity. Skimmers moving over enemy troops supercedes the normal rules for enemy in proximity.

Skimmers can always choose to more over enemy troops and this neither impedes their movement nor...

The skimmer rule over-rides the proximity rules. That rule tells you that the proximity rule is not in effect if a skimmer chooses to fly over the enemy.

Conclusion: skimmers can fly out of the blasted WBP.

paidinfull wrote:I should have elaborated. If I place a model, not move it in game terms, just place it, set it down, 0.5" away from another model. Is it now within 1" of another model? Has it come within 1"?

Elaborate all you like. But first please explain what it has to do with the actual issue at hand.

If the skimmer emerges from the portal, and lands 12" away from it, you're not placing it within 1" of the surrounding models, are you?

This has nothing to with movement,

It has everything to do with movement, because the rules only prohibit you from moving within 1" of enemy models, not from being within 1".

The normal rules regarding enemy in proximity apply, notably that you cannot come within 1" of an enemy model except during an assault.

Exactly. The normal rules.

The normal rules for heavy weapons state that models can not move on the same turn as they fire the weapon.
Some models have a rule that allows them to move and fire heavy weapons on the same turn.

If an FAQ pointed out that in a specific situation the normal rules for heavy weapons apply, so models can not move and fire with them, would that over-ride the ability of specific models to move with them?

Surely not. The normal rules apply, and specific rules for certain unit types therefore continue to modify those normal rules.

The act of being NEAR another model.

...is not limited by the rules at all.

We've already covered this.

And we've already pointed out why it's irrelevant since the skimmer emerging from the portal never has to be within 1" of the surrounding models.

It starts off the table, and moves over the models.

The FAQ does not say... the normal rules for movement apply. It says "The normal rules regarding enemy in proximity apply"

And the normal rules for proximity prevent you from moving within 1" of enemy models, not from being within 1"... and skimmers avoid the issue by flying over the models anyway.

God, this is still going?

Ozymandias, King of Kings

There are some "heavy hitters" from the boards on this thread and, to my surprise, none of them have addresses a certain point of Paid's analysis (of, if they did, O overlooked it)

Paid, you state, basically, that a model does not begin its movement until it's on the board.
Essentially, you said it arrives on the board, then starts its move. In the case of skimmers, they're not actually skimming until they are already on the board. That's what I got from the quote below:

paidinfull wrote:What you guys are missing is that there has to be a point on the table, be it the edge or not, that the model has to be before it can "move". A point of origin am I right? The model has to have a starting point so you can define the distance it's traveled or going to travel. We know this is the case as the SMF rule talks about not claiming you moved around and then back to the original spot saying "well I've moved 12" in a circle around these trees and ended right back where i started."

The model, in this case a skimmer that wishes to exit the WWP, has a starting point that is within 1" of an enemy at which time it is neither flying/hovering etc.(all of which are purely decorative and not applicable in game terms) nor is it moving, it is about to or "going to" move. You can't claim that you've started moving from off of the table as that "doesn't exist" in game terms and is also noted in the DE FAQ.

@stelek
so where is the model starting? i thought the edge of a table is part of the table? if I place a model 0.5" wouldn't that point(the table edge) be within 1" of an enemy model? How can you start from somewhere if you weren't there to begin with?

Would you say that you could place a skimmer 1" onto the table and claim that it moved 5"+ while off of the table so that you could get SMF?

How, then, do you presume that it arrived at this starting point on the table? It certainly didn't walk there. I doubt it was towed there, or the towing vehicle would be in front of it. They didn't push it... DE's are too weedy for that.
(All that was typed with tongue firmly planted in cheek. It was meant in good humor, not snarkiness)

Please explain, however, how it would get to the point you mention, if not via skimming. If you can presume that it did get to that point via skimming, please explain why you cannot presume it remained skimming.

Additionally, if a model must start at ground level, please explain how your interpretation of the rules affects flyers. If we can presume flyers fly onto the table, why can we not presume the same of skimmers?

Thanks.

Eric

First your not on the board to begin with so the whole flying over the enemy is out the window. Next you are using a device to enter play of which brings up another set of rules. All we know is this portal allows you to enter play so if I close the door then your ability to enter play is canceled.

