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.

 fuusa wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
When discussing rules every absolute statement must be assumed to also include the words "unless stated otherwise". Because typing that out every time gets tiring and redundant.

Allright, in these terms then.

I can place a model anywhere on the table unless stated otherwise.
Which follows that there may be somewhere (that is part of anywhere) could have an unless stated otherwise.
Deepstrike model on top of ruin = unless stated otherwise.

He was claiming anywhere means anywhere which, by your measure may not be true.
It is not true.
He is wrong, thankyou for your help in proving it.

No - he's not. You're arbitrarily forcing him to have to type "unless stated otherwise" and ignoring every other poster in any thread in YMDC that does the same thing.
He's quoting a rule. You're pretending he's not. He's. Not. Wrong.

Is this statement wrong?

Models move up to 6" in the Movement phase.

 fuusa wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 fuusa wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Yes, there are limitations that are specifically pointed out.

Thankyou, so Nos is wrong again.

No, he's not.

He said that a model deep striking has the permission to be placed anywhere on the table.
Is that true or not?
I have come up with a situation where that cannot happen.

Can I place my deep striking model on the top level of a ruin???

If you say yes, you are ignoring/breaking RAW.
If you say no, then there must be at least somewhere encompassed by anywhere, where this is not possible.

So, I'll ask you again ...
Can I place my deep striking model on the top level of a ruin???
Yes or no?

Better question, can I place my Deep Striking unit on top of a battlement, yes or no?

rigeld2 wrote:

He is wrong, thankyou for your help in proving it.

No - he's not. You're arbitrarily forcing him to have to type "unless stated otherwise" and ignoring every other poster in any thread in YMDC that does the same thing.
He's quoting a rule. You're pretending he's not. He's. Not. Wrong.

Is this statement wrong?

Models move up to 6" in the Movement phase.

@Fuusa, as much as you seem to need to correct Nosferatu, it's entirely irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

Is there a restriction to "anywhere on the table" that prevents you from aiming your deep-striking drop pod on top of an opponents model? That's the only question that people were discussing, not the clear restriction regarding top level of a ruin (as it is .. go figure .. a clear restriction, stated in the rules, whereas the actual question being defended/debated/argued is not given a restriction within the rules).

 fuusa wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Is this statement wrong?

Models move up to 6" in the Movement phase.

Why should I answer your questions when you evade one I have asked, what how many times now?
Tell you what, you answer me, I'll answer you.
That fair?

No, you cannot place on the top floor of a Ruin. That doesn't prove nos' statement wrong.

Anywhere means anywhere even though there is a clear restriction to be found.

Anywhere means anywhere unless you find a restriction. You found a restriction. A restriction that has literally nothing to do with the discussion at hand.

He has said, right there that I can place this model anywhere and that is sufficiently clear permission to place it anywhere.
Sufficiently clear that there is no-where I cannot place this model is wrong.

Given the context of the discussion, no - it's not wrong.

Why would anyone care either way? Is people intentionally mishapping their deep strikers some huge, commonly occurring problem, or what?

no you cannot as the ruin placement is covered in the DS rule.

as for your counter arguements to my statements, I think you need to re-read the rules not me.

the depstrike rule is a special rule which overrides any and all basic rules, this includeds deployment, movement and any other page you may wish to try to use to enforce that the rule doesn't function.

the only thing that can prevent a special rule is another special rule.

the final location is used to determin the final location of the unit that is using the deepstrike rule, at this point you are asked to check if it conforms with usual restrictions for deployment, if you are not able to conform you suffer a misshap.

in terms of placing on top of a unit of models, as units are not impassable they are valid locations to target, again as has been said many times, it is very possible to place a drop pod (for example) on top of a unit in a manner that it touches the table, however as the person who doesn't place the model would take alot of issues with puting a big lump on top of thier models so its perfectly acceptable to put the ypothetical start point (and if your really trying to say otherwise you are either a) trolling or b) a phallis that I would be glad to not play against)

the fact of the matter is, there are plenty of arguements suporting the fact that a model may have a start point for the deepstrike on top of another, the arguements agasint are very weak thus far over the course of the thread, mainly taking aspects of the rule instead of the whole package in an attempt to break it.

the deep strike rules haven't altered much for the last couple of editions if even at all, its highly unlikely its as comlex as some of you are trying to make it sound.

