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.

sirlynchmob wrote:
since when do you support allowing extra words to a rule to change it's meaning? The rule says to place the model. Where is this rule that you can then move the model before the scatter movement?

WMS allows it, since it is hard to put the model exactly where you want.

 DeathReaper wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
since when do you support allowing extra words to a rule to change it's meaning? The rule says to place the model. Where is this rule that you can then move the model before the scatter movement?

WMS allows it, since it is hard to put the model exactly where you want.

That only works for terrain, not for stacking models on top of each other. a unit is not "a particular piece of terrain"

 DarthOvious wrote:

 insaniak wrote:


Deep Strike likewise doesn't explicitly say 'Your initial placement can be on top of another model'... but does grant permission to place the initial model anywhere on the table, and the FAQ for the Mawloc clarifies that placing the deep striker on another model is fine.

No. It changes the placement rules entirely for that model.

It most certanly does not. The question and anwser portion of those documents does not change any rules. Here is the relevent information from game's workshop's website.

Errata provide corrections to the errors that sometimes creep into our books. It is important to note that Errata carry the same 'authority' as the main rules and permanently modify published material; where one of our books says one thing and the errata changes this to something else, the errata takes precedence as the 'correct' version of that material. Amendments are changes made to our rules in order to make them work within a new context; the most common example would be when a new core rulebook is released which then has a knock-on effect of invalidating existing material. They are not designed to fix newly created weaknesses or shortfalls, but simply to ensure that no rule, unit, item of equipment or whatever else is left incompatible with the current edition of the game. FAQs, or Frequently Asked Questions are grey areas, points of confusion or places where rules can and have been interpreted in conflicting ways. For each FAQ we provide the answer as determined by the Games Development team; while these are not hard and fast rules text in the same way as Errata, they should be considered the 'official' interpretation.

Only the errata or amendments are actual changes in the rules, the questions only provide the official interpretation of the rules. The only rule in question for the Mawloc was the deep strike placement rules. There is no deep strike placement rule specifically for the Malwac so this question could only have been addressing all deep strike placement. The official interpretation is that you may deep strike onto a point occupied by an enemy model on purpose.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
"Yes, but you can't place a model over another model"
Do you have a rule for that? As I have a rule saying I can place the model ANYWHERE on the table.

On a model is not on the table. This is the RAW.

 DJGietzen wrote:

 DarthOvious wrote:

 insaniak wrote:


Deep Strike likewise doesn't explicitly say 'Your initial placement can be on top of another model'... but does grant permission to place the initial model anywhere on the table, and the FAQ for the Mawloc clarifies that placing the deep striker on another model is fine.

No. It changes the placement rules entirely for that model.

It most certanly does not. The question and anwser portion of those documents does not change any rules. Here is the relevent information from game's workshop's website.

I was talking about the rule in the Tyranid codex and a codex does have the authority to bypass rules from the BRB.

Only the errata or amendments are actual changes in the rules, the questions only provide the official interpretation of the rules. The only rule in question for the Mawloc was the deep strike placement rules. There is no deep strike placement rule specifically for the Malwac so this question could only have been addressing all deep strike placement. The official interpretation is that you may deep strike onto a point occupied by an enemy model on purpose.

Did you miss the part where I quoted the text from the TYRANID CODEX!!!!!!!!!!!!

 DJGietzen wrote:
The question and anwser portion of those documents does not change any rules.

I beg to differ.

From the BRB FAQ:

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.

Since there is no rule in the BRB giving FMCs the choice to Skyfire while Swooping, this is clearly a rules change.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dozer Blades wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
"Yes, but you can't place a model over another model"
Do you have a rule for that? As I have a rule saying I can place the model ANYWHERE on the table.

On a model is not on the table. This is the RAW.

Then I guess you cannot deep strike into area terrain such as the base of a ruin, or onto a battlement.

Badger has this one correct imo. If the game based measurements from a point in the centre of the board it would be groovy, but since it is played in the third dimension with no fixed centre all movement must be consider positive regardless of the facing of your model, reductions would come before movement whilst measuring the distance from A to B since the distance is 0 no further reduction could be made and therefore A and B are the same place (mishap city)

@happyjew

I agree with the first post, it does seem faq's will change rules.