If you want to play the odds game and risk everything, thats your call but the FAQ is RAW and any points are mute.

Tarval wrote:First your not on the board to begin with so the whole flying over the enemy is out the window.

Pardon?

That argument seems to be missing at least one important step.

All we know is this portal allows you to enter play so if I close the door then your ability to enter play is canceled.

Close the door?

Sorry, which rules are we talking about again...?

If you want to play the odds game and risk everything, thats your call but the FAQ is RAW and any points are mute.

Well, yes, the entire discussion is mute. I don't believe Yakface has installed the Written Post to Speech translator yet.

Sorry, I'm not buying the argument. One of the lines of the FAQ states:

"Models move onto the table from the portal marker, measuring from its edge as they would if they entered the table normally"

So, what you're saying is that if I lined up Kroot from edge to edge of your deployment zone (if you had all your forces in reserve) nothing could come in from your board edge, because it was blocked. That is the implication, and I don't think it is supported.

There is nothing written in the rulebook to supercede this, and the FAQ, in context, speaks of "normal movement rules" to which the skimmer ability to move over units is an exception. There is nothing in the FAQ to indicate skimmers lose that ability.

Considering it is the DE codex, built around Raiders, if they intended Raiders to not be able to use it in that fashion, I'd hope they'd make that really clear (I'll keep hoping though).

Oh, and FWIW, in every GT, Tourny, game, etc that I've ever played in (with or against DE), players have used the Portal with Raiders, even if surrounded, and no one batted an eye. I can't imagine we've all got it wrong.

Well, yes, the entire discussion is mute. I don't believe Yakface has installed the Written Post to Speech translator yet.

Translator, what on earth would you need that for when you have RAW and FAQ.

The facts are that a Termy unit deep strikes and scatters on top of the enemy it dies. The rules for the WWP somewhat follow that line as it allows you to enter play from another location other than the standard play. So in all respects to enter play would be death because it falls outside of the standard play.

Odds game is that your putting your entire army in the portal so if I surround it then your out of luck.

Side note, 5th ed is really going to put a dent into the portal effect if you think about it. DE armies are going to find themselves hard pressed to show up via portal action with out it being protected.

Sure, let's think about it.

Not affected is my thought after playtesting.

Tarval wrote:Translator, what on earth would you need that for when you have RAW and FAQ.

Did they release an audio version of the rulebook when I wasn't looking?

The facts are that a Termy unit deep strikes and scatters on top of the enemy it dies. The rules for the WWP somewhat follow that line as it allows you to enter play from another location other than the standard play. So in all respects to enter play would be death because it falls outside of the standard play.

Sorry, but you still seem to be missing a point or two in there... The portal is nothing to do with Deep Strike. It doesn't use the rules for Deep Strike, it uses it's own rules, which simply use the Reserves rules and count the portal edge as a part of your table edge.

You don't place a model and then move when moving on from Reserves. You measure from your board edge, and then place the model. Surrounding the portal would therefore only have any effect on models that are forced to move normally, and so find their way blocked when they attempt to move from the portal.

Skimmers move over other models with impugnity. So until someone can explain why they would be unable to move over the models surrounding the portal just like they can move over any other model on the board, they are free to use the portal as normal.

Skimmers move over other models with impugnity. So until someone can explain why they would be unable to move over the models surrounding the portal just like they can move over any other model on the board, they are free to use the portal as normal.

insaniak

Simple as you can not end your movement with in 1" of a model thus you would be unable to start you movement because you are with in 1" of an enemy model. You do not enter play already moving but start play from the portal.

You have a door which ( places you on the board ), ( you do not start on the board moving but are placed onto the board ). You can not place yourself with in 1" of an enemy module just like termies when they DS.

Insaniak 1, Tarval 0.

Insaniak 1, Tarval 0.

Insaniak 1, Tarval 0.

Gee.

Stelek -241 vs Tarval - powned and blown out the water!

Placement of the module is the key quetion here. Can you in effect place A MODULE ( not skimmer or foot slogger ) with in 1" of another module. The answer is simple no you can not do this.

Tarval wrote:Simple as you can not end your movement with in 1" of a model thus you would be unable to start you movement because you are with in 1" of an enemy model.