 Crimson wrote:
Why would anyone care either way? Is people intentionally mishapping their deep strikers some huge, commonly occurring problem, or what?

This is YMTC where people come while at work to vent frustrations!

Its a Mishap btw.

Rorschach9 wrote:
@Fuusa, as much as you seem to need to correct Nosferatu, it's entirely irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

Is there a restriction to "anywhere on the table" that prevents you from aiming your deep-striking drop pod on top of an opponents model? That's the only question that people were discussing, not the clear restriction regarding top level of a ruin (as it is .. go figure .. a clear restriction, stated in the rules, whereas the actual question being defended/debated/argued is not given a restriction within the rules).

Not irrelevant.
He was using "anywhere" as part of a justification or permission to place the model on another model, where there is no explicit permission with the exception of ruins/buildings to do that.

Is there a restriction to "anywhere on the table" that prevents you from aiming your deep-striking drop pod on top of an opponents model? Not as far as I know.
Is there a restriction to prevent deploying infantry on a vehicle, or a vehicle on top of a vehicle (assume in open-ground)???

If I see anyone (that is anyone) saying something that I think is incorrect, I feel entirely justified to challenge it if I wish.

rigeld2 wrote:
No, you cannot place on the top floor of a Ruin. That doesn't prove nos' statement wrong.

rigeld2 wrote:
Given the context of the discussion, no - it's not wrong.

It certainly does, in the context he was actually talking about.
Anywhere means anywhere so there is an absence of no-where.

rigeld2 wrote:
Is this statement wrong?

Models move up to 6" in the Movement phase.

As you know, its circumstantial and cannot be absolute.

Like anywhere means anywhere is circumstantial and cannot be absolute, in the manner that it was being used (ie, in context with what was said, not necessarily as part of the greater thread).

 fuusa wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Is this statement wrong?

Models move up to 6" in the Movement phase.

As you know, its circumstantial and cannot be absolute.

Like anywhere means anywhere is circumstantial and cannot be absolute, in the manner that it was being used (ie, in context with what was said, not necessarily as part of the greater thread).

Please open your rulebook and look at the first sentence on the right side of page 10. See how it's an exact quote?
Now, open your rulebook to page 36 and find the first bullet point on the left side. Read the first sentence. See how it's an absolute statement?
See how you're requiring an unnecessary burden? Nos essentially quoted a rule and you said he's wrong.

Ah, for a minute I thought fuusa wasnt trolling. My mistake.

Every rule is true apart from the exception. Point is, there is no restriction on placing your model on top of another, therefore the general permission is sufficient.

If youd like to come on topic at some point, and stop trolling, feel free.

Bausk - finally you rread it! So again, where is your RULES based argument saying I CANNOT place my model on yours? Threads of internet tough guy violence aside, I am entirely within the rules in doing so.

Of course, reasonable people, those I play in real life, dont see the issue in just pointing to the spot if it is at all awkward, but hey - you wanted rules. Rules were given, and given you failed - yet again - to refute, your concession is accepted.

Again you focus on the irrelevant and gloss over the actual substace, funny how you avoid arguments by doing that.

WMS doesn't apply to models as models are not terrain, the table includes terrain but as models are not terrain they are not included in the generalization. Unless you'd like to cite a rule stating that models are terrain then neither the generalized "Anywhere on the table" or WMS do not apply to models.

I'm failing to see where "anywhere on the table..." is getting interpreted to be anything but the physical tabletop/game surface.

Q: Are models free to move underneath a
Swooping Flying Monstrous Creature? (p49) A: Yes, though enemy models must finish their move at least 1" away from the Flying Monstrous Creature’s base.

Ok, so enemy models must finish their move 1" away. Ok.

Page 49 Flying Monstrous Creatures, Swooping. Add the following bullet point: • Models that physically fit under a Swooping Flying Monstrous Creature can move beneath it. Likewise, a Swooping Flying Monstrous Creature can end its move over such models. However, when moving this way, enemy models must still remain 1" away from the base of the Swooping Flying Monstrous Creature, and the Swooping Flying Monstrous Creature cannot end its move with its base within 1" of other enemy models.’