I disagree with the second part. we have faq's stating you can deep strike onto battlements (building/terrain), and a skyshield(terrain) which is not a model but just terrain that you can deep strike onto. so we can see that deepstriking onto terrain has precedents and can be concluded to be RAW or at least RAI.

placing models on top of models has no precedents, nor anything hinting at allowing it. Models are not part of the table, terrain can be assumed to be part of the table. terrain can also be designed into the table.

 Dozer Blades wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
"Yes, but you can't place a model over another model"
Do you have a rule for that? As I have a rule saying I can place the model ANYWHERE on the table.

On a model is not on the table. This is the RAW.

Ruins / hills (not built in /etc can also not be used?

No, again, you ignored the context that was given earlier.

DarthOvious wrote:

 DJGietzen wrote:

 DarthOvious wrote:

 insaniak wrote:


Deep Strike likewise doesn't explicitly say 'Your initial placement can be on top of another model'... but does grant permission to place the initial model anywhere on the table, and the FAQ for the Mawloc clarifies that placing the deep striker on another model is fine.

No. It changes the placement rules entirely for that model.

It most certanly does not. The question and anwser portion of those documents does not change any rules. Here is the relevent information from game's workshop's website.

I was talking about the rule in the Tyranid codex and a codex does have the authority to bypass rules from the BRB.

Only the errata or amendments are actual changes in the rules, the questions only provide the official interpretation of the rules. The only rule in question for the Mawloc was the deep strike placement rules. There is no deep strike placement rule specifically for the Malwac so this question could only have been addressing all deep strike placement. The official interpretation is that you may deep strike onto a point occupied by an enemy model on purpose.

Did you miss the part where I quoted the text from the TYRANID CODEX!!!!!!!!!!!!

I was only replying to the portion I quoted. You used the pronoun "it" in a direct response to insaniak's statement. The subject of that statement was "the FAQ for the Mawloc", not the tyranid codex. You effectively said 'No. The FAQ for the Mawloc changes the placement rules entirely for that model.' and made no mention of the codex. If you intended your reply to be about the codex and not the FAQ you needed to state that in some way.

Happyjew wrote:

 DJGietzen wrote:
The question and answer portion of those documents does not change any rules.

I beg to differ.

From the BRB FAQ:

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.

Since there is no rule in the BRB giving FMCs the choice to Skyfire while Swooping, this is clearly a rules change.

I'll agree this should have been an amendment, but given the form of the question and the fact that this was not an amendment or errata the only logical inference would be that flying monstrous creatures are also flyers. (I disagree for many reasons) I don't play with any FMC, but how many are there that have skyfire to make this question even matter?

 DarthOvious wrote:
I thought that you has just clarrified that placing them over another unit was a valid location. Now I'm confused.

Putting them over another unit is a valid starting location for the deep strike process. It's not a valid location to deploy models, as it causes a mishap if they actually land there.

It looks like pretty much everything that needs to be said has been said, so I'm confused on how there's any argument still going on here.

- There are no such thing as "negative" inches, so you can only reduce the scatter distance to 0".
- If you manage to land on a unit with a Drop Pod after reducing the scatter as much as possible, you mishap.
- If you go off the table, you mishap.
- If you are somehow within 1" of an enemy unit (with your pre-measuring), you mishap.
- The rules don't say you can't try to drop on an enemy unit and hope you scatter off of it, but its a risky move with dubious benefit except in highly specific circumstances.

The fact you can only reduce to 0" and not start 'going the other way' has been well established in the larger W40K tournaments for a long, long while now. It is still a common mistake for newer players or players who aren't that familiar with rules they have not encountered/used often. But really, Drop Pods are not that complicated so I'm a bit surprised this argument has made it to 3 pages. Here's hoping it dies off!

 cowmonaut wrote:
It looks like pretty much everything that needs to be said has been said, so I'm confused on how there's any argument still going on here.

