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.

Fragile wrote:
Ah, fight to the end will you. You cannot move within 1" by rule, nor deploy within 1" of a pre-deployed model by precedent. That is sufficient enough. Nothing in the Nightspear rule overrides that. But I know you will just keep repeating these same lines you do.

Precedent is a good guide to RAI (although not infallible as GW have a habit of occasionally throwing out a ruling that runs counter to anything they've done previously). RAW however you can deploy within one inch with Nightspear due to him ignoring the usual distance restrictions.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Again, you claimed "you cannot GET within 1" - yet you missed that the rule you cited, again, only disallows you from *moving* within 1".

Moving != Getting, despite your attempts at claiming otherwise. Changing words just to suit your argument isnt a great way to be convincing.

If I want to "get" to point a on the board, I can move to it, deep strike (again moving) onto it, deploy (or) infiltrate onto it (not moving).
Both moving to and deploying/being placed at a certain point are both "getting" there, that's part of your argument, isn't it?

 Happyjew wrote:

Now, the real question can you show an actual rule that forbids deploying within 1" of an enemy model?

We do have a rule that would prevent it If you are required to place a model, but its a matter of whether this is a universal concept, or entirely situational (which is how its presented).

Though, this ^ concept, is dependent upon disembarking models not making dangerous terrain tests, for simply disembarking. As the raw states that they can then go on to make a "normal" move, which would then trigger terrain tests.
Disembarked models count as moving for shooting purposes.

I.e, the models did not move, but were "placed" in a manner analogous to deploying (which in previous editions, would have literally meant "deploying").

Interesting... But, if his rule also conferred to the unit he is with... what's to stop him using that trick to get SS in combat first turn, for example?

If only GW would write a damned FAQ already...


Von chogg

Hey, there is nothing in the Nightspears rule saying he cant deploy in an enemy transport either.
Surely, "despite enemy proximity" must allow him to end up in a vehicle.
Now, would he be locked in combat even if its not an assault vehicle?

(sarcasm? trying to make a point? not sure...)

Fragile wrote:
Ah, fight to the end will you. You cannot move within 1" by rule, nor deploy within 1" of a pre-deployed model by precedent. That is sufficient enough. Nothing in the Nightspear rule overrides that. But I know you will just keep repeating these same lines you do.

The funny thing is Nos' assumption about how a rule needs to be interpreted is usually wrong (check the threads about if Abby can join marked chaos squads lmao... that was like in OCT too), so if I were you I wouldnt lose any sleep over this, as logic dictates the obvious.

That being said, as many times people like to quote that "WH40K is a permissionary rule set" where you have to have perfectly stated permission to do things with special rules. Show me or quote where in illics rules does it say that it allows him to deploy within one inch of an enemy model... I know you cant because its not in there, making your argument invalid, Nos. Other people can be difficult too and "fight" according to the rules of the forum.

Might want to take a breath and notice this the next time you try to scripturally frustrate someone using the whole "show me" antics... fact of the matter is we dont have to show you anything...

When you say "usually" wrong, you will cherry pick examples where they change the rules and present that as a conclusive "proof" of your contention? It also isnt "my" assumption, but one shared.

Your dishonest posts do you no credit.

I have permisison to deploy anywhere, regardless proximity. "Anywhere" includes within 1". Done. You can "fight" all you like, but you will continue to lose if that is all you can bring.

You dont HAVE to show anything. Howveer in a discussion that is mostly tantamout to conceding the point.

Which I am assuming you have done.

Food for thought (feel free to shoot it out of the water if you like)

The purpose of keeping models 1" away from one another is to determine who is or is not in hand to hand combat. There is no rule stating that the character can begin locked in combat with another unit.

The other thing that you can build onto this is that in game design GW appears to want players to not be able to assault without the opponent having at least one player turn to react to the opponent. This is being based off of the idea that you can no longer assault from reserves (without a special rule) and turn one assaults are very difficult to achieve.

With these two assumptions I feel that I can safely conclude that you may not deploy within one inch because of how the game keeps track of book keeping, and how they do not like the idea of assaulting before the opponent has a chance to shoot at the assaulting unit (not counting overwatch).