See the underline I put. Ok, so if a model can physically fit under another model (or maybe conversely, the model fits over the model) it can go there, but must still end its movement 1" away.

Q: Can models move through other friendly models? (p10) A: No. Models that are an exception to this rule, such as Jump Infantry or Jetbikes, will state this clearly in their rules.

Ok hm, so friendly models cannot move through each other. And that means that my SM tac squad models cannot move through my SM termie squad models. To me, this means I cannot place my drop pod on top of my own squad models. The FAQ denies me permission to move any friendly model through each other. On the other hand, my assault marines models can move through both my tac squad models, and my termie squad models. Heck, if they wanted to, they could move through both in one turn. Also, if I allied with eldar, my eldar jetbikes models could move through the assault squad models, the tac squad models and my termie squad models!


Does the book show a rule about not moving units/models through enemy units/models?

Crimson wrote:
Why would anyone care either way? Is people intentionally mishapping their deep strikers some huge, commonly occurring problem, or what?

Ive honestly had this happen to me before, and before reading this discussion, I thought it was ok. But then that was when I knew nothing about SM and I had a greyknight player seriously place the pod over my unit, roll a scatter 2 inches (to little to avoid my unit), then move it what, 10" where it suited him best because of the IGS rule at a glance appears that way. I never thought anything of it. It makes SENSE that way, but as we all know, what happens in the game does not match reality. Like Torrent flamers. They go around corners for Emperors sake! GR. Anyway.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Steel-W0LF wrote:
I'm failing to see where "anywhere on the table..." is getting interpreted to be anything but the physical tabletop/game surface.

Me too, but this to me (at least the earlier pages) has been one of the most fun and enlightening discussions on YMDC in a loooonnng time.

The elephant in the room that everyone is ignoring (anywhere on the table).


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Page 10? You cant even move within 1" of an enemy. You have to move around. Also, WMS is for terrain that can damage your model.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, if you can land on models, because they are terrain, where in the rulebook does it give you permission to move terrain per turn?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
page 30 under falling back, and trapped. It clearly brings up this

This is an exception to the normal ruies for moving that state that a model cannot move through a space occupied by another model.

Also, under trapped it tells what happens to a model or a unit that cannot move without doubling back due to enemies, friendlies or impassable.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
And uh, it tells you what would happen if a model was to land on top of another model under deep strike mishaps.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, where in the rules does it tell what a scatter die does exactly? Whos to say When I roll double 1's and an arrow I dont just place the unit right where I want to, ignoring the result?

 Bausk wrote:
Again you focus on the irrelevant and gloss over the actual substace, funny how you avoid arguments by doing that.

WMS doesn't apply to models as models are not terrain, the table includes terrain but as models are not terrain they are not included in the generalization. Unless you'd like to cite a rule stating that models are terrain then neither the generalized "Anywhere on the table" or WMS do not apply to models.

I never even mentioned WMS there, nice strawman however.

Anywhere (minus explicit restrictions) is generally considered to mean exactly that.

(No, you do not need to classify models as terrain for this to work - your second strawman)

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 Bausk wrote:
Again you focus on the irrelevant and gloss over the actual substace, funny how you avoid arguments by doing that.

WMS doesn't apply to models as models are not terrain, the table includes terrain but as models are not terrain they are not included in the generalization. Unless you'd like to cite a rule stating that models are terrain then neither the generalized "Anywhere on the table" or WMS do not apply to models.

I never even mentioned WMS there, nice strawman however.

Anywhere (minus explicit restrictions) is generally considered to mean exactly that.

(No, you do not need to classify models as terrain for this to work - your second strawman)

Ah, deep strike restricts landing fully, or partially on another model.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, to place the model via the deep strike rules, you must place the model in the place you would like it to arrive, and then roll for scatter. If you place it on another model (saying that you could place the model on top of another model) Does that mean you want the mishap?

The fact that they tell you to place the model on the table IMO precludes you from placing on models, though I think you might be able to place it within 1" prior to scatter.


In an actual game, would I prevent a player from doing this though:
No, because if he's allowed to place his deepstrikers on my models and roll scatter, more than likely intentionally mishapping. If he rolls a result that allows me to place the unit, I'll re-place them where they would mishap again and hopefully get "lost".