- There are no such thing as "negative" inches, so you can only reduce the scatter distance to 0".
- If you manage to land on a unit with a Drop Pod after reducing the scatter as much as possible, you mishap.
- If you go off the table, you mishap.
- If you are somehow within 1" of an enemy unit (with your pre-measuring), you mishap.
- The rules don't say you can't try to drop on an enemy unit and hope you scatter off of it, but its a risky move with dubious benefit except in highly specific circumstances.

The fact you can only reduce to 0" and not start 'going the other way' has been well established in the larger W40K tournaments for a long, long while now. It is still a common mistake for newer players or players who aren't that familiar with rules they have not encountered/used often. But really, Drop Pods are not that complicated so I'm a bit surprised this argument has made it to 3 pages. Here's hoping it dies off!

This.

the original placement of a deepstriking unit does not have to be a 'valid' or 'legal' placement of the 'start' space, the deepstrike rules on p36 of the BRB do not ask you to conform to this process.

for those saying that starting on top of your opponents models isn't placing the deepstriking unit. which would you prefer, someone trying to put the relatively heavy drop pod model over your minis to have the start location or would you rather they said, the start position is here, over this guys head? (I'm sure you'd rather they just said my start point is there)

your models are not considered terrain, impassable or not, so they do not conform to an invalid placement either. therefore, since this is a permissive ruleset, i.e. if a rule says you can then you can unless another says no, you can do so. since there is no rule in the book to say that you cannot start a deep strike action on top of another model, then you may do so.

however as has also been pointed out, trying to go into negatives is silly, you will reduce to the minimum distance which is 0, since any attempt to go any other direction is +x since your starting point is x, there are no negative values in warhammer 40k, they do not exist. (I defy you to show me an example where negative numbers are directly shown/exampled in the BRB or a codex)


Automatically Appended Next Post:
oh and to add to it, if you want to try to say that DS must conform in some way to the movement rules ect, look at Basic vs Advanced on P7, as Deepstrike is a SR it would override the normal movement rules as it doesn't ask you to conform to these presets, it simply states place the model.

 nutty_nutter wrote:

 cowmonaut wrote:
It looks like pretty much everything that needs to be said has been said, so I'm confused on how there's any argument still going on here.

- There are no such thing as "negative" inches, so you can only reduce the scatter distance to 0".
- If you manage to land on a unit with a Drop Pod after reducing the scatter as much as possible, you mishap.
- If you go off the table, you mishap.
- If you are somehow within 1" of an enemy unit (with your pre-measuring), you mishap.
- The rules don't say you can't try to drop on an enemy unit and hope you scatter off of it, but its a risky move with dubious benefit except in highly specific circumstances.

The fact you can only reduce to 0" and not start 'going the other way' has been well established in the larger W40K tournaments for a long, long while now. It is still a common mistake for newer players or players who aren't that familiar with rules they have not encountered/used often. But really, Drop Pods are not that complicated so I'm a bit surprised this argument has made it to 3 pages. Here's hoping it dies off!

This.

the original placement of a deepstriking unit does not have to be a 'valid' or 'legal' placement of the 'start' space, the deepstrike rules on p36 of the BRB do not ask you to conform to this process.

for those saying that starting on top of your opponents models isn't placing the deepstriking unit. which would you prefer, someone trying to put the relatively heavy drop pod model over your minis to have the start location or would you rather they said, the start position is here, over this guys head? (I'm sure you'd rather they just said my start point is there)

your models are not considered terrain, impassable or not, so they do not conform to an invalid placement either. therefore, since this is a permissive ruleset, i.e. if a rule says you can then you can unless another says no, you can do so. since there is no rule in the book to say that you cannot start a deep strike action on top of another model, then you may do so.

however as has also been pointed out, trying to go into negatives is silly, you will reduce to the minimum distance which is 0, since any attempt to go any other direction is +x since your starting point is x, there are no negative values in warhammer 40k, they do not exist. (I defy you to show me an example where negative numbers are directly shown/exampled in the BRB or a codex)


Automatically Appended Next Post:
oh and to add to it, if you want to try to say that DS must conform in some way to the movement rules ect, look at Basic vs Advanced on P7, as Deepstrike is a SR it would override the normal movement rules as it doesn't ask you to conform to these presets, it simply states place the model.