I agree that the intent (and HIWPI) is that you must be at least 1" away - due to the fact you cannot normally be there unless you charged into combat.

Spore Mines and RP/EL show that the intent is you cannot be placed within 1" of enemy models. They also have rules for it.

However, nobody has shown a rule that forbids it, outside of two examples.

 WarlordRob117 wrote:

Fragile wrote:
Ah, fight to the end will you. You cannot move within 1" by rule, nor deploy within 1" of a pre-deployed model by precedent. That is sufficient enough. Nothing in the Nightspear rule overrides that. But I know you will just keep repeating these same lines you do.

The funny thing is Nos' assumption about how a rule needs to be interpreted is usually wrong (check the threads about if Abby can join marked chaos squads lmao... that was like in OCT too), so if I were you I wouldnt lose any sleep over this, as logic dictates the obvious.

That being said, as many times people like to quote that "WH40K is a permissionary rule set" where you have to have perfectly stated permission to do things with special rules. Show me or quote where in illics rules does it say that it allows him to deploy within one inch of an enemy model... I know you cant because its not in there, making your argument invalid, Nos. Other people can be difficult too and "fight" according to the rules of the forum.

Might want to take a breath and notice this the next time you try to scripturally frustrate someone using the whole "show me" antics... fact of the matter is we dont have to show you anything...

How about making a house rule that illic cant deploy into combat until GW resolves the problem via FAQ instead of throwing insults around against people that try to interpret the RAW?

Show me or quote where in illics rules does it say that it allows him to deploy within one inch of an enemy model

"Illic Nightspear has the Infiltrate special rule, and can be deployed anywhere on the battlefield that is outside of impassable terrain, regardless of enemy proximity."...

Emphasis mine. So what does it tell us. Well is within 1" of the enemy on the battlefield? Clearly yes. But there is a rule against being within 1" does this rule specifically over rule that rule? (which many contend does not exist but we'll go with you on this) Well is that rule a rule about how close you can be to the enemy? Well the second highlighted section says you can ignore it then...

The issue is, that you are trying to argue what the rules actually are where as Nos is only interested in arguing the most literal RaW. He is under the belief that RaW=The Rules and therefore thinks that FaQs which simply clarify what is the rule actually change it. He also will class any discussion of the actual rule intent as either HYWPI, a house rule or simply unknowable. So I think your discussion will go no where as Nos is only interested in arguing literal semantics.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
When you say "usually" wrong, you will cherry pick examples where they change the rules and present that as a conclusive "proof" of your contention? It also isnt "my" assumption, but one shared.

Your dishonest posts do you no credit.

I have permisison to deploy anywhere, regardless proximity. "Anywhere" includes within 1". Done. You can "fight" all you like, but you will continue to lose if that is all you can bring.

You dont HAVE to show anything. Howveer in a discussion that is mostly tantamout to conceding the point.

Which I am assuming you have done.

Nope

 FlingitNow wrote:
But there is a rule against being within 1"

You keep claiming this and have not provided a citation. Please provide one or admit that you are arguing RAI, not RAW.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 FlingitNow wrote:
The issue is, that you are trying to argue what the rules actually are where as Nos is only interested in arguing the most literal RaW. He is under the belief that RaW=The Rules and therefore thinks that FaQs which simply clarify what is the rule actually change it. He also will class any discussion of the actual rule intent as either HYWPI, a house rule or simply unknowable. So I think your discussion will go no where as Nos is only interested in arguing literal semantics.

The FAQ's do change the rules. SITW is the perfect example.

Happyjew did you even read my post. The first point is even covered in the very next line of my post.

FaQs can not change the rules by definition. Errata change the rules, FAQ explain how the rules work. They do not and can not change the rules by definition.

 FlingitNow wrote:
Happyjew did you even read my post. The first point is even covered in the very next line of my post.

I did, just not very well .

FaQs can not change the rules by definition. Errata change the rules, FAQ explain how the rules work. They do not and can not change the rules by definition.

Except they do.

BRB wrote:Q: Flyers are entitled to choose whether or not to use the Skyfire
special rule at the start of each Shooting phase. Can Swooping
Flying Monstrous Creatures also do this? (p49)
A: Yes.

Where in the rulebook does it even hint at FMCs being able to use Skyfire?