 Steel-W0LF wrote:
The fact that they tell you to place the model on the table IMO precludes you from placing on models, though I think you might be able to place it within 1" prior to scatter.


In an actual game, would I prevent a player from doing this though:
No, because if he's allowed to place his deepstrikers on my models and roll scatter, more than likely intentionally mishapping. If he rolls a result that allows me to place the unit, I'll re-place them where they would mishap again and hopefully get "lost".

But for the result "misplaced" you are required to "deploy" them in a different location. Not "place" them again. So this doesnt work. This explicitly prohibits deploying in impassable terrain and you dont roll for scatter again.

Your opponent may deploiy anywhere on the table[...](excluding impassable and lethal terrain, but including difficult terrain[...]in a valid deepstrike formation but without rolling to scatter again.

Also see how this explicitly restricts what "anywhere on the table" means as opposed to the initial deepstrike placement step that you guys are arguing about?

Basimpo wrote:
Does that mean you want the mishap?

Yes, absolutely. If you'd read the thread Nos is arguing that it's a permitted Deep Strike attempt because some people were claiming it was illegal.

He never (absolute with no exceptions) said you don't mishap. In fact he's said repeatedly that you do. Reading is fun.

 Mywik wrote:

 Steel-W0LF wrote:
The fact that they tell you to place the model on the table IMO precludes you from placing on models, though I think you might be able to place it within 1" prior to scatter.


In an actual game, would I prevent a player from doing this though:
No, because if he's allowed to place his deepstrikers on my models and roll scatter, more than likely intentionally mishapping. If he rolls a result that allows me to place the unit, I'll re-place them where they would mishap again and hopefully get "lost".

But for the result "misplaced" you are required to "deploy" them in a different location. Not "place" them again. So this doesnt work. This explicitly prohibits deploying in impassable terrain and you dont roll for scatter again.

Your opponent may deploiy anywhere on the table[...](excluding impassable and lethal terrain, but including difficult terrain[...]in a valid deepstrike formation but without rolling to scatter again.

Also see how this explicitly restricts what "anywhere on the table" means as opposed to the initial deepstrike placement step that you guys are arguing about?

The argument for pages has been that models are not terrain, and that "anywhere on the table" means anywhere....... If its good enough for initial marker placement, its good enough for when I can place them as it does say "anywhere on the board".

This is something I dont ever expect to come up though, as if you disallow increasing scatter range, there is not much point to placing deepstrikers on top of enemy models. And I think everyone is pretty much agreed that you cant increase the range they scatter to avoid mishap.

So instead of using an actual rule that doesn't apply you made up a rule similar to WMS that allows you to hypothetically place the model. Thanks for clearing that up Nos. List your post as how you would play it next time rather than claiming made up rules are RAW.

Also good to see it's about the time that you fallback on callimg strawman on every generalized thread based statement. Can't wait for the next step of your argument procedure where you repeatedly post an ultimatum to concede and refuse to address any counter claims.

 Bausk wrote:
So instead of using an actual rule that doesn't apply you made up a rule similar to WMS that allows you to hypothetically place the model. Thanks for clearing that up Nos. List your post as how you would play it next time rather than claiming made up rules are RAW.

Also good to see it's about the time that you fallback on callimg strawman on every generalized thread based statement. Can't wait for the next step of your argument procedure where you repeatedly post an ultimatum to concede and refuse to address any counter claims.

#

personalized attacks on people go against the forum rules for YMDC.

also again, the question has to be asked as to why my point has not been addressed by you and others of your mind set.

I can, quite easily place my drop pod, on top of your models while simultaneously touching the table. I could even place the drop pod upside down on the basis there is no rule saying I couldn't do so so that your infantry model is within the leaves at the centre of the lip, I'm sure you would rather I didn't place my large heavy model in a position to damage your models or would you for the sake of as written?

secondly, can you please point to the place within the Deep Strike Special rule that dictates that you cannot start within another unit, I specify it this way as the Deep Strike Rule is a Special Rule and as such ignores any other deployment, movement and or other rule that you wish to use that is not a Special Rule, this is layed out on P7 of basic vs advanced. with Deep Strike being an Advanced rule, it overrides any contradicting basic rules, in this instance, movement, deployments ect until the rule says to check for these things to apply.