Pardon?

How does being unable to end your move within 1" have any effect on starting your movement?

You do not enter play already moving but start play from the portal.

More specifically, you start your movement off the board, and move on from the portal edge. Off the board is not within 1" of a model, so even if some form of bizarro world logic means that starting your movement is the same thing as ending your movement, the placement of the enemy models will have no effect whatsoever on models that can move over them with impugnity.

You have a door which ( places you on the board ), ( you do not start on the board moving but are placed onto the board ).

This is incorrect. The Reserves rules do not require you to place the model before movement. You move on from the board edge... or in this case, from the edge of the portal, which counts as your board edge. The model is not placed on the board until the end of its movement.

What is a module? I can't find that referenced to anywhere in the rules.

This is incorrect. The Reserves rules do not require you to place the model before movement.

The WWP rules do appear to make this requirement. But the word "may" is used in the rules on pg 15 of the DE dex.

However I certainly would not and will not play it where the model(s) must be placed first since it really makes no difference.

DaIronGob wrote:The WWP rules do appear to make this requirement.

The WWP entry states that you place the model in the 'template'

The FAQ clarifies that you treat the WWP as an extension of your table edge... which, going by the current rules for Reserves, means that the model is not placed first, regardless of what the WWP rules entry says... it simply moves on from the portal in exactly the same way as it would move on from the table edge.

insaniak "The FAQ clarifies that you treat the WWP as an extension of your table edge... which, going by the current rules for Reserves, means that the model is not placed first, regardless of what the WWP rules entry says... it simply moves on from the portal in exactly the same way as it would move on from the table edge."

FAQ never said that you treat it but it more less gives you an understanding. Models move onto the table from the portal maker, measuring from its edge as they would if they entered the table normally.

Think of the portal marker is not an extension of your table edge

So your willing to use some of the text but not all of it?

Man I hate to be repetitive in a moot point but it says "on" the template not "in".

However it doesn't go on to finish what the unit can do once it has done so leading to the rest of the reserve rules.

why the point is moot IMO is that I agree that the skimmer can move onto the table moving over enemy troops as the NEWER rules allow. The new BBoR has a more specific rules point regarding skimmers than the WWP allows therefore the WWP rules are superceded in this case.

The WWP FAQ uses one rule to justify the "no use" and that's the 1" rule. The skimmer rules are more specific as to how they can move therefore they over ride or supercede the general rules in the WWP.

Skimmers CAN move OVER enemy troops. The WWP does not prevent this in any manner.

Think of it as is just that, they did not say it is but just think of it as.


As if they entered the board normally, normally being the key word because they are in fact not entering the board normally.

As if they entered the board normally, normally being the key word because they are in fact not entering the board normally

And per their rules skimmers can 'normally' move over enemy troops.

Hey the way you explain it makes a load of sense! They can normally move over enemy troops therefore they can normally move over enemy troops when entering the game through reserves!

Wow without you where'd we be in this redundant discussion?

I would just look at the word Module and see if GW can change that word and then maybe you will have a reason to back your case. As it is now, FAQ/RAW tell you that you need to protect your portal in order to use it. If you fail then you have given up the device in which to further your armies movement.

I would just look at the word Module and see if GW can change that word and then maybe you will have a reason to back your case.

Ok I give up, WTH does the word Module have to do with this discussion and why would GW need to change it in order to "back" my case?

You must be mucking with us.. you must be doing this on purpose because I refuse to believe you really are that dumb to actually suggest that the word 'module' and it's definition makes a dang bit of difference in this discussion.

Don't feed the troll. Paidinfull was coherent in his arguments, Tarval just makes my head hurt.

Ozymandias, King of Kings

DaIronGob wrote:

I would just look at the word Module and see if GW can change that word and then maybe you will have a reason to back your case.

Ok I give up, WTH does the word Module have to do with this discussion and why would GW need to change it in order to "back" my case?

You must be mucking with us.. you must be doing this on purpose because I refuse to believe you really are that dumb to actually suggest that the word 'module' and it's definition makes a dang bit of difference in this discussion.

He's trying to spell "model." Unfortunately it's clearly beyond his capacity.