Yeah the rulebook is silent on that. The rule however hasn't changed just we had no way of knowing what it was intended to be. Here the FAQ hasn't changed the rule it has just clarified how the rules work, it did however change how we played the rules because the vast majority of us got it wrong before the FAQ.

Warlord - still being constructive, and still lacking an argument that holds water. Found anything to deny the permission of being deployed ANYWHERE yet? No? Good, your concessions of a houserule is accepted - now follow the tenets and actually state your houserule based argument, so others know it bears no relation to the Rules printed in the Rulebook.

By Raw the power seems to allow him to deploy within 1 inch of an opponent. However, you can only enter combat by declaring and resolving a charge. So I would rule that he cannot deploy directly into combat.

Hey nos and anyone who wants to argue that he can deploy into base 2 base and be in h2h combat what about the no first turn assault? If the character in question is deployed in b2b and is considered in h2h would that not break that rule? Which afaik he does not have permission to break?

Kapitalist-Pig wrote:
Hey nos and anyone who wants to argue that he can deploy into base 2 base and be in h2h combat what about the no first turn assault? If the character in question is deployed in b2b and is considered in h2h would that not break that rule? Which afaik he does not have permission to break?

You do not have permission to charge first turn. Iliac being deployed in base contact did not charge.

I understand that but, last time I checked the only way to get into h2h combat in this game is charging. If there is no charge allowed or declared, no charge movement and no overwatch how can you get to the fight subphase by skipping the charge subphase when no charges are delcared on the first turn? How can they be locked in combat? There is nothing in his special rule that stats that if he was deployed in b2b does it mean they are locked in combat. The only time models are locked in combat are when they are in the fight subphase, which has yet to happen, and which you must pass through the charge subphase to get to. So yes you can deploy him but he does not tie up the unit he deploys into b2b.

You create a loophole in the game that breaks the game.

Kapitalist-Pig wrote:
I understand that but, last time I checked the only way to get into h2h combat in this game is charging.

Charging is the only way to move within 1" of enemy models. Since Iliac is not moving, then the rules about not moving within 1" except for charging don't come into play.

Did you read the rest, I did say that he can be placed there, I contended that he does not lock whatever he is in base contact with in combat as is suggested by the op.

They are locked in combat because the rules state that a model in base contact with another model is locked in combat.

If I'm mis-reading your post, sorry. I need sleep. Or beer.

Right but you only check that during the fight subphase of the assualt phase which has yet to happen and yet to qualify that they are locked in combat.

Not necessarily. If that were true then a unit could fire Overwatch at any one of the charging units, and I know this has been argued back and forth.

That does not make your arguement carry wait. If you wish to continue to try and support that you can deploy straight into an assault then please provide rules supporting this assertion. You have the responibility to prove this as I have come with a valid arguement within the rules that argues against your assertion. With that being said being deployed anywhere does not cover changing the fundimental rules of assault. It is a broad rule, and therefore only covers broad rules. Just like with SA and atsknf there needs to be specific permission to start the game in combat.

I have permission to deploy anywhere regardless of enemy proximity. Therefore I have permission to deploy in base contact.

Now, either you are not locked in combat until you reach the Fight phase (which is my belief anyway) which means if two units charge a squad, the squad would be able to fire Overwatch at either of them. Or, you are locked whenever you are in base contact, in which case you would only be able to fire Overwatch at the first unit (unless you opt not to and they failed their charge).

As I said earlier, while the RAW does support that you can start there, the intent is clearly that you cannot, and I don't think anyone would actually try it.

Actually trying to do this and arguing about it being legal are totally different when it comes to posting here. This is an exercise in is this allowed in the game. People doing this or not comes after. We have both agreed you can deploy into base contact, and I think we both agree on that is doesnt mean you are locked in combat, maybe. I was not involved in the over watch debate, if you could link it I would like to read and see if that does change my mind in this instance. With that being said, I do feel that the restriction on infiltrate which this is a special rule that operates within the generic special rule still applies, only others arguements will involve but there is not a charge declared, to which i submit then your not locked into combat, and can be moved away from and shot and then assaulted in the other players turn.

This was the first one I found. It also has links to a few others.

Thanks! Hope to post after workl but we shall see goodnight.