the deepstrike rule as a whole is a 3 part process (4 if you include the roll for reserves)

you place the model

you roll for scatter

you deploy

the rule as a whole then goes on to say what happens during the end result, you check that the unit can deploy legally, in the hypothetical situation where you started on top of a unit and rolled a hit on the scatter dice, you find this isn't a legal position to deploy in (no surprises there) which in turn results in a miss-hap.

it is a very clear process that you follow, and as you have pointed out numerous times, your models are not counted as terrain, as such they do not qualify as invalid targets of a starting location as specified by the rule itself.


again however I don't see why you would actually care this much about it, if your opponent wants to intentionally cause a misshap, go ahead and let them, they have a 1/6 chance of killing the unit, 2/6 chance of allowing you to place the unit somewhere else and 3/6 chance of the unit being held back for another turn, non of these results are a bad thing for you, you have either placed the unit in some Difficult terrain in a corner of the map making it useless and having to test to see if it dies, its killed itself or its not on the table for you to deal with. keep in mind that if you wipe everything off the table and you have both had your game turn and he has nothing on the table you win automatically and score the max possible VP's for the match.

Also dakka is not a substitute for the rule book, but thanks for spelling out the deepstrike rule almost in full.

And that wasn't an attack on Nos, it's a commentary on his standard arguments.

I digress. What is the table defined as, is the the gaming board including everything on it or is it the gaming board only including the terrain?

When asked to place a model you're being asked to place the model retroactively in a legal position (read as on its base) and specifically with vehicles once placed you're not permitted to alter it's facing so clearly placing your drop pod upside down is not a legal placement.

a drop pod has no base


Automatically Appended Next Post:
only a conformed opinion of what the base should be, there isn't a rule that is specific to the actual placement of the pod and there isn't a rule or description to say what the right way up or wrong way up the pod should be.

this is where common sense comes in that says which way is the right way up on it.

and your right, that isn't defined, but neither is your unit. so really your own arguments counters itself, your unit is there, but it is undefined, do we count it? I assume so, but it isn't on the restriction list of where to place a model, so as such, anywhere on the table that is neither lethal or impassable terrain is a valid target until the deepstrike rule says it is, which is when a misshap happens.

as for spelling out a rule, in some instances explaining the process is required to bring a discussion back on track, I did not quote the rule, just he process that the rule adheres to.

Did I say the drop pod has a base? It, along with other vehicles without a base, have a top and bottom along with the front side and rear facing only a moron would position a vehicle upside down and claim it's legal. Stating that there is no rule against something makes it legal has been repeatedly proven to be a fallacy as 40k is a permissive rule set.

As with that very blatant conclusion that a nonbased vehicle still actve on the table must be on it's bottom the very obvious conclusion that you can't place a model anywhere that is already occupied by another model. Models and units are defined in the rule book repeatedly to so I'm not sure why you're staring they are not.


Leathal terrain is just a passable terrain piece with a special rule attached to it, no different than placing in area terrain. Impassable terrain is usually a terrain piece that is tall, unscaleable and unable to be embarked. impassable terrain is a ridiculous placement unless you scatter enough to clear the terrain, risky but if you can place the model on the terrain then yes its legal.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Models however are never defined as either terrain or the gaming area, only as occupying terrain or the gaming area. No where in the brb is there permission for one model to be positioned ontop of the models hull or base. Some exceptions extend to moving over/past/though, but this is not the same as being positioned on.

 Bausk wrote:
Did I say the drop pod has a base? It, along with other vehicles without a base, have a top and bottom along with the front side and rear facing only a moron would position a vehicle upside down and claim it's legal. Stating that there is no rule against something makes it legal has been repeatedly proven to be a fallacy as 40k is a permissive rule set.

As with that very blatant conclusion that a nonbased vehicle still actve on the table must be on it's bottom the very obvious conclusion that you can't place a model anywhere that is already occupied by another model. Models and units are defined in the rule book repeatedly to so I'm not sure why you're staring they are not.