I agree with everything you said, and your reasoning behind it... But the indicated portion you have backwards. In a permissive rule set, you need permission to do something, or you cant do it.... Not the other way around.

I side with the argument that you can deep-strike wherever you like to start out, but without the ability to increase the scatter range I fail to see when someone would want to do this unless its to voluntarily force a mishap.

you can't increase the scatter range, only decrease it, my point was that the OP was saying he could start on top of models and then having rolled a hit and/or scatter he could move the pod to safety. my point was he couldn't since any distance from his original location (being x) is an increase, not a decrease.

with regards to the permissive bit.

you are permitted by the deepstrike rule to place the model anywhere on the table, you are not not allowed to place that model on top of enemy models, therefore you can place it upon them. apologies if it wasn't clear

 nutty_nutter wrote:
you are permitted by the deepstrike rule to place the model anywhere on the table, you are not not allowed to place that model on top of enemy models, therefore you can place it upon them. apologies if it wasn't clear

Clarify please because you just contradicted yourself.

icefire78 wrote:
I had an argument with a player from the FLGS the other day that is bugging the heck out of me. The argument was with drop pods and how the scatter system works with them. I have seen people drop pod on the middle of a unit as placement and then just move it to the closest side that the pod would land safely. This is where the argument began.

1. He was saying if you placed the drop pod in this situation and rolled a to hit your pod would immediately mishap on the basis that a to hit is not a scatter. I countered with the wording on PG. 6 of the BRB that a scatter is whenever you roll the scatter dice even if it came up as a hit you're still technically scattering. He then argued that if the drop pod would still mishap because you must reduce the scatter by minimum amount possible so that the pod couldn't go anywhere since it reduces itself to 0 and is still on the unit and thus mishaps.

You can't aim at a unit and expect to scatter clear if a "hit" is rolled, that's ridiculous and a gross stretch of the rules. I would rule a mishap as well.

Wait... was he trying to mishap? Or trying not to mishap? I'm confused.

Wah, my opponent wouldn't let me abuse the rules to put my flamer pod 1" away from his blob pretty much every time

No sympathy

 Byte wrote:
You can't aim at a unit, that's ridiculous and a gross stretch of the rules. I would mishap you as well.

Where is the stretch? If you aim at a unit, and you don't scatter off them, you mishap.

Sure, the rules might be a little vague on it, but forcing a mishap on yourself is not exactly giving yourself some sort of game-breaking advantage...

 insaniak wrote:

 Byte wrote:
You can't aim at a unit, that's ridiculous and a gross stretch of the rules. I would mishap you as well.

Where is the stretch? If you aim at a unit, and you don't scatter off them, you mishap.

Sure, the rules might be a little vague on it, but forcing a mishap on yourself is not exactly giving yourself some sort of game-breaking advantage...

Isn't that what I said? OP wanted to scatter to avoid if a Hit is rolled while targeting an enemy unit...

You didn't refer to the wanting to scatter off thing at all, no. Your post suggests that it was the aiming at a unit bit that you were objecting to.

 insaniak wrote:
You didn't refer to the wanting to scatter off thing at all, no. Your post suggests that it was the aiming at a unit bit that you were objecting to.

Ok, I should have quoted the OPs original post. Which was the content of this thread.

Tried to clarify my post.

sam918 wrote:
You can't place the DP on top of the opponents units before you roll to shatter. You need to place it in a legal position (1" from his units) before you roll. So that argument was pointless.

This.

 Homeskillet wrote:

sam918 wrote:
You can't place the DP on top of the opponents units before you roll to shatter. You need to place it in a legal position (1" from his units) before you roll. So that argument was pointless.

This.

Has been shown to be incorrect as the rules never say that.

- Removed by insaniak. This sort of post adds nothing constructive to the discussion -

 DJGietzen wrote:

I was only replying to the portion I quoted. You used the pronoun "it" in a direct response to insaniak's statement. The subject of that statement was "the FAQ for the Mawloc", not the tyranid codex. You effectively said 'No. The FAQ for the Mawloc changes the placement rules entirely for that model.' and made no mention of the codex. If you intended your reply to be about the codex and not the FAQ you needed to state that in some way.

The FAQ references the special rule from the Tyranid codex (Terror from the Deep), so yes it does. Are we done here? Or do I need to put you on my ignore list? I'm not going to get an argument about this.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 insaniak wrote:

 DarthOvious wrote:
I thought that you has just clarrified that placing them over another unit was a valid location. Now I'm confused.

Putting them over another unit is a valid starting location for the deep strike process. It's not a valid location to deploy models, as it causes a mishap if they actually land there.

Interesting, does deep strike itself count as a deployment?

 DarthOvious wrote:
[
Interesting, does deep strike itself count as a deployment?

Yes.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 quickfuze wrote:
... but how do you place the model (in the event of a drop pod due to size) to mark before scatter? .

Common practice from my experience is just to say 'I'm centering it right on that guy's head' rather than actually placing the model before rolling scatter.

But you see why RAW, that's wrong right?

you're told to place the model. You admit you didn't place the model.

Or you place it, and then remove it. You have complied with the rule as the rule does not require you to keep it in place while you roll scatter, etc.

Interesting facts about placing models and scattering.

Place the object onto the battlefield as instructed by the rule.
(roll scatter)
If a hit is rolled, the object does not move-leave it in place and resolve the remainder of the rule.
If an arrow is rolled, move the object the distance shown on the 2d6.

Hit = does not move, LEAVE IT IN PLACE.
Arrow = move the object the DISTANCE SHOWN on the 2d6.

This explodes the idea that it is possible to place and then remove.

Made up rubbish aside, the object/model must be placed and left in place while the rule is resolved.
That is RAW.
Exactly how you would deal with the possible consequences of this is your own concern.
AKA "please don't break/chip my models with your monolith" (no, not a euphemism).

Please stop inventing procedures and making things up, it does not help.

Question, is it always possible to place a deep striking model anywhere on the table?
Answer is no.
Two situations come immediately to mind (there may be more).

 DeathReaper wrote:

 nutty_nutter wrote:
you are permitted by the deepstrike rule to place the model anywhere on the table, you are not not allowed to place that model on top of enemy models, therefore you can place it upon them. apologies if it wasn't clear

Clarify please because you just contradicted yourself.

no I didn't I used a double negative (wasn't a mistype), not not = can/is


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 fuusa wrote:

 DarthOvious wrote:
[
Interesting, does deep strike itself count as a deployment?

Yes.

please back this up with a page reference and rule to support your claim here as this is your supposition.

Deepstrike is NOT a deployment, nor is the act of placing the model on it's target location part of the movement as it has yet to scatter to its actual start location. once scatter has been resolved it is then in its resting place for determining a mishap.

 nutty_nutter wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 nutty_nutter wrote:
you are permitted by the deepstrike rule to place the model anywhere on the table, you are not not allowed to place that model on top of enemy models, therefore you can place it upon them. apologies if it wasn't clear

Clarify please because you just contradicted yourself.

no I didn't I used a double negative (wasn't a mistype), not not = can/is

That explains it then, as it looked like a Typo.

 nutty_nutter wrote:

 fuusa wrote:

 DarthOvious wrote:
[
Interesting, does deep strike itself count as a deployment?

Yes.

please back this up with a page reference and rule to support your claim here as this is your supposition.

Deepstrike is NOT a deployment, nor is the act of placing the model on it's target location part of the movement as it has yet to scatter to its actual start location. once scatter has been resolved it is then in its resting place for determining a mishap.

No supposition, just RAW.

P124, arriving from reserve, para 5.
"... picks any one of the units arriving and deploys it, moving onto the table as described below.
Para 6.
"Models that are arriving by deep strike or outflank deploy using their special rules."

P36, arriving by deep strike para 1.
"... then deploy them as follows."
3rd bullet.
"Models deploying via deep strike."

There may be more, but I think the point is made.