Leathal terrain is just a passable terrain piece with a special rule attached to it, no different than placing in area terrain. Impassable terrain is usually a terrain piece that is tall, unscaleable and unable to be embarked. impassable terrain is a ridiculous placement unless you scatter enough to clear the terrain, risky but if you can place the model on the terrain then yes its legal.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Models however are never defined as either terrain or the gaming area, only as occupying terrain or the gaming area. No where in the brb is there permission for one model to be positioned ontop of the models hull or base. Some exceptions extend to moving over/past/though, but this is not the same as being positioned on.

What about battlements?

 Bausk wrote:
Did I say the drop pod has a base?

yes

here:

Bausk wrote:When asked to place a model you're being asked to place the model retroactively in a legal position (read as on its base)

also worth pointing out that in a purely RAW your making that part up, implication is not the same as written, as there is actually no defined bottom or top of a given model, common sense dictates what is the top and bottom but its never spelt out. I was giving a silly example to go with your silly (imo) arguments about this rule.

Bausk wrote:Leathal terrain is just a passable terrain piece with a special rule attached to it, no different than placing in area terrain. Impassable terrain is usually a terrain piece that is tall, unscaleable and unable to be embarked. impassable terrain is a ridiculous placement unless you scatter enough to clear the terrain, risky but if you can place the model on the terrain then yes its legal.

technically true, however it would not be legal placement for the mishap table result of a 2-3, I do apologise for mixing up the initial placement with a specified restriction within the rule.

Bausk wrote:Models however are never defined as either terrain or the gaming area, only as occupying terrain or the gaming area. No where in the brb is there permission for one model to be positioned ontop of the models hull or base. Some exceptions extend to moving over/past/though, but this is not the same as being positioned on

correct, in terms of normal movement, shooting, assaulting and all the other normal rules that fall into the BASIC ruleset, however with regards to the DeepStrike Special Rule, the permission is given to place the unit ANYWHERE on the table, as you have already pointed out, your unit is undefined, as such they can be considered both there and not there, there are no rules to say what they are and there are no rules to say that the space they currently occupy upon the game table is excluded from the anywhere.

its a very simple process, I have permission within this permissive rule set, to place my model anywhere on the table I wish. there is no restriction on that placement in the given rule as the rule in question is the deepstrike rule, not the movement rule, not the shooting rule and not even the terrain rule. we are dealing with the deepstrike rule, until the rule says to get anything else involved, all that is true at that moment is the deepstrike rule and the deepstrike rule alone.

the rule itself, once placement and scatter has been determined doesn't even go outside itself to check validity, it has its own inbuilt error checker, the mishap table with its own set of restrictions and trigger events, all of which conform to the basic rule set, but have been included within the rule.

once the rule has been resolved you progress from there, the unit has done one of 2 things, it is now either on the table having arrived from deepstrike OR it has suffered a mishap.

there are no other possible outcomes from this rule.

A slight HIWPI sidestep from the debate...
If your opponent wanted to place a pod for a deliberate mishap, would anyone object?

 grendel083 wrote:
A slight HIWPI sidestep from the debate...
If your opponent wanted to place a pod for a deliberate mishap, would anyone object?

I'd have to wonder at their motivations. If they are so confident they can mishap and just go back into reserves I'd want to check their dice before and after they roll. Make sure there is a one pip on the die and such.

I would base it more on who would ever consider doing this? who would rather risk destroying the force deep striking in just to keep them off the table for another round?

Read base as in the slot base a model is on and the base of the hull, I said bottom of the vehicle to be clearer.

models are also defined before the phase break down. Units are defined in their own section, specific models are also defined in their own section.

Basic v advanced =/= rules never interact. In this case the definition of what a model amd unit is applys as much as any other section in the rule book.

There is permission tp place the lead model anywhere on the table (read as anywhere on the distinct playable area) yes. But this is not the same as permission to place the lead model on top of another model or unit.

My point with vehicles not having a RAW expressly defined top and base (bottome of the hull) but it being blatant RAI unwritten is that it's similar to my argument.

While it's not expressly spelled out that you can't place a model ontop of another model or unit it's blatant that its not possible to do so physically. And unlike WMS and its exception for terrain there is no exception listed anywhere in all of 40k allowing a model to be placed on top of abother model or unit that is active/alive.

The table (read as playable area) is not defined as far as I'm aware but as models are and nowhere in thier definition or description are there defined as the table are not the table obviously.

So they are by extension not an applicable location by